Did the authors of the paper entitled "The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations-We should rethink the policy", published then retracted in Vaccines [Walach, H. et al. (2021) Vaccines, DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9070693] mis-interpreted and distorted available scientific data?

The paper entitled "The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations-We should rethink the policy" by Walach, H. et al. [1] was published in Vaccines after undergoing "peer review" and then retracted sua sponte by the Editor in Chief and Editorial Board of vaccines. The said paper has generated much controversy and debate among those who have stated that Walach, H. et al. have not only mis-interpreted available data in the but have also distorted them in order to come up with an erroneous conclusion that essentially states that "for three deaths prevented by vaccinations we have to accept two inflicted by vaccinations". Mis-interpretation of scientific data is human and should not be censored but rebutted scientifically However distortion of scientific data to come up with an erroneous conclusion that fits one's hypothesis constitutes Dishonest Scientific Reporting and Data Falsification. To state that a Scientific Researcher has distorted scientific data to arrive at an erroneous conclusion in order to mislead the reader is unscientific and defamatory if one does not have scientific proof that scientific data has been distorted. That Vaccines would first publish a paper after so-called "peer review" and then retract the paper after objectors (The Mob Review Squad) complain of data mis-interpretation and distortion is hypocritical of the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Board of Vaccines. Further, by publishing and then retracting the paper by Walach, H. et al. after mob pressure, Vaccines has caused serious prejudice and harm to the scientific reputation of Walach, H. et al.  Walach, H. et al. could have submitted and published their paper in scientific journals and preprint website that do not practice censorship by Mob Peer review. Vaccines should offer an official apology to Walach, H. et al.