Tag: Mark Skidmore
![RFK Jr Robert F. Kennedy Jr.](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/RFKpres-375x250.jpg)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comes home to his antivax roots…again
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave the keynote speech at the second annual meeting of his antivax organization, Children's Health Defense. Once again, he demonstrated that not only is he still antivax as hell, but that his proposals are even more bizarre than before. Truly, it was a homecoming for him.
![](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/The-Return-of-Living-Dead--375x250.jpg)
Study laundering: IPAK, antivax “scientists,” and the return of living dead antivax studies
Antivaxxers don't like it when one of their crappy studies that they somehow managed to sneak into a decent peer-reviewed journal is deservedly retracted, as happened to Mark Skidmore's paper that estimated that 278K people might have died from COVID-19 vaccines. Fortunately for Skidmore and others, there exist fake journals that will launder their study by republishing it so that antivaxxers can...
![VAERS](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/FigureVAERS-375x250.png)
Has MSU economics professor Mark Skidmore been “exonerated” over his retracted paper claiming that COVID vaccines killed 278,000?
Tech bro turned antivax influencer Steve Kirsch is claiming that Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore has been "exonerated" after having had a paper retracted claiming 278K deaths from COVID-19 vaccines in 2021 alone. In reality, Skidmore just republished a revised version of his retracted paper in an antivax journal after the MSU IRB failed miserably in its oversight duties.
![Study flow](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Studyflow-375x250.jpg)
Retracted papers about COVID-19 are more highly cited than they should be
Earlier this month a study showed that papers about COVID-19 that are retracted tend to be cited far more than average and continue to be heavily cited after retraction. Clearly, scientific publishing and the scientific community need to do better.