BMJ Exposes Facebook 'Fact-Checkers' As 'Inaccurate, Incompetent, Irresponsible' In Open Letter

World's Most Prestigious Medical Journal Roasts Facebook Over "Inaccurate, Incompetent & Irresponsible" Fact Check

TYLER DURDEN

The Machiavellian quote (sic) that "if you're going to come at the king, you best not miss," may be about to bite Mark Zuckerberg and his army of fact-checking mercenaries.

While Zuckerberg may feel omnipotent atop his opaque algo-world but the so-called 'fact-checkers' - so expert at shutting down any narrative-conflicting-information (on behalf of, and often at the behest of, the Biden administration) - may have met their match by claiming that one of the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journals delivered "false information" that "could mislead people."

As we detailed in early November, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) - a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association - published a whistleblower report calling into question data integrity and regulatory oversight issues surrounding Pfizer's pivotal phase III Covid-19 vaccine trial.

Brook Jackson, a now-fired regional director at Ventavia Research Group, revealed to The BMJ that vaccine trials at several sites in Texas last year had major problems - including falsified data, broke fundamental rules, and were 'slow' to report adverse reactions. 

When she notified superiors of the issues she found, they fired her.

A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. -The BMJ

Very soon after, as the worrisome story went viral, BMJ soon would get a taste of what Facebook, Google, and others are doing to independent media platforms. As TrialSiteNews.com reports, even though 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, those individuals that were simply sharing this content, peer-reviewed from The BMJ, were warned by Facebook that, “Independent fact-checkers concluded, “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.”

Readers were sent to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories, a third-party fact-checker. 

And so, as possibly the top experts in the world when it comes to medical research information, BMJ has now been forced to fact-check the 'fact-checkers'.

In a no-holds-barred 'open letter to Mark Zuckerberg', the editors exposed that 'fact-check' as "inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible."

Having received no response from Facebook or from Lead Stories, after requesting the removal of the "fact checking" label, the BMJ's editors raise a "wider concern":

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...

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.

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 presenting totally new information about the world, how can that be verified against other information that - by virtue of something being new - cannot be verified by other preexisting sources?

If the fact checking process is limited to verification based on other information that is currently available, and if the fact checking process cannot distinguish between factual information and the opinions people hold as a result of that information, the outcome will be an inevitable echo chamber that reinforces currently dominant views or whatever preexisting biases are present.

Full letter from The BMJ below (emphasis ours):

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.

More...