# British Medical Journal blasts Mark Zuckerberg **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 18, 2021, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280 "2021-12-18T13:56:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2021, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280/1 "2021-12-18T13:56:51Z")
Link to an [Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg](https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80) Summary: The BMJ published an article exposing questionable practices by a company involved with the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial. Readers reported problems sharing the article, which proved to be due to a Facebook “fact check”. The BMJ is not amused. > [@](#): > > 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” > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2021, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280/2 "2021-12-18T16:38:26Z")
> [@3AxisCtrl](#): > > 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. Makes it sound like Meta is practicing medicine. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2021, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280/3 "2021-12-19T06:35:17Z")
If they’re claiming to pass expert judgements on contributions to medical knowledge - they are. ---
**Author:** ![carnut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnut/32/3531_2.png) [@carnut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnut)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2021, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280/4 "2021-12-19T23:11:26Z")
Good for BMJ. Meta sucks wind when it comes to any science beyond what minimum they need to do to make a profit. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2021, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-medical-journal-blasts-mark-zuckerberg/956280/5 "2021-12-23T20:36:44Z")
For a different (and in my opinion, much more accurate) perspective on what’s got the BMJ in a dither, read this: > **[The BMJ editors strike back against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2021/12/22/the-bmj-editors-strike-back-against-mark-zuckerberg-and-facebook/)** > > The outgoing and incoming editors of The BMJ co-authored an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's labeling its Pfizer story dubious. The upshot is that the BMJ got a hack “investigative journalist” to write a piece that was long on insinuation and way short on convincing evidence, creating a false impression that Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine was approved on the basis of inadequate and even fraudulent clinical trials. That’s not something a major medical journal should be doing in the middle of a pandemic. I got the impression that the BMJ’s outgoing and incoming editors, who authored the “blast” at Facebook, were especially outraged that anyone could question a piece appearing in such a “high level” and “high quality” publication as the BMJ (a bit full of ourselves, aren’t we) and refer to the BMJ website’s news update section as a “blog”. Heaven forfend.