British Journal Retracts Controversial 2024 Study on Excess Mortality

A 2024 study examining excess mortality in Western countries since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has been retracted by the journal that published it. The paper attracted widespread attention online, where it was widely misinterpreted.

The retraction highlights how complex health data can be misunderstood, why methodology matters, and what a retraction means in science.

What Did the 2024 Study Examine?

The study was led by researchers including Saskia Mostert, affiliated with the Princess Maxima Centre in the Netherlands and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It was published on 3 June 2024 in BMJ Public Health under the title “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022”.

The research question was descriptive: what were the trends in excess mortality in 47 Western countries between January 2020 and December 2022?

To do this, the authors used publicly available estimates from Our World in Data, which draws on the World Mortality Dataset. Excess mortality compares the number of deaths observed in a period with the number that would have been expected based on pre-pandemic trends.

The paper reported that excess mortality remained high for three consecutive years despite containment measures and vaccines. It discussed potential reasons, including COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of restrictions, and the need to investigate serious adverse events reported after vaccination.

Crucially, the researchers looked only at trends over time. They did not analyse causes of excess deaths and did not test whether vaccines caused excess mortality.

Why Was the Study Retracted?

Concerns were raised soon after publication about both quality and framing.

BMJ stated: “The messaging gave rise to widespread misreporting and misunderstanding of the work amid claims that it implies a direct causal link between COVID-19 vaccination and mortality. In fact, the researchers looked only at trends in excess mortality over time, not its causes.”

The Princess Maxima Center’s Scientific Integrity Committee concluded there was no breach of scientific integrity, with no evidence of intent, plagiarism or data falsification, but that several principles of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity were violated during the publication process.

According to the centre, shortly after publication the authors themselves requested retraction due to the risk of misinterpretation and the potential resulting decline in vaccination willingness. They remain willing to publicly disavow the misconception that excess mortality could be attributed to vaccinations.

External experts criticised the methodology, noting the paper did not further analyse the Our World in Data estimates and therefore did not constitute original analysis, and that it disregarded the most likely explanation for most excess deaths – the COVID-19 virus itself.

How Was the Study Used in the COVID-19 Vaccine Debate?

After publication, several outlets ran headlines suggesting vaccines may have fuelled excess deaths. On social media, posts claimed the British Medical Journal had reported vaccines had caused excess deaths.

Fact-checking organisations found this inaccurate. BMJ clarified: “This study does not establish any such link.”

It is important to distinguish:

• What the researchers reported: Trends in all-cause excess mortality from 2020 to 2022, using secondary data, with a call to investigate various possible contributors.
• What third parties claimed: That the study proved COVID-19 vaccines were a major cause of excess mortality.

BMJ and Our World in Data both issued statements clarifying the study did not support the claim that vaccines are a major contributory factor to excess deaths. Vaccines have, in fact, been instrumental in reducing severe illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection.

What Does a Scientific Retraction Mean?

A retraction is a mechanism by which a journal withdraws a published article from the scientific record. It means editors no longer consider the paper reliable or appropriate to remain in the literature.

Retractions can occur for honest errors, problems with data quality, undisclosed conflicts, or failure to meet publication standards. It does not automatically establish an alternative explanation for the phenomenon studied. Retraction of a paper on excess mortality trends does not, by itself, establish what did cause excess mortality.

Why Methodology Matters in Health Research

Excess mortality is complex to measure. When assessing any study, consider:

• Study design: Was it descriptive or analytical? Did it aim to describe trends or test a cause?
• Data quality: Were datasets validated and appropriate? This study relied on secondary estimates.
• Statistical methods: How were expected deaths modelled?
• Confounding factors: COVID-19 infection, health system pressures, population ageing, delayed care, and other factors can influence excess mortality.
• Peer review and oversight: Was the work reviewed by experts in the relevant field? The Princess Maxima Center noted its procedures were not fully adhered to.
• Replication and wider evidence: A single study rarely settles a question. Larger bodies of evidence are needed.

What Can Readers Take Away From the Retraction?

The retraction means the specific 2024 paper should no longer be cited as reliable evidence. It was withdrawn following concerns about scientific quality, messaging, and susceptibility to misinterpretation, and at the authors’ own request.

The retraction does not prove or disprove any particular cause of excess mortality. It does not prove that COVID-19 vaccines caused excess deaths, and it does not, by itself, quantify how much excess mortality was due to COVID-19 infection versus other factors. Those questions require separate, robust analyses that examine causes of death directly.

Conclusion

BMJ Public Health has retracted a widely discussed 2024 study that described excess mortality trends in Western countries between 2020 and 2022. The journal and the authors’ institution investigated concerns about quality and messaging after it was widely misreported as showing a link between COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths – a link the study did not establish.

The case illustrates why careful methodology, clear communication, and attention to the wider body of evidence are essential in health research, and why retractions are an important part of maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Samuel Kemp

Dr. Samuel Kemp is a Consultant Physician at the Royal Brompton Hospital with specialist expertise in respiratory medicine, including lung cancer, COPD, and advanced interventional bronchoscopy.