The article was a report based on information from a whistleblower about poor clinical trial practices occurring at a contract research company involved in the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial.
Whenever others have tried to link to the article from Facebook, the link is tagged with a warning about the article being misleading because of "missing context". The BMJ insists the information is accurate, and that the fact-checking company failed to identify any errors, relying solely on assurances from Pfizer.
This is yet another example of the arbitrary power to control information being exercised by social media companies. When the BMJ sought intervention from Meta (the renamed Facebook parent) they were referred back to the fact-checker, Lead Stories. It would be fascinating to know the qualifications of the employees of Lead Stories that makes them think they are fit to censor medical journalists.
Just another example of the arbitrary power of social media to control access to information.
Excerpts Read the article Discuss the article View in graph
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.”
The BMJ contacted Lead Stories, asking it to remove its article. It declined. The author of the article, Dean Miller, replied to say that Lead Stories was not responsible for Facebook’s actions.