Here’s an article from The British Medical Journal from November 2021 titled, “Covid-19:
Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial”. I won’t go
into the details of the article, but recently, due to its content, unsurprisingly the article
has been shared many times on the world’s largest social network, Facebook. Consequently, Facebook
fact-checked this article and said (among others), “The post includes information that independent
fact-checkers said was missing context. Missing context. Missing context. Independent
fact-checkers reviewed the information and said it was missing context and could mislead people.
Partly false information. Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT
Reveal Disqualifying and Ignored Reports of Flaws in Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”.
The fact-check was accompanied by a screenshot of the investigation with
a stamp over the article stating “Flaws Reviewed”. Facebook noted that, “People
who repeatedly share false information might have their posts moved lower in the News Feed”.
Understandably, the editors at the prestigious British Medical Journal were a bit upset.
In response, they published an article titled, “Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes
wrong”. They also wrote a letter to Facebook. “Dear Mark Zuckerberg, We are Fiona Godlee and
Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential
general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being
undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta. In September, a former employee
of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial,
began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings,
and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring
at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that,
despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA
did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites. The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write
up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review,
external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.
But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our
article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts
flagged with a warning about “Missing context... Independent fact-checkers say this information
could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who
repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed.
Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them
that such posts were “partly false”. Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook
contractor named Lead Stories. We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate,
incompetent and irresponsible. -- It fails to provide any assertions
of fact that The BMJ article got wrong. -- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check:
The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws
In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”. -- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ
a “news blog”. -- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws
Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ
article. -- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”.
Anyway, I won’t go on. The point is, so-called Facebook fact-checkers are
calling into question leading medical journals and claiming they are spreading misinformation.
They seem to think that they know more than these leading scientists and medical practitioners.
Actually, I kind of agree with them. I did a bit of a fact-check myself. As it turns out,
The British Medical Journal published an article over 140 years ago on December 13th, 1879 titled,
“On Bloodletting”. “But there is one form of disease which is peculiarly
under the influence of bleeding as a remedy, and, if treated in its early stage or onset,
is cured by it very speedily and satisfactorily. Nevertheless,
it has fallen into disuse in these latter times in this as in almost every other disease. I allude to
idiopathic pleurisy. I well remember, when I was living in the country many years ago,
an epidemic, if so it may be called, of pleurisy; and I was called to many of the cases,
and summoned early on account of the severe pain attending the commencement of the attack.
I resorted to venesection (bloodletting) in almost every case, with the result of
immediately relieving the pain and very quickly curing the patient-indeed, it was almost the only
treatment required; the blood was allowed to flow until the pain was gone and the breathing free,
and then an opiate draught was given to produce sleep, and the patient was well in a few days.
The last time I ever myself bled a patient was in a case of pleurisy, and the circumstances were so
peculiar and the relief so immediate that I cannot refrain from relating the history of it in order
to establish my point, that bleeding is a valuable resource in the early treatment of this disease.
Sorry BMJ, you were completely wrong! According to Mayo Clinic, pleurisy is a
condition in which the pleura — two large, thin layers of tissue that separate your lungs from
your chest wall — becomes inflamed. It causes sharp chest pain that worsens during breathing.
Treatment does NOT include bloodletting as you falsely claimed in your article,
so I’m sorry British Medical Journal, you DO make mistakes from time to time
and Mark Zuckerberg has the right to censor you. End sarcasm.