4 ms·

The BMJ seems to be on good form. First publishing the whistle blower account of pfizer [1], and now this call for raw vaccine trial data. I commend them on

The BMJ seems to be on good form. First publishing the whistle blower account of pfizer [1], and now this call for raw vaccine trial data. I commend them on this approach, and can only hope that the vaccines are as safe and effective as we have been told. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 - "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial"

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
I can only recommend this article about bmj: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-the-bmj/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-t...
- shrubble 5y ago
  I find the author's take to be lacking in understanding of how contracting companies are hired and managed.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  Yup. I'm not sure how many non anti vax people who comment in support of BMJ actually read the original article. If you are them please reveal yourself and explain how you found nothing wrong with the original article. Most of these comments in the threads just seem like tired knee jerk anti big media / anti vax memes.
  - diroussel 5y ago
    I'm a pro vax person, and I've had three vaccine doses. But I have a few anti-vaxers around in friends and family, and it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them (not talking about the population as a whole). I would like safe and effective vaccines, and I would like to know that the vaccines I have been administered have really got the backing of truly scientific trials. Surely releasing the trial data is a net positive for all the national populations that have paid for it.
    - drukenemo 5y ago
      In your definition, an anti-vaxxer is someone who refuses the covid-19 jab or any jab? If it’s the former, I find that quite disingenuous.
    - miles 5y ago
      > it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them That is especially hard since there is simply no way to know for sure whether the vaccine will be "totally safe and effective for them": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206892 .
    - Fogest 5y ago
      This is my thing as well. I work at vaccine clinics and obviously am onboard with the vaccines, however I still feel bad helping administer these vaccines to people who are hesitant. Because of government vaccine mandates or employer vaccine mandates it has made some people who come in feeling "forced" to get a vaccine. And it honestly does not feel like this is the proper scientific or medical way. It sucks to give someone a vaccine when you know they aren't fully trusting in the science behind it. A lot of people are having to choose whether they put uproot their whole families and lose their jobs, or whether they just go and get the vaccine. They are not technically forced, but it honestly seems like it pretty much is. For me it does not feel morally right to have people who feel forced to make medical decisions they don't agree with without even having access to the raw data that would help indicate it's safe. And it doesn't help that there have been multiple leaks now regarding companies like Pfizer that have made them appear even more shady. Not to mention Pfizers multiple billion dollar lawsuits/fines in the past. I don't blame some people for being skeptical, nor do I blame them for feeling like they are forced to get something they aren't sure they can trust. It's hard to just trust an organization that has already done multiple things in the past to make you not want to trust them. The cases that feel even worse for me are the people who have had previous doses and are coming in for 2nd doses or boosters but have had previous unexplained side effects shortly after the doses. Like side effects that are beyond the "normal" ones. Many of these people have visited hospitals or their family doctors, had multiple tests, and get told that nothing is wrong, or that they are not sure what is wrong. And these kind of cases are often not counted an "adverse effect". I alone have had many people tell me these things. They often again feel forced to get the next dose because of pressure from their employer or government. And it just feels bad giving them the vaccine, because they don't sound anti-vaxx, they sound like they legitimately had a severe reaction to the vaccine. But often doctors and public health agencies will brush these incidents off and pretend like it's not because of the vaccine. They are dismissed and considered an anti-vaxxer making things up. And this really sucks. This is not the way medicine should work.
  - epgui 5y ago
    I'm a biochemist, and I'm as pro-vaccine as they come. The BMJ is a highly reputable journal. It's unfortunate that the anti-vaxx idiots are misinterpreting or decontextualizing their content, but that's the anti-vaxx's fault and it's what they've always done.
    - srcreigh 5y ago
      Would it be so hard to state the limitations of their investigation, and clearly explain that a few key misconceptions are incorrect? Based on their original censored article, it seems like they're heavily invested to make things seem problematic, and carefully avoid any indication that the status quo is acceptable. I don't think it's purely misinterpretation when anti vax people become generally skeptical of govt and pharma corps. Like could they not just say the vaccine is safe in these articles based on other evidence? They care about people being able to share their posts to Facebook, I can't understand why they aren't trying even a little to reduce the possibility for public misinterpretation.
      - epgui 5y ago
        They were not putting into question the safety of vaccines, that issue was tangential. I know the article has the literal words "patient safety" and raises potential safety concerns, but that all has to be read in full context: advocating for better data controls and better rigour in research. It might seem obvious to you that the article would be misinterpreted or parts of it taken out of context by a lay public, but scientific publications are meant to be read mainly by other scientists, and this paper was written with that specific public in mind. Even if this was intended as official public health communication, which it wasn't, public health communication is an absolute nightmare of a minefield. There's absolutely nothing you can ever say that won't be misinterpreted or misunderstood by some people, and the game is all about minimizing the potential for that. It's easier said than done. (And again, this paper was meant to be shared among expert colleagues in the field.)
        srcreigh 5y ago
        Considering that BMJ made an entire article objecting to FB fact checking BMJ for public audiences [0], I really have to disagree that the article was only meant for expert eyes. Given that, a few disclaimers and limitations to help quell public misinterpretation is required. Not to do so is irresponsible. [0]: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
- hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
  I cannot recommend that article. Science exists in a realm of science, just because a major medical organisation is misunderstood dosen't make them 'antivaxxers'. BMJ is asking for open data, something I think many people here could utilise and find value in.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > Science exists in a realm of science, What does this mean? That article is very specific, and is not sensational. He's been complaining about the BMJ for some time, and not just about these vaccines. edit: open data is fine and good. The BMJ demanding it here is intentional sensationalism and part of a continuing pattern. Incidentally, emember that antivax wasn't even a thing until The Lancet unleashed it on the world. Journals are often badly behaved in order to make headlines.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago

