1 Dec 2021 1:28 pm
I couldn't post the whole article. If you had gone to the article you would have found that the first link would have taken you to the NEJM article. Just as the study Tables 1-4 in the OP article was copied from that NEJM article.OdeToJoy » 01 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑ No, the Evie article does not reference the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, only the article in the anti vax magazine by Thornley.
It is common for Universities to have disciplinary actions when an academic has published a non peer reviewed paper that is shown to be false.
If he made a major mathematical error then the entire premise of the paper is incorrect.
Universities above all other institutions are the most guilty of removing staff that don't advance the narrative. That's how they wound up in the sad state they are today with the likes of trans-gender studies.
But you aren't applying logic. Consider it again:"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”."
So the questions beg. Why would he want to bother correcting the paper if the outcome were not substantially the same?
If the outcome were not substantially the same, why did they prevent him from correcting it?
Where is the original paper, marked withdrawn, that would allow us to visit and see and/or recalculate the error for ourselves?
My guess is it would have been a close cousin to the exegesis of the NEJM paper in the OP of this thread.