Dr Kamran Abbasi — editor of the British Medical Journal — slammed Facebook for ‘censoring’ its report into allegations of malpractice during Pfizer’s Covid vaccine trials
The editor of the British Medical Journal has slammed Facebook for ‘censoring’ its report into allegations of malpractice during Pfizer’s Covid vaccine trials.
Kamran Abbasi, Dr. Kamran’s accuser of the social media company suppressing fact-checked journalism and trying to influence people’s thinking.
In November, a BMJ investigation found that Pfizer may have had a contract to run a few of its original jab trials. This could have led to distorted findings and falsified data.
The report was built on the analysis of dozens internal documents and photos as well as audio-recordings, video clips, and statements made by three ex-employees.
However, Facebook users who shared the journal entry were given an automatic’missing context label’.
A warning was included with the shared article, warning it that it might’mislead persons’. Also provided was a link to fact-checking websites.
Following a failure to appeal to Mark Zuckerberg’s request to have his tags removed via an open letter, the BMJ will be filing a complaint at Facebook’s Oversight Board.
Dr Abbasi wrote in the BMJ today: ‘We should all be very worried that Facebook, a multibillion dollar company, is effectively censoring fully fact checked journalism that is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of clinical trials.’
He added: ‘Facebook’s actions won’t stop The BMJ doing what is right, but the real question is: why is Facebook acting in this way? Is it its view of the world?
Is this ideology? Are there commercial or other motives? Or is it incompetence
After its article about mistakes during Pfizer’s vaccine trials was labeled as “missing context”, the BMJ attacked Facebook. Below is an example of a Facebook post that was shared by a user. It includes a Facebook note.
These notifications were also sent to people who shared the BMJ article via Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg has complained already to the BMJ, who will take this matter to their Oversight Board next week. Facebook stated that the article was labeled because anti-vaxxers were sharing it.
“Facebook is trying to influence how people think, even though it presents itself as neutral on social media platforms,” said a Facebook spokesperson.
BMJ reported on a Pfizer trial in Texas that had 1,000 participants. The trial’s overall results are not affected by this arm.
A prestigious medical journal submitted a complaint at the International Fact-Checking Network, which assists in the investigation of misinformation online.
Facebook claims that the article was originally deemed’missing context’ by Anti-Vaxxers because they were using it as proof that Covid jabs are unsafe.
Social media companies like Instagram and Twitter have been under severe scrutiny for misinformation in relation to the pandemic.
Boris Johnson stated earlier this month that anti-vaxxers are being permitted to spread “mumbo-jumbo” and “complete nonsense” online.
Gary Schwitzer from the University of Minnesota, who manages a website that evaluates health journalism, stated that Facebook’s fact checking process wasn’t transparent enough or consistent enough.
In November 2013, the BMJ published its Pfizer trial report. It warned that corners were being cut in a Ventavia-run arm of the study.
Brook Jackson was a whistleblower and worked briefly for Ventavia in 2020. He said that the BMJ Ventavia didn’t always test patients who had symptoms. This could have been a way of hiding how effective jabs were.
Elle stated that the data was false and suggested that underqualified personnel had been employed to administer vaccines and monitor side effects.
The statements of her were confirmed by numerous internal documents as well as two ex-Ventavia employees who wish to remain anonymous.
Texas contractor responsible for 1,000 participants on three Texas sites, which is just 2 percent of the total number involved.
The report raised concern that other aspects of the trial might have been affected by similar issues, but these concerns remain unsubstantiated.
Rebecca Coombes (head of journalism for the BMJ) and Madlen Dyssy, investigations editor, expressed grave concern about Facebook fact checking.
The lack of oversight by third-party fact-checkers and accountability was leading to inaccurate information being suppressed.
The BMJ reported that researchers who ran a limited number of Pfizer’s Covid original vaccine trial trials might have “falsified” study results.
Ventavia has been rehired by Pfizer to continue working on its four additional jab trials, which include booster doses for young children and women who are pregnant.
Ventavia denies the allegations, stating that they have been uncovered by an internal investigation.
The company stated that Ms. Jackson had been employed for two weeks by the company in September 2020. She was not responsible for conducting the Covid vaccine trials as part of her job.
Meta, owner of Facebook told MailOnline its fact-checkers had responsibility for reviewing content and assigning ratings to stories.
According to a spokesperson, “We communicate with publishers about fact checks and have an appeals procedure for those publishers that wish to correct or challenge a rating with fact-checkers.”
Facebook is home to approximately 2.85billion people, which equals more than a third the population of the globe.
UK’s Online Safety Bill will hold tech companies responsible for harmful content that is being distributed on their platforms.
This will include illegal content, such as terrorist propaganda and child abuse, and ‘legal but harmful’ content, such as cyberbullying and misinformation — including around Covid vaccines.
However, some news organizations have expressed concerns that legitimate journalism will be censored as companies use algorithms to filter through the posts.
Peter Wright (editor emeritus at DMG Media) previously claimed that the algorithms used to monitor content on social media are “very poor”.
A Parliamentary Committee hearing was told by him that Facebook had attempted to limit journalism in the US, leading to blocked articles before anybody could read them.
Wright stated, “it’s arbitrary, it often fails understand the nature of content, it’s imimposed without any kind of process, and it’s not in accord with English legal thinking about journalism, which is to assume responsibility for what he/she publishes, then pay the consequences afterward.”