In July 2023, the statement spread that the authoritative medical journal The Lancet allegedly published an article in which he said that it was the vaccine from coronavirus that caused the death of most vaccinated people. We decided to check if this is really so.

In the media, social networks and Blogs It was told that in the Lancet published in the magazine article supposedly It is saidthat by results The autopsy of the bodies of 325 people who died from the Covid-19, the cause of death of 73.9% of them was recognized as vaccination.

Many Telegram channels wrote about this: "Live broadcast"(783,000 views at the time of writing this analysis),"Mriya"(255,000),"Putin in Telegram"(215 000),"Sheikh Tamir"(151 000),"Federation"(93,000),"From the scene"(87 000),"True Russia"(62,000) and others. Post on this topic Published Russian actress and Vaccinoskptik Ksenia Alfierova, as well as users of social networks. Spread this information And on English language.

The publication in question is a preprint, a text with preliminary data and conclusions that anyone can send to the editors of The Lancet. When posting on the magazine website, such materials preceded A special disclaimer: “Publishing preprints with The Lancet is part of the SSRN First look program, thanks to which the magazines determine their content that interests them before publication. <...> The preprints available here are not the publications of The Lancet magazine and are not necessarily reviewed in The Lancet magazine. These preprints are research work at an early stage that have not passed the review. Conclusions should not be used to make decisions in the field of clinical or public health and should not be presented to a wide audience without indicating that they are preliminary and were not subjected to reviewing. ”

Unlike a full -fledged article, which before getting into the number of The Lancet and any other authoritative scientific journal I have to go One or even several rounds of reviewing by specialized experts and corrected in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers and editors, preprints are a kind of draft of future publications. Specialized publications can place them on their sites in order for the wide range of researchers to indicate the author to errors, offer additions and give other recommendations. However, this does not mean at all that the publication of the Preprint, for example, on The Lancet, confirms the correctness of the conclusions to which its authors came - they were asked by either the editorial staff or independent reviewers. Preprints are not a new phenomenon for many areas of science, but in medical and biological magazines they appeared not so long ago. For example, the largest similar resource for Medrxiv specialists began to accept such work only in 2019.

Although the preprint does not need to be perceived as a full -fledged scientific publication, many journalists and other people far from the academic sphere often do not notice the difference between these two types of texts. Both “verified” and our colleagues have already debunk false messages based on various preprints. For example, in August 2021, journalists and bloggers incorrectly interpreted a preprint with a dubious calculation methodology and wrote that the mortality rate of the yota coronavirus variant It is 82%. A year earlier and users of social networks Distorted The content of the preprint about persistent immunity to coronavirus, which is allegedly formed only in 17% of the emirable, and concluded that the remaining 83% are doomed to death.

At the time of writing this analysis, the text of the preprint about the relationship between vaccination and death from the Covid-19 is not available on the website of The Lancet magazine. In the ABSTRACT section (that is, a summary), in particular, it is indicated: “This preprint was removed from the corresponding section of The Lancet, because the conclusions of the study are not confirmed by its methodology. The Lancet reserves the right to delete the published article if we determine that it violates our selection criteria. ”

It is also important to pay attention to the authors of this preprint. Dr. Peter McCallow, cardiologist and vaccine -slop from Texas, sequentially Promotes Treatment of COVID-19 veterinary antiparasitic drug Ivermectin (its effectiveness Not proven, for people's use, it is not intended at all), as well as distributes Unreliable information On the number of people affected by vaccination. Co -author of McCalou, Dr. Harvi Rish - supporter treatment with coronavirus by hydroxychlorochin (with a drug that has not proved its effectiveness), its statements also Disassembled FACECHERS. Pathologist Roger Khokhodson called Koronavirus claimed the greatest falsification that he was not worse than the flu, although at the time when he made such a statement, mortality from Covid-19 in the United States was at least four times higher than mortality from any flu strain. Another co -author, Dr. William Makis also distributed Inaccurate information, arguing that patients who refuse vaccination will allegedly prescribe drugs from mental disorders, although this is not so.

Data from the preprint that dispersed along social networks also does not coincide with the results of other scientists whose articles were still reviewed and were published in the same journal The Lancet. For example, in May 2022, specialists from centers for the control and prevention of US diseases (CDC) Shared Analysis 340 522 reports in the system of reporting on unwanted vaccination phenomena (Vaers). After two times the introduction of the vaccine, 4496 people (1.32%) died, but scientists did not find any laws between these deaths and vaccination-these people really died after they received vaccinations, but there is no evidence that they died because of this. “It encourages that the reactions to MRNC-vaccines, as a rule, are soft and subside one or two days later, thereby confirming the reports of clinical trials and data observations of patients,”- He emphasized One of the authors of the study is Tom Simabukuro.

Thus, there was no study of The Lancet about vaccines leading to death. The frightening figure contained a preprint - a preliminary study not accepted for publication and not undergoing review by authoritative representatives of the scientific community. After the verification, the preprint was recalled, since the research methodology did not meet the standards of the scientific journal. Among the authors of this preprint, vaccinosceptics and conspiracyologists, whose inaccurate statements have repeatedly refuted Facturers.

Image on the cover: Image by Kalh from Pixabay