Jan 30/23: Skidmore paper investigated by Springer
One of the most well-read papers in history of Altmetric after one week of publication
As previously described, the Skidmore paper was a landmark, in that it produced an estimate of the number of US fatalities potentially caused by covid vaccines. What made this remarkable was the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was by no means the first high-profile estimate, Mr. Steve Kirsch having produced a similar estimate almost a year ago.
As of January 30, per Altmetrics, the paper has reached a very high level of public attention, ranking in the top one percent of the top one percent of all papers reviewed by Altmetrics. This appears to come primarily from Twitter. The site further notes that ten news agencies have reported on the study. News coverage is primarily negative, such as the UK’s Daily Mail’s report that Springer Nature is investigating the paper, and comparing it to Imperial College’s modelling report that concluded millions of lives were saved by covid vaccines.
There is a persistent problem of “echo chambers” regarding covid research, which is in evidence here. The Dail Mail helpfully illustrates the problem: Imperial College and Skidmore reach opposite conclusions about covid vaccines. Therefore, one of them (or perhaps both) must be wrong. Depending upon which echo chamber an individual favours, they will discount one study, or the other. Normally, scientific discourse would proceed via a third study, and a fourth, which would provide yet another datapoint. Clearly, the question of covid vaccine societal benefit is complex.
The funny thing is that this paper did have a long review -- it went through 5 different versions with comments from the reviewer before it was published: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-07998-3/peer-review
The moment it threw a wrench in the plans though, by acting as a clear and accessible presentation of the widespread harms represented statistically, oh NOW the editors need to 'review' it again.
It's like those other studies which will describe some horrific side effect and then in the conclusion state "it is well understood that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective" like a self-protective mantra to ward off attacks on one's career.
I have an alternate view on lung physiology that dismisses the notion of oxygen and carbon dioxide gaseous exchange
The article is titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I take you though all the steps that lead to this statement
Including how oxygen is manufactured
How oxygen is calibrated
Eg medical oxygen has 67parts per million of water contamination
Why oxygen is toxic, dehydrates and damages the alveoli
Lung physiology requires the air at the alveoli to reach 100% humidity
Can you see the problem?
The new take on lung physiology:
The lungs rehydrate the passing RBCs with iso tonic saline solution as they pass through the alveoli capillary beds
RBCs change from dark contracted dehydrated to plump bright hydrated form as they soak up the iso tonic saline solution the bursting alveoli bubbles throw upon the capillary sac
The airway mucosa conditions the breathe with salt and moisture
Find the article