Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by fabian2k on Thursday January 20, 2022 @06:12AM (#30007400)

For scientific papers I have a reasonably good idea what a competent reviewer would do. It's a lot less than what many non-scientists seem to think when they read "peer review", you can't rely entirely on it but it's a useful indicator.

Investigative reporting on how a clinical trial was performed requires a different skill set and also a very different attitude.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by NoPie on Thursday January 20, 2022 @06:29AM (#30007551)

In any case, the point of the article to raise a concern, not prove something. FDA is responsible for overseeing this. So far, it appears that were some irregularities with Ventavia and now they might be resolved.

The article never said that this invalidated all Pfizer trial data or anything. But concern was justified and the article was needed to ensure better oversight.

[ Parent | on HN ]