By Joseph on Tuesday, 28 December 2021
Category: Race, Culture, Nation

The “British Medical Journal” Take on the Facebook Covid Fact Checkers By Richard Miller (London)

The British Medical Journal published an article which detailed flaws in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. The fact checkers, who protect anything big Pharma does immediately labelled the story as false! This is Britain’s leading generalist medical journal, so the issue is highly significant, showing that Facebook’s censorship of anything it does not like, is total. We do not know the reception that the editors’ letter of protest made on the king of internet censorship, Zuck the duck, sorry, lizard alien etc. Ooooops, now my non-existent Facebook page swill be censored.

 

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/facebook-zuckerberg-the-bmj-fact-check-pfizer/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bb747fe9-9802-4f29-bd1e-a5cdedba7859

“The BMJ asked Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg to remove a warning that discourages Facebook users from sharing an article about flaws in Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trial, saying the platform’s “incompetent” fact checkers are unfaily labeling stories as false.

In an open letter Friday, The BMJ editors explained how some readers are unable to post its Nov. 2 article on Facebook. Other readers have received pop-up warnings that if they choose to share “false information,” their posts may rank lower in Facebook’s news feed.

Facebook’s warning directs users to Lead Stories, a fact-checking site funded by the social media giant. Lead Stories has a screenshot of the article with a stamp over it reading “Flaws Reviewed” and a URL containing the phrase “hoax-alert.”

“We find the ‘fact check’ performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible,” wrote The BMJ editors Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi. “It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong.”

The BMJ article last month documented a host of poor practices that may have hurt data integrity and patient safety in the Phase 3 trial for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. A whistleblower had supplied The BMJ with internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and e-mails from a contract research company overseeing some trial sites.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined to inspect the affected sites despite receiving a direct complaint in 2020, The BMJ said. Pfizer’s vaccine, called Comirnaty, received approval in August 2021.

“There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise,” The BMJ wrote in its letter to Zuckerberg. “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.”

Meta is the name of Facebook’s new parent company, which also owns Instagram.

Last month Instagram “shadow banned” Cochrane, a nonprofit organization based in the UK, which provides high quality information to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision-making.

Instagram users were blocked from tagging Cochrane’s account, which has more than 16,000 followers. A pop-up said Cochrane had “repeatedly posted content that goes against our Community Guidelines on false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.”

Cochrane said it didn’t know what triggered the several-week shadow ban but speculated it might have been its reports about ivermectin.

“If the aim is to cut down on conspiracies and disinformation, far better to allow discussion and debate, and to be open and honest about the information we do have, including the shortcomings and the limitations,” Cochrane said.

Facebook isn’t Lead Stories’ only client. The company also works for Google, ByteDance (TikTok’s owner) and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

The fact checker’s stated mission is to “hunt for trending stories, images, videos and posts that contain false information in order to fact check them as quickly as possible.”

The BMJ urged Zuckerberg to 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.”

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

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.

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. 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

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

 

Leave Comments