Facebook Censorship of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Continues

Dr. Suneel Dhand, MD, was recently censored on Facebook for calling attention to — you already know what is coming — Facebook’s prior censorship of medical information.

Well, Facebook should crack down on the cranks and crazies, right?*  In this case, Facebook’s “independent, third party” fact-checkers had decided to throw it down with the BMJ, one of the oldest, most respected, and most established scholarly medical journals on planet Earth.

So what?

So what?  That doesn’t make BMJ automatically right.  True.  So what was the case for censorship? What was censored?

The BMJ, after a careful review, ran a whistleblower story: Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. 

Well, Facebook’s factcheckers found that Brook Jackson, the whistleblower in question, did NOT “express unreserved support for covid vaccines” [ref].

Unreserved support for covid vaccines. 

Got it. There can be no TRUTH which does not start with, and does not end with, expressing “unreserved support for covid vaccines.”

A Second Opinion

In reply, let me quote from another medical doctor, Aaron Kheriaty, MD:

Stay away from anything or anyone that lacks nuance. Stay away from anything or anyone that proposes a one-size-fits-all policy. That’s not how medicine works.

Right.  Obviously true. (In the old-fashioned, pre-Fauci sense).  But let me help Facebook’s factchecker, the “independent, third party” Lead Stories, with Dr. Kheriaty’s advice. A simple example.

Penicillin is a miracle drug. But some people are allergic to it.  Some germy germs now have resistance to it. So we don’t prescribe penicillin for every and any bacterial infection. Nor would we prescribe the same dosage for each member of the population not allergic to penicillin. Why not? Because doing so would be counter-productive. Even dangerous. Even a violation of medical ethics, and sound medical practice.

Remember, the first rule is “Do No Harm”: every medical treatment or intervention requires a risk-benefit analysis. One which considers the unique patient in question, and not just an abstract general population.

We should not express “unreserved support” for any medical treatment or intervention. Ever.  We should consider the patient as well as the presumed illness or disease.

Let me highlight that — since former commonsense is now heresy, and I want this nailed to my forehead if I am burned at the stake.

We should not express “unreserved support” for any medical treatment or intervention. Ever. We should consider the patient as well as the presumed illness or disease. In brief, every medical treatment or intervention requires a risk-benefit analysis.

Comedy, Tragedy, or Farce?

This fiasco — the Lead Stories (aka, the Facebook “independent, third party”) factchecker fiasco — gets better or worse, depending on your sense of humor. To choose just three highpoints or bottom-feeders, as the BMJ reply noted (boldface mine):

• The Lead Stories article, though it failed to identify any errors in The BMJ’s investigation, nevertheless carried the 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 wrongly described The BMJ as a “news blog” and was accompanied by a screenshot of the investigation article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or inaccurate.

• Lead Stories did not mention that the investigation was externally peer reviewed, despite this being stated in the article, and had published its article under a URL that contained the phrase “hoax-alert.”

No misinformation here!

As of to date, Facebook has refused to intervene. Because “independent, third party” right? Tolerating and perpetuating outright abuse and nonsense is a commitment to objectivity while combatting misinformation. 

I admire how they are not even pretending to make sense anymore. We have just the blatant and brutal exercise of power.

The Facebook version of TRUTH begins with, ends with, and always contains “unreserved support for covid vaccines.” (My own opinion slightly differs).

Sanity Check

If you have 6 minutes and 23 seconds, please listen to Dr. Suneel Dhand’s account.

If you have concerns about “regulatory capture” – and this is a case where BMJ escaped capture, please consider the following Substack posts:

• James Lyons-Weiler, PhD:  Threats, Intimidation Against Doctors, Health Care Workers and Scientists Must End

• Michelle Rabin, PhD: The AMA has been captured

If you want the original BMJ articles (they are linked above):

• Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial | The BMJ

• Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg | The BMJ

• Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong | The BMJ

Resources

* It should go without saying that Dr. Suneel Dhand, MD, is not one of the cranks or crazies. He practices evidence-based medicine with concern and compassion.  I highly and strongly recommend him as a source for Covid-related news, and for health and wellness information in general.

• His locals (preferred) @ https://locals.com/member/DrSuneelDhand?community_id=26067

• His YouTube channel (subject to arbitrary censorship) @ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU-Jctu4JTEGFtVnsuqdd5Q

• His personal website @ https://medstoic.com/

And bonus: the Substack of Aaron Kheriaty, MD: Human Flourishing @ https://aaronkheriaty.substack.com/