I can only recommend this article about bmj: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-the-bmj/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-t...

shrubble 5y ago
I find the author's take to be lacking in understanding of how contracting companies are hired and managed.
srcreigh 5y ago
Yup. I'm not sure how many non anti vax people who comment in support of BMJ actually read the original article. If you are them please reveal yourself and explain how you found nothing wrong with the original article. Most of these comments in the threads just seem like tired knee jerk anti big media / anti vax memes.
- diroussel 5y ago
  I'm a pro vax person, and I've had three vaccine doses. But I have a few anti-vaxers around in friends and family, and it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them (not talking about the population as a whole). I would like safe and effective vaccines, and I would like to know that the vaccines I have been administered have really got the backing of truly scientific trials. Surely releasing the trial data is a net positive for all the national populations that have paid for it.
  - drukenemo 5y ago
    In your definition, an anti-vaxxer is someone who refuses the covid-19 jab or any jab? If it’s the former, I find that quite disingenuous.
  - miles 5y ago
    > it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them That is especially hard since there is simply no way to know for sure whether the vaccine will be "totally safe and effective for them": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206892 .
  - Fogest 5y ago
    This is my thing as well. I work at vaccine clinics and obviously am onboard with the vaccines, however I still feel bad helping administer these vaccines to people who are hesitant. Because of government vaccine mandates or employer vaccine mandates it has made some people who come in feeling "forced" to get a vaccine. And it honestly does not feel like this is the proper scientific or medical way. It sucks to give someone a vaccine when you know they aren't fully trusting in the science behind it. A lot of people are having to choose whether they put uproot their whole families and lose their jobs, or whether they just go and get the vaccine. They are not technically forced, but it honestly seems like it pretty much is. For me it does not feel morally right to have people who feel forced to make medical decisions they don't agree with without even having access to the raw data that would help indicate it's safe. And it doesn't help that there have been multiple leaks now regarding companies like Pfizer that have made them appear even more shady. Not to mention Pfizers multiple billion dollar lawsuits/fines in the past. I don't blame some people for being skeptical, nor do I blame them for feeling like they are forced to get something they aren't sure they can trust. It's hard to just trust an organization that has already done multiple things in the past to make you not want to trust them. The cases that feel even worse for me are the people who have had previous doses and are coming in for 2nd doses or boosters but have had previous unexplained side effects shortly after the doses. Like side effects that are beyond the "normal" ones. Many of these people have visited hospitals or their family doctors, had multiple tests, and get told that nothing is wrong, or that they are not sure what is wrong. And these kind of cases are often not counted an "adverse effect". I alone have had many people tell me these things. They often again feel forced to get the next dose because of pressure from their employer or government. And it just feels bad giving them the vaccine, because they don't sound anti-vaxx, they sound like they legitimately had a severe reaction to the vaccine. But often doctors and public health agencies will brush these incidents off and pretend like it's not because of the vaccine. They are dismissed and considered an anti-vaxxer making things up. And this really sucks. This is not the way medicine should work.
- epgui 5y ago
  I'm a biochemist, and I'm as pro-vaccine as they come. The BMJ is a highly reputable journal. It's unfortunate that the anti-vaxx idiots are misinterpreting or decontextualizing their content, but that's the anti-vaxx's fault and it's what they've always done.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    Would it be so hard to state the limitations of their investigation, and clearly explain that a few key misconceptions are incorrect? Based on their original censored article, it seems like they're heavily invested to make things seem problematic, and carefully avoid any indication that the status quo is acceptable. I don't think it's purely misinterpretation when anti vax people become generally skeptical of govt and pharma corps. Like could they not just say the vaccine is safe in these articles based on other evidence? They care about people being able to share their posts to Facebook, I can't understand why they aren't trying even a little to reduce the possibility for public misinterpretation.
    - epgui 5y ago
      They were not putting into question the safety of vaccines, that issue was tangential. I know the article has the literal words "patient safety" and raises potential safety concerns, but that all has to be read in full context: advocating for better data controls and better rigour in research. It might seem obvious to you that the article would be misinterpreted or parts of it taken out of context by a lay public, but scientific publications are meant to be read mainly by other scientists, and this paper was written with that specific public in mind. Even if this was intended as official public health communication, which it wasn't, public health communication is an absolute nightmare of a minefield. There's absolutely nothing you can ever say that won't be misinterpreted or misunderstood by some people, and the game is all about minimizing the potential for that. It's easier said than done. (And again, this paper was meant to be shared among expert colleagues in the field.)
      - srcreigh 5y ago
        Considering that BMJ made an entire article objecting to FB fact checking BMJ for public audiences [0], I really have to disagree that the article was only meant for expert eyes. Given that, a few disclaimers and limitations to help quell public misinterpretation is required. Not to do so is irresponsible. [0]: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
I cannot recommend that article. Science exists in a realm of science, just because a major medical organisation is misunderstood dosen't make them 'antivaxxers'. BMJ is asking for open data, something I think many people here could utilise and find value in.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > Science exists in a realm of science, What does this mean? That article is very specific, and is not sensational. He's been complaining about the BMJ for some time, and not just about these vaccines. edit: open data is fine and good. The BMJ demanding it here is intentional sensationalism and part of a continuing pattern. Incidentally, emember that antivax wasn't even a thing until The Lancet unleashed it on the world. Journals are often badly behaved in order to make headlines.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]