Awani Review

Complete News World

A study that indicated a high risk of developing myocarditis was withdrawn because it was false

A study that indicated a high risk of developing myocarditis was withdrawn because it was false

A study was published in “pre-publication” extensively to provide misinformation about vaccines. Thanks to proofreading by other scientists, the authors discovered an error in the calculations, invalidating their entire study. This situation reminds us that not all posts can be moved in the same way.

Studies whose content has not been verified but shared after all, these are pandemic toxins. This participates in active trading Misinformation about the health crisis. These problematic studies are usually “pre-publication” (which means pre-publication). This type of work is published on specific platforms, such as Arxiv and Medrxiv: they allow researchers to put their research online and accessible for free.

But the study takes on the value of a “scientific publication” when it is then published in a journal, because the study then goes through review by an independent panel, a key step called peer review (pair proofreading).

Publish studies in Prepress Who did not pass through peer review, A fortiori, when they are not part of the continuation of another business, it is very risky. It was unfortunately common, during the pandemic, for unreliable acts to be widely reported. A recent story reminds us of this.

In mid-September 2021, a research team from the University of Ottawa (Heart Institute) broadcast in Prepress A publication concludes that there will be a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing myocarditis after a coronavirus vaccination. The problem is that this conclusion is wrong. The authors realized this later, after the study had already been widely published to support the “anti-vaccine” misinformation discourse.

Vaccines. // Source: flickr/cc/adb (recadrée image)

When an error leads to misinformation

After the study was published via Medrxiv, several scientists looked at the method and results during the processOpen peer review, that means a free re-read. Several of them indicated a fatal error in the calculations. To get a 0.1% risk of myocarditis (1 in 1,000), they divided the number of Covid vaccines given in Ottawa by the rate of heart problems.

See also  This is the time when humans will have to colonize space in order to survive

Except that on that account, they significantly underestimated the number of vaccine doses that were delivered. In the study, they claimed there were 32,379 in Ottawa. This is not the case: there were 854,930 (at the time of this post), which is 26 times more. During this calculation, this difference completely changes: the risk rate becomes less than 0.1%.

As a result, this error completely invalidates the study and its results.

« In order to avoid misleading our colleagues and the general public as well as the media, we unanimously wish to withdraw this paper. »

The authors of the publication themselves admitted the problem with the calculation. There seems to have been some confusion when reading an open source database: they got the wrong table. in a MessageThey asked Medrxiv to delete their study: In order to avoid misleading our colleagues and the general public as well as the media, we authors unanimously wish to withdraw this paper due to the incorrect incidence data. The research team takes this opportunity to apologize and thank the scientists who conducted a careful review, remembering that the publication should not be cited as a reference. On Location from the University of Ottawa, they add that ” Sorry this error led to misinformation ».

There is an error in the study Prepress Basically not a problem, since the operation Peer review It is also, precisely, for that. The study is not meant to be referred to when it is only Prepress. The situation above all illustrates the real problem: publishing in Prepress It was abused, without any verification, when he had no legitimacy to take it back as evidence of anything.

See also  $12 million to set up a futuristic science center in Saint-Genevieve-de-Batescane

How to read a scientific study correctly?

When you see a scholarly publication being migrated, you should therefore check its status. a Prepress It may be very interesting to approach him, provided it is clear that his conclusion has not been definitively recorded and is still subject to verification; or if there is a fundamental decoding with the authors and other scholars able to critique the content of the study; Or if the post in question is part of a continuum of another work.

Finally, it must be remembered that for the time being, the serious studies Publication on an alleged link between myocarditis and mRNA vaccines has ruled out contact prominent between two. The danger seems to be present, especially in young people According to a CDC synthesisBut cases are extremely rare. This is why the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the risks, a fortiori because vaccines Reduce the spread of the virus and avoid with High efficiency Severe forms of Covid disease – more common in people with problematic side effects than in vaccinated people.

Share on social media

Continuation of the video