Professor cleared of ‘unethical practices’ in renowned COVID vaccine study.
A Professor from Michigan State University Cleared of Unethical Practices in COVID-19 Vaccine Study
A professor from the Michigan State University (MSU) has been exonerated from charges of “unethical practices” related to a study claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines may have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States.
In January, Dr. Mark Skidmore, a professor at the MSU’s Department of Economics with over 90 published papers, published a study in the BMC Infectious Disease, which suggested that the total number of COVID-19 vaccine fatalities in the United States could be “as high as 278,000.” It soon came under criticism and Dr. Skidmore was accused of using “unethical practices” in the study. Subsequently, the journal retracted the research.
Investigation Clears Dr. Skidmore of Wrongdoing
Following a seven-month ethics investigation by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), Dr. Skidmore has now been cleared of any wrongdoing. The board stated that they did not find any “noncompliance” to their protocols by the study, according to an Oct. 17 press release by the Christian ministry Liberty Counsel.
Liberty Counsel assisted Dr. Skidmore in reviewing the anonymous complaints he received as well as responding to the investigation.
The complaints against Dr. Skidmore alleged he did not follow rigorous oversight procedures that are mandated for clinical studies. If the university were to find him “guilty,” it would have had serious consequences for Dr. Skidmore’s credibility and career.
This is because clinical studies involving human subjects have strict protocols to ensure that no harm comes to the participants. As such, any fault in this regard would be a significant blemish on the reputation of the researchers.
The university’s IRB found that Dr. Skidmore’s study did not involve any clinical work. Instead, it relied only on an online survey, which posed no risk to human participants. The IRB therefore deemed the study to be “exempt” from the protocols of clinical study and cleared it to proceed.
“The allegations against Dr. Mark Skidmore were baseless,” Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver said. “Researchers with integrity like Dr. Skidmore are using rigorous scientific protocols to validate the dangers of the COVID-19 shots.”
“Censoring scientific debate is reprehensible and our researchers need to be free to conduct proper science without fear of later being the subject of an ethics investigation because their findings contradict a certain narrative.”
Top Research Paper
While Dr. Skidmore’s study at the BMC Infectious Disease journal remains retracted, an updated version was recently published in the Science, Public Health Policy & the Law journal.
The study involved an online survey completed by 2,840 participants between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021, which collected data on COVID-19 health experiences. “The primary aim of this work is to identify factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19,” it read.
Survey Findings:
- Respondents that knew someone who had experienced a health problem following vaccination were less likely to be vaccinated.
- Out of the 2,840 participants, 612 (22 percent) said they knew at least one individual who experienced a health problem after taking a COVID-19 shot.
Dr. Skidmore extrapolated the numbers from the survey to the national level to estimate that COVID-19 vaccine fatalities in America could be as around 289,789. The COVID-19 vaccine fatality number in the revised study published in the Science, Public Health Policy & the Law journal is higher than the original study by 11,789 deaths.
According to the BMC Infectious Diseases journal, Dr. Skidmore’s original study was retracted after “concerns were raised regarding the validity of the conclusions drawn after publication.”
A peer review of the study conducted after publication found that “the methodology was inappropriate as it does not prove causal inference of mortality, and limitations of the study were not adequately described.”
Despite being retracted, the study remains in the top 1 percent of shared research worldwide, according to data science firm Altmetric. The study is ranked number one among all outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases tracked by Altmetric.
In April, Dr. Skidmore claimed that the study at BMC Infectious Diseases journal went viral on social media and reached up to 17 million Twitter users prior to being retracted.
He attributed the vast exposure of the study to two factors. “First, the finding resonated with many who have loved ones who they believe experienced harm from the COVID-19 vaccine. Second, for a variety of reasons, many were angered by the study,” he said.
Other studies have also found links between COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths. A March report from global macro-investment firm Phinance Technologies calculated that COVID-19 vaccines resulted in around 310,000 excess deaths in the United States.
Some studies have reported otherwise. A study from The Commonwealth Fund estimated that 2 million deaths were prevented in the United States through March 2022 due to COVID-19 vaccination efforts.
Another serious concern regarding the vaccine is the persistence of spike proteins for a prolonged period of time after the vaccination.
Even though the CDC claims that mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines is “broken down within a few days after vaccination and doesn’t last long in the body,” recent research reveals that spike proteins are retained in the biological fluids of people who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine six months after vaccination.
How did the retraction of Dr. Skidmore’s research study impact the IRB’s investigation and decision
Versity’s IRB had found any evidence of wrongdoing, it could have resulted in disciplinary action or the termination of Dr. Skidmore’s employment.
However, after a thorough investigation, the IRB concluded that Dr. Skidmore did not violate any protocols or engage in unethical practices. The board’s decision clears his name and vindicates his research.
The study conducted by Dr. Skidmore raised concerns among the scientific community and the general public. It suggested that the number of COVID-19 vaccine-related fatalities in the United States could be much higher than previously reported. Such a claim had serious implications and sparked controversy.
While the research was retracted by the journal, it is important to note that a retraction does not automatically imply misconduct. Retractions can occur for various reasons, including errors in methodology, data, or interpretation. In this case, the retraction may have been prompted by the public backlash and the need for further scrutiny.
Dr. Skidmore’s exoneration by the university’s IRB is a significant development. It highlights the importance of conducting fair and objective investigations based on evidence, rather than succumbing to public pressure or personal biases.
This incident also sheds light on the challenges faced by researchers studying contentious topics such as COVID-19. The pandemic has generated a flood of information and misinformation, making it difficult to discern fact from fiction. As scientists strive to uncover the truth and develop effective strategies to combat the virus, it is crucial to create an environment that encourages open dialogue, rigorous scrutiny, and unbiased investigations.
Dr. Skidmore’s case serves as a reminder that scientific research should be subject to rigorous peer review and ethical oversight. While disagreements and debates are an integral part of the scientific process, they should be conducted in a respectful and evidence-based manner. Personal attacks and baseless accusations only hinder progress and undermine the integrity of scientific inquiry.
Now that Dr. Skidmore has been cleared of any wrongdoing, it is important to evaluate his research objectively, without prejudice. The findings of his study may have been controversial, but they should not be dismissed outright. Further research and investigation are needed to validate or refute his claims.
In times of uncertainty and crisis, it is crucial to maintain trust in our scientific institutions and the researchers who contribute to our understanding of the world. While mistakes and disagreements may occur, it is through transparent and accountable processes that we can ensure the integrity of scientific inquiry and ultimately find solutions to the challenges we face.
Dr. Skidmore’s exoneration is a step towards rebuilding that trust and reaffirming the importance of ethical conduct in scientific research.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Michigan State University or any other institution.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
