The BMJ to Facebook—Stop Censoring Us and Shut Down Your Incompetent Fact-Checkers
Top Editors from the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) have a message for Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook: get your fact-checkers in line, ASAP. As part of one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journals, the senior editors express real concern about third-party fact-checkers employed by Facebook/Meta. This complaint surfaces based on the issues of potentially fraudulent or faulty data associated with Pfizer contract research organization Ventavia.
TrialSite wrote that The BMJ authored a critical piece investigating bombshell evidence that poor practices and quality control issues surfaced during the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Meticulously researched based on whistleblower documentation, the critical review, authored by Paul Thacker in the peer-review journal, raised eyebrows if not more.
Facebook Censors
However, The BMJ soon would get a taste of what Facebook, Google, and others are doing to independent media platforms such as the TrialSite. Even though The BMJ is one of the most prominent medical journals and the information was rigorously peer-reviewed, strange things started occurring.
For example, readers would try to post some of the information on social media such as Facebook to share with their networks. But “some reported being unable to share it [the information].” Moreover, as it turns out, “Independent fact-checkers concluded, “This formation could mislead people.” Those individuals that were simply sharing this content, peer-reviewed from The BMJ, were warned by Facebook that “This information could mislead people.” Moreover, they were told, “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.” In addition, some group administrators received notices from Facebook that the information was “partly false.”
Then readers were sent to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories, a third-party fact-checker. Yet as possibly the top experts on the planet when it comes to medical research information, The BMJ now have to fact check the fact-checkers, much like TrialSite has continuously had to do, finding the fact-checkers are, of course, incorrect.
The BMJ editor’s note the following:
∙ 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”
Note The BMJ editors contacted Lead Stories but they stand resolute that they are not incorrect. Now Facebook flags The BMJ article.
An Incompetent Fact-Checking Regimen
Both Ms. Godlee and Mr. Abbasi have a message for Facebook—your fact-checkers are “incompetent.” The social network had better get their act together, is the message. While they are at it, they should be reminded that Jen Psaki was on the record that high-level White House operatives were feeding Facebook information as to what was misinformation versus credible real information. For reference, we include The Hill piece on Psaki’s comments. Perhaps The BMJ should put Ms. Psaki on their list too as well as whoever those “senior” White House staff were that were “suggesting” to offer Facebook help.
As Dr. Ron Brown, a TrialSite contributor, asked over the summer: Does White House Spread Misinformation about Spreading Vaccine Misinformation?
Authors
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
Rapid Response:
Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
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.[1]
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.[2]
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”
We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.
We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.
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.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.
Best wishes,
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
The BMJ
Competing interests:
As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.
References:
[1] Thacker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial. BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2635. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2635. PMID: 34728500. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
[2] Miller D. Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. Nov 10, 2021. https://leadstories.com/hoax-a…-check-british-medical-jo...
[3]
Competing interests: As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.