In print since 1840, The BMJ, as it is now known, is one of the civilized world's oldest peer-reviewed medical journals, but even this publication is no longer immune from being attacked by the global-corporate media censors when the outlet publishes information outside of the 'allowable' groupthink when it comes to COVID-19.
In November, The BMJ published a piece detailing allegations made by a whistleblower who exposed Pfizer's shoddy, curb-cutting "pivotal" research that allowed the vaccine maker to quickly get its jab authorized for emergency use in the United States. Specifically, according to a summary of the article, "Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight."
The piece noted that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla pledged in the fall of 2020, "As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science," in updating the world on when we could expect his company's vaccine to be approved.
But, as The BMJ reported, "speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety."
The legacy journal added:
A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.
After the article, a Facebook-contracted "fact-checker" called "Lead Stories" published what amounted to a hit piece that contained no actual refutations of the information provided in The BMJ whistleblower article, just some nefarious references to unnamed medical "experts" and other pabulum -- no actual data refuting the whistleblower's claims. In fact, the 'fact-check' piece was absurdly headlined: "Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials."
Among Lead Story's claims:
- “Medical experts say the claims aren’t serious enough to discredit data from the clinical trials.” ('Medical experts?' Which 'medical experts'? Shouldn't fact-checkers get them on record? Of course they should, so right away, this smells like BS.)
- “The FDA said… that the allegations don’t change the agency’s assessment of the vaccine’s safety.” (So what? That doesn't mean the whistleblower is wrong. This is typical smoke/mirrors.)
- “A spokesperson for Texas-based Ventavia Research Group wrote in a November 10, 2021, email to Lead Stories that BMJ did not seek comment in advance of the report. (Again, so what? Pfizer would have simply denied the allegations.) If it had, it would have been told the employee’s report was investigated but found wanting.” (Define 'found wanting.' Again, this is not a refutation of the employee's claims.)
The BMJ's editors fired off a letter to Facebook's founder and CEO, 2020 election-fixer Mark Zuckerberg, listing all of the nonsensical non-fact-checks contained in Lead Story's report, demanding that the platform remove the 'fact-check' and allow the article to be shared again. Also, the editors ripped the hit piece as “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible":
- “It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong.”
- “It has a nonsensical 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 inaccurately labels The BMJ a ‘news blog'.”
- “It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating ‘Flaws Reviewed,’ despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article.”
- “It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase ‘hoax-alert'.”
Needless to say, nothing has been done about the phony fact-check, and honestly, it's unlikely that anything will be done. But The BMJ has expertly exposed the real hoax here, which is the social media behemoth's role in serving as info-gatekeeper for the globalist deep state.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
