The BMJ, once a bastion of evidence-based medicine, has become disturbingly susceptible to publishing biased “investigations” that feed antivax narratives. Its latest report on VAERS by Jennifer Block, who in the past has defended Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop and whose history is not one of supporting science, is just another example of this deterioration.
Paul Thacker proclaims, “Vaccines are magic!” and likens them to religion that you can’t criticize. This is an old antivax narrative that he’s now parroting.
The BMJ’s outgoing editor Fiona Godlee and incoming editor wrote open letter to Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook’s labeling Paul Thacker’s conspiracy-filled Pfizer story as lacking context. It did not go well. Actually, it was downright embarrassing.
The BMJ recently published an “exposé” by Paul Thacker alleging patient unblinding, data falsification, and other wrongdoing by a subcontractor. It was a highly biased story embraced by antivaxxers, with a deceptively framed narrative and claims not placed into proper context, leading me to look into the broader question: WTF happened to The BMJ? (Updated and revised from a week ago.)
In his eagerness to attack skeptics for what, in the wake of reports of blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he sees as “vaccine cheerleading,” anti-GMO hack Paul Thacker has inadvertently amplified antivaccine messaging. Or was it inadvertent?
