A Call for Peer Re-Reviews of Articles on Covid Vaccines

 Dr. Eyal Shahar emphasizes the need to re-evaluate peer-reviewed articles on Covid vaccines, noting that many published studies during the pandemic were flawed due to biases and a lack of critical reviews. This article discusses the issues of existing publications and calls for a corrective approach through new peer reviews.

1. Experience with Peer Reviews: Dr. Shahar shares his experience as an associate editor, highlighting the varying quality of peer reviews - from thorough critiques to careless ones. He mentions that the peer review process was particularly problematic during the pandemic.

2. Suppression of Critical Reviews: The article notes that studies supporting Covid vaccines were quickly certified as peer-reviewed, while critical after-publication peer reviews faced suppression, resulting in a collection of poor-quality science.

3. Limitations of Biomedical Journals: Dr. Shahar argues that biomedical journals are not the right platforms for correcting past mistakes since they lack mechanisms for addressing older articles and are resistant to exposing published falsehoods.

4. Call for New Peer Reviews: He encourages colleagues in epidemiology and biostatistics to review past articles on Covid vaccines and submit their critiques to the Brownstone Journal, which is open to such submissions.

5. Example of Flawed Study: The article critiques a specific study published in the British Medical Journal, which claimed high effectiveness rates for mRNA vaccines. It notes biases rooted in study design, data interpretation, and comparison methods, suggesting that true vaccine effectiveness may be much lower than reported.

6. Confounding Factors and Biases: Dr. Shahar identifies several biases in vaccine studies, including "immortal time bias" and "healthy vaccinee bias," which lead to overestimating vaccine effectiveness.

7. Misinterpretation of Data: He discusses errors in data interpretation in the reviewed study, which led to reporting nonsensical results, calling for more transparency and accuracy in future research.

8. Importance of Correcting the Record: Dr. Shahar emphasizes that correcting the historical record is essential to restore trust in scientific methods, especially concerning public health decisions informed by these studies.

9. Invitation for Methodologists: He invites methodologists who previously challenged poor studies to break their silence and voice concerns over misleading effectiveness claims of Covid vaccines.

10. Long-term Goals: The article concludes by suggesting that without careful reviews and corrections, false effectiveness estimates will continue to circulate, affecting public understanding and policy on vaccines.

Dr. Eyal Shahar makes a compelling case for the need to reassess Covid vaccine studies to correct misinformation and restore credibility in scientific research. He calls for participation from experts to analyze and critique previous works, presenting a pathway to improve the integrity of biomedical science. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/a-call-for-peer-re-reviews-of-articles-on-covid-vaccines/