11–20 of 307 posts
From the last discussion: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... The BMJ is not the shining city on the hill here. You can have problems with Facebook policing information, but Thacker is unquestionably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist and the BMJ is allowing him to use their reputation to push that narrative.
Facts are facts! If the fact checking does not match reality, it is the reality that needs to be fixes!
From the last discussion: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... The BMJ is not the shining city on the hill here. You can have problems with Facebook policing information, but Thacker is unquestionably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist and the BMJ is allowing him to use their reputation to push that narrative.
Frankly, if I were the BMJ I would start contacting lawyers and issuing writs. I'm unsure of exactly what or where or how , but the principle that peer-reviewed scientific articles are being shadowbanned as "false" and unshareable by a for-profit, unqualified US organisation is...deeply offensive. A large lawsuit by an organisation such as the BMJ (an impact factor 40 journal first published in its current form in ab…
Frankly, if I were the BMJ I would start contacting lawyers and issuing writs. I'm unsure of exactly what or where or how , but the principle that peer-reviewed scientific articles are being shadowbanned as "false" and unshareable by a for-profit, unqualified US organisation is...deeply offensive. A large lawsuit by an organisation such as the BMJ (an impact factor 40 journal first published in its current form in ab…
Just to clarify, the article in question is not a scientific paper in BMJ. It's a feature, so pretty much like a regular news article.
> Footnotes
> Provenance and peer review: commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
While it is an article, it has (in theory) been peer reviewed.
Compare that to this article:
> Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally reviewed.
From the last discussion: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... The BMJ is not the shining city on the hill here. You can have problems with Facebook policing information, but Thacker is unquestionably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist and the BMJ is allowing him to use their reputation to push that narrative.
- https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis...
- https://leadstories.com/analysis/2021/12/lead-stories-respon...
Granted, Facebook is supposed to be more open for everyone, but it’s still their platform, their reputation, and they can decide what to filter - and people can decide to take their discussions somewhere else.
There is something very dangerous about wanting to discuss a serious issue seriously and being squelched because it doesn’t fit some narrative.
I’ve personally had three shots from Pfizer, I’ve had them administered to my children and I want to hear if there are possible issues with them from reputable sources without those reputable sources being shut down by self-appointed information police.
From the last discussion: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... The BMJ is not the shining city on the hill here. You can have problems with Facebook policing information, but Thacker is unquestionably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist and the BMJ is allowing him to use their reputation to push that narrative.
Then there will be response articles which expose those errors as such, a consensus will be reached and we will move on to other issues. That is the nature of scientific discourse. Expecting everyone to shut up just because you shout "ANTIVAX" is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to clarify, the article in question is not a scientific paper in BMJ. It's a feature, so pretty much like a regular news article.
On the article in question: > Footnotes > Provenance and peer review: commissioned; externally peer reviewed. While it is an article, it has (in theory) been peer reviewed. Compare that to this article: > Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally reviewed.