Retracted, with a note that says "we believe that all the key findings of the paper with regards to co-authorship between junior and senior researchers are still valid". Isn't it important to discuss the many points on which the paper is incorrect?

1. The gender analysis was "only meant to be exploratory” and used techniques that “cannot be claimed to establish causality” but causal inferences were made anyway.
Causal claims were justified by pointing out that other people do it too. "While this technique does not establish the existence of a causal effect, it is commonly used to infer causality from observational data."

More from Health

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as