Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

439

The BMJ is perhaps the longest continually running medical journal, established in 1840. They published an article calling into question the practices involved in the vaccine trials and were quickly flagged as misleading.
This is their response.

The BMJ is perhaps the longest continually running medical journal, established in 1840. They published an article calling into question the practices involved in the vaccine trials and were quickly flagged as misleading. This is their response.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (1).
[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.

It's not incompetence on the part of the "fact-checkers". They're doing exactly what Facebook wants. It's what Facebook pays them to do. Facebook's claim that the ,fact-checkers" are independent is laughable. The whole thing is set up to give the "fact-checkers" an air of legitimacy that they wouldn't have if they were direct employees of Facebook.