Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#571

Post by TeeMassive »

goopthink wrote: post #46

In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish. For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presentin…

> there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish

I am fine with that. But they shouldn't call it a "fact-check" when the only thing they can connect the dots with are opinions, not facts.

> and why news is separated out from opinion-editorial pages... even if it is in style to add opinions

The problem I have with so-called "fact checkers" is that when it comes down to put the money where their mouth is, that is in court, they argue that they are not factual but rather opinion pieces, as Facebook recently argued in court: https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact... (I couldn't find a more politically neutral source, sorry)

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#572

Post by tmule »

Fact-checking is a means to “neutrally” validating a specific narrative, typically the modal elite narrative. Most of what is being fact-checked isn’t trivially binary, nor do the midwits that do this understand anything quantitative. Quite a joke, much like modern American discourse.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#573

Post by pinneycolton »

NoPie wrote: post #499
nickelpro wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not the headline The BMJ ran, they ran: "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial" This lacks significant context, which is exactly what FB said of it. Taken alone, I would call that headline false. There is no evidence of notable data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial beyond the typical levels of minor documentation issues expected in large huma…

The issues with Ventavia, if true, are not something typical or expected at all. And it is even less expected that any reported issues will not be followed up by the regulator. While it is true that many trials suffer from similar issues, it is not the standard that we should accept. And I don't understand why so many think that BJM article tries to cast doubt on the entirety of Pfizer's vaccine operation? It is noth…

The issue is with how many will interpret that headline. People who already want to believe that 100% of the vaccine research is a sham will run with this. The burden is on BJM to be extremely clear if they don't want to add to the misinformation.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#574

Post by NoPie »

pinneycolton wrote: post #573
NoPie wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issues with Ventavia, if true, are not something typical or expected at all. And it is even less expected that any reported issues will not be followed up by the regulator. While it is true that many trials suffer from similar issues, it is not the standard that we should accept. And I don't understand why so many think that BJM article tries to cast doubt on the entirety of Pfizer's vaccine operation? It is noth…

The issue is with how many will interpret that headline. People who already want to believe that 100% of the vaccine research is a sham will run with this. The burden is on BJM to be extremely clear if they don't want to add to the misinformation.

It is an issue but that issue has to be solved by different means than having fact-checkers saying that BMJ is wrong. BMJ clearly states at the top of every page that it is meant for healthcare professionals.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#575

Post by NoPie »

quadrangle wrote: post #510
NoPie wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? It's very precise and describes exactly what happened.

Wouldn't it be a lot clearer if it were something like "issues at three sites doing Pfizer vaccine trials" instead of "issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial"? The singular "trial" in the headline implies that the flaws are in the trial as a whole rather than in a particular distinct subset of the trials.

You apparently use the word trial differently than it is used in pharma.

Pfizer had one large trial that involved many sites. Three of those sites run by Ventavia had problems. That's why the headline says “in trial”. But even if you didn't know that it is explained in BMJ article “... Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres.”

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#576

Post by dablweb »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #540
specialist wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook doesn't want to be arbiter, they should stop arbitrating. The moment Facebook chooses what to display, they own the content. And it just so happens that what Facebook chooses to display, chooses to recommend, are the lies, more often than not.

Facebook can allow whatever they like on their website and it is perfectly legal. I would rather they filter out 98% of the tripe with a 2% fail rate (sorry BJM!)

You'd think so, but in doing so you've just imagined the world's most terrifying propaganda tool.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#577

Post by id02009 »

angry_octet wrote: post #334
NoPie wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was ultimately Pfizer's trial and Pfizer bears all responsibility for their contractors.

What you’re saying is true, and completely tangential to the problem. When you are concerned that validation done by a subcontractor might be weak, it is entirely sensible that you subdivide the work. What we need is a statistical reanalysis that considers that, e.g., 10% of each step is done wrongly. And a regulatory regime that doesn’t hand wave away complaints, has rigorous protection for whistleblowers, and serio…

Not necessarily. If there's an instance of someone blowing the whistle, and there's no investigation it's completely reasonable to suspect that the whole integrity of the process might be iffy.

Blocking the article (instead of opening relevant books to show that in fact it was just exception to otherwise solid prices makes) makes even stronger case that the prices is not honest.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#578

Post by NoPie »

quadrangle wrote: post #532
hcrean wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are: The provable lack of regulatory oversight and demonstration of the existence of poor practices at the company. The argument that just because one of a company's trials are unsound doesn't mean that the rest aren't is not a good one, when the whole objective is to provide assurance in proving the safety of a product.

I get that it's hard to find the best balance in a headline let alone in a summary article. Yes, evidence of a problem in a portion of a trial is indeed evidence of problems in the trial. I can see room for misunderstanding no matter what. Emphasize the portion of sites where the problem was observed and it wrongly can be inferred that the other sites are fine even if they have no evidence either way. Emphasize the p…

Yes, the problems in one site, especially if not dealt with properly, might indicate larger problems.

We all know that the trials were rushed and for a very good reason, there was a pandemic. Still, if issues are discovered they should be resolved. Pfizer is a private company, they are not obliged to be very transparent with everything they do. FDA is the main organisation that oversees such trial in the US, so this is their responsibility to investigate.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#579

Post by peter_retief »

This has been a concern of mine since fact checking became the tool of political ideologues.

Many of my professional friends have either left mainstream social media or have become much less active.

Not only has this destroyed the credibility of science but has created vicious polarisation of people and destroyed friendships and family relationships.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#580

Post by lenkite »

linuxhansl wrote: post #322

Let's please not throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss all fact checking as political, biases, or agenda-driven. Not agreeing on basic facts in the prime problem in our current political discourse. Disagreement is usually a good problem to have and leads to testing the complete problem space. What we are seeing now, though, is the absence of the problem space exploration. Instead any discussion is just di…

"dismiss all fact checking as political, biases, or agenda-driven." But they most certainly are! Facebook themselves admitted that their fact-checking is opinion-checking.

https://www.opindia.com/2021/12/facebook-accepts-that-its-th...

Let's remove the term "fact-checking" and replace it by "facebook sponsored opinion"

Post reply on HN