BMJ Public Health Retracts COVID-19 Excess Mortality Study Cited by Vaccine Skeptics

The BMJ Public Health journal has formally withdrawn a 2024 study on excess mortality after the COVID-19 pandemic that had become a key reference for vaccine skeptics, according to Austrian broadcaster ORF. The retraction, announced on Wednesday 12 August 2026, follows years of criticism, an institutional ethics review, and a formal investigation by the BMJ Publishing Group. The publisher cited methodological flaws and said the study was “unbalanced,” lacking in “accuracy,” and containing “misinformation.” The paper, published in May 2024, was led by Saskia Mostert of the Princess Maxima Center for Pediatric Oncology in Utrecht, the Netherlands. The research team compared excess mortality data from 47 Western countries between January 2020 and the end of 2022. Although the researchers reportedly did not establish a direct link between elevated mortality and COVID-19 vaccinations, the paper was quickly seized upon by vaccine-skeptical outlets, which presented it as evidence that vaccines contributed to excess deaths. The authors did call on policymakers to release more detailed data so that the effects of containment measures and vaccination campaigns could be more closely assessed. That combination of an observational study, an unresolved research question, and a highly polarized public conversation created an environment in which the paper was widely and sometimes recklessly shared online. The retraction is therefore not just an academic correction; it is a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over how the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines developed to fight it are remembered and understood.

To understand what was retracted and why, it is necessary to look at what the study actually did. Excess mortality is a statistical measure that compares the number of deaths observed during a given period with the number that would have been expected under normal conditions, usually based on historical trends. The study by Mostert and colleagues examined patterns of excess mortality in 47 Western countries from January 2020 through the end of 2022. That period encompasses the initial waves of the pandemic, the emergence of several new variants, the introduction of lockdowns and other containment measures, and the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns across much of the Western world. The researchers compared data from different countries and tried to identify patterns in how excess deaths evolved over time. As with any ecological study, however, this kind of analysis can only show associations at a population level; it cannot prove causes. Many factors changed simultaneously during those years. Some deaths were caused directly by the coronavirus itself. Other deaths may have resulted from overwhelmed health systems, delayed emergency care, postponed surgeries, changes in mental health, economic hardship, or reduced access to routine medical treatment. The researchers did not demonstrate that vaccination was responsible for the excess mortality they documented. According to ORF, the paper did not establish a direct causal relationship between the elevated mortality rates and COVID-19 vaccinations. Yet the study’s discussion raised questions about vaccination campaigns and containment policies, and the authors urged governments to release more granular data for further study. That call for transparency was reasonable on its face, but it was embedded in a framing that left the door open for misinterpretation. In particular, the discussion appears to have given disproportionate weight to the possibility that public health measures and vaccines played a role in driving excess deaths, without adequately exploring the many other explanations available.

The paper became a cause célèbre in anti-vaccine communities almost immediately after publication. Within weeks, vaccine-skeptical websites, social media accounts, and online influencers were citing it as proof that COVID-19 vaccines were causing large numbers of avoidable deaths. These claims often omitted the careful limitations that the authors themselves had included. The fact that the paper had been published in a respected BMJ journal gave it an air of credibility that many other disputed studies lacked. The study was also led by a researcher based at the Princess Maxima Center, a pediatric oncology institution in the Netherlands, which may have made the paper look even more authoritative to casual readers. The paper was used to support arguments against vaccine mandates, to cast doubt on public health officials, and to persuade vulnerable people not to get vaccinated. Public health experts and other researchers grew alarmed. They argued that the paper was fueling unfounded criticism of coronavirus vaccinations and that its findings were being misrepresented in dangerous ways. This pressure eventually prompted the BMJ journal to publish a warning, urging readers to exercise great caution when interpreting the study and to avoid drawing unjustified conclusions from it. The warning, however, did little to slow the paper’s spread. By then, the study had already become a permanent fixture in the online information ecosystem. Its screenshots and summaries continued to circulate, often without any reference to the journal’s cautionary note. The growing controversy also placed the Princess Maxima Center under scrutiny, and the institution eventually launched an ethics investigation into the conduct of the researchers.

The ethics investigation resulted in a detailed report that was submitted to BMJ Public Health in May 2025 and later made public. The ethics committee found no scientific misconduct, and in particular it found no evidence of data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. That distinction is important, because retractions are often associated with deliberate fraud or manipulated data. This case was different. The committee nevertheless concluded that the researchers had breached two-thirds of the scientific integrity standards that were examined. The most serious problem identified by the committee was that the paper gave disproportionate attention to COVID-19 measures and vaccinations while overlooking alternative explanations for the excess mortality it documented. In other words, the authors were not accused of inventing numbers, but of presenting an unbalanced and misleading interpretation of the data. The report’s findings were not enough to trigger an immediate retraction, but they did lead the BMJ Publishing Group to begin its own independent investigation. That investigation took more than a year to complete, reflecting the sensitivity and complexity of the case. The journal had to consider the authors’ right to defend their work, the possibility of issuing a correction or an expression of concern, and the broader public interest in ensuring that the scientific record did not continue to be used as a vehicle for misinformation. At the same time, the controversy highlighted a deeper problem: even a flawed paper can cause enormous damage if it is published at a moment of social anxiety and then promoted by activists with strong ideological commitments.

The BMJ Publishing Group ultimately concluded that a correction or warning was not enough. According to ORF, the article was withdrawn because the discussion contained misinformation about the possible causes of excess mortality. This is a strong and unusual statement for a scientific journal to make. It means that the problem was not simply a minor statistical error or a missing adjustment; the paper’s central narrative was considered misleading. The retraction indicates that the journal no longer considers the article reliable as a contribution to the scientific literature. It also suggests that the editors believed the paper had failed to meet the basic standards of balance and accuracy required for publication. The decision to use the word “misinformation” in this context is particularly notable, because misinformation is usually described as false information that is shared without necessarily an intent to deceive. In a scientific setting, that is a serious charge. It means that the paper could mislead readers about the causes of excess deaths, especially readers who were already distrustful of vaccines and public health authorities. The retraction was announced on Wednesday, and it will likely be seen as a vindication by the researchers and health officials who had criticized the paper from the beginning. However, it is unlikely to end the use of the study by vaccine skeptics. Retracted papers often continue to circulate online, especially if they are useful to a particular narrative. Many people who have already seen the study may never see the retraction notice, and some may regard the retraction itself as evidence of a cover-up rather than a legitimate correction.

The broader implications of this retraction extend far beyond the fate of one paper. It is a reminder that scientific publishing, despite its rigors, is not immune to error. Peer review is designed to filter out poor work, but it cannot always catch every problem in a complex observational study. The public health response to COVID-19 was already accompanied by a massive wave of misinformation, and studies like this one gave that misinformation a false appearance of respectability. The fact that the paper was ultimately retracted is, in some ways, a reassuring example of self-correction within the scientific community. But the process took more than two years, and in that time the paper had already been used to reinforce vaccine hesitancy, to undermine vaccination campaigns, and to deepen distrust in public institutions. The retraction should therefore be seen as a necessary but insufficient step. It does not undo the harm caused by the paper’s circulation, and it does not solve the deeper problem of how scientific findings are communicated in a fragmented and polarized media environment. For journals, the lesson is that authors must be held to high standards not only in their methods and data, but also in the way they frame their conclusions. For the public, the episode underscores the importance of looking beyond headlines, checking whether a study has been corrected or retracted, and understanding that science is an evolving process. In the end, the withdrawal of this study is a victory for scientific integrity, but it is also a cautionary tale about the power of a single flawed paper to influence public health conversations for years.