1 Dec 2021 12:27 pm
This whole plandemic and Great Reset require preserving the narrative. He's not the first guy to get threatened with his job. Just did a quick search (even though this paper is irrelevant to the OP of this thread which is a study published in NEJM) and found what I expected:OdeToJoy » 01 Dec 2021, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes, distraction. A common method to stop people from talking about the fact that author of the paper has pulled back support.
something that distracts : an object that directs one's attention away from something else
Thornley, the author of the study, has since retracted the paper:
A 2021 paper which Thornley co-authored which linked mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, to significantly higher rates of miscarriage was publicly criticized by the academic community throughout New Zealand, including the Head and other senior members of the university’s School of Population Health, for ignoring evidence that had already been published in a high-impact peer-reviewed research journal, and for a less-than-rigorous analysis of the data provided by the Center for Disease Control in the USA. The paper, which was published in a small journal edited by an American anti-vaccination advocate, was retracted in November 2021, with Thornley saying that he and his co-author had made a major mathematical error.
https://weehingthong.org/2021/11/17/sim ... pregnancy/
"It follows an email from Professor Robert Scragg, the head of the School of Population Health at Auckland University, which urged Thornley and his co-author, Aleisha Brook, to “immediately publicly retract their article”. Such an intervention is almost unheard of in academia. Thornley told The Spinoff that he had issued a correction to the paper last week, but that “following the [Scragg] letter, I have decided to withdraw it”.
Why wouldn't he be allowed to correct it? Instead he withdrew it under pressure to keep his job. Same thing happens in our bureaucracies and academia whether regarding Pharma or climate.
So why don't you try actually reviewing the math about the NEJM paper of the original post?