This week, John Ioannidis and his colleagues published a paper on Covid-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ, concluding that the ‘BMJ had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation.’
The authors don’t hold back, saying the ‘BMJ had massive bias towards specific COVID-19-related advocacy favouring aggressive measures’. The BMJ became an outlet for indieSAGE/Vaccines-Plus advocates who outperformed SAGE members, (16-fold), Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) advocates (64-fold), and 16-fold compared with the most-cited group. Short opinion pieces and analyses drove the majority of these differences.
Advocates of restricted, focused measures were virtually extinct from the BMJ pages: ‘BMJ editors, staff and apparently advocate contributors developed a massive literature, comprised mostly of opinion pieces that in general (as acknowledged by the BMJ) underwent no external review in the BMJ.’ …
Medical journals aim to share the latest medical knowledge, including research findings. However, with the rise of the internet, they have started to include more news, opinions, and articles that are better suited for a magazine format.
Journals that exhibit polarization and lack impartiality during pandemics fail to represent the available evidence accurately. Despite this, their established reputations grant them significant sway, allowing them to shape doctors’ perspectives, influence academic discourse, and play a crucial role in public policy formulation. This can lead to widespread acceptance of biased viewpoints, ultimately impacting healthcare decisions and responses to health crises.
Open dialogue and exploring diverse perspectives are essential for making informed, impactful decisions. The review of Covid-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ concludes, ‘The BMJ undermined the ability to navigate the complexities of the pandemic issues we faced and chose to champion opinion over evidence.’ By sidelining vital discussions,
Scientific misconduct, again!! I posted these articles, too; #943493 and #943480 about changes in the medical field that have been fairly recent. Perhaps somewhat unwanted changes in scientific method. If I may speculate, perhaps due to the influence of money on the process. As they tend to say, “Follow the money!!”
Open discourse seems to be something of a thing of the past, nowadays. This is happening everywhere, not just in science and medicine and not just about COVID. It is happening in everyday life in the West, free speech is dying on the vine and only the approved points of view are acceptable, to the point of incarceration if disapproved. When do you think this will change and how?