Astral Codex Ten

BMJ

4 min read

BMJ

Article

BMJ is a recurring publication in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 4 times across 4 issues between November 17, 2021 and February 01, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “a BMJ article calling it “[the worst] violations of medical ethics and human rights in Brazil’s history””; “This was the conclusion of a cute paper in the BMJ”; “BMJ, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world”. It most often appears alongside Australia, Alexandros Marinos, Aref.

Metadata

  • Category: Publications
  • Mention count: 4
  • Issue count: 4
  • First seen: November 17, 2021
  • Last seen: February 01, 2023

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
November 17, 2021 · Original source
...nd, uh, he’s also studied whether ultra-high-dose antiandrogens treated COVID, and found that they did, cutting mortality by 92% . But the trial is under suspicion, with a BMJ article calling it “[the worst] violations of medical ethics and human rights in Brazil’s history” and “an ethical cesspit of violations”. [update 2022: this section originally contained more accusations against Cadegiani. Alexandros Marinos does a deeper dive with in...
The Phrase "No Evidence" Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication
December 17, 2021 · Original source
...e” and it’s impossible to even give the phrase a consistent meaning. EG: Is there "no evidence" that using a parachute helps prevent injuries when jumping out of planes? This was the conclusion of a cute paper in the BMJ , which pointed out that as far as they could tell, nobody had ever done a study proving parachutes helped. Their point was that "evidence" isn't the same thing as "peer...
Links For February
February 22, 2022 · Original source
36: An interesting recent spat between BMJ and Facebook: BMJ, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world) published some article about poor clinical research practices at a vaccine company. Some anti-vaxxers shared it on Facebook, and Facebook responded by adding their “missing context” tag to the BMJ article. This made the BMJ angry (well, this plus Facebook’s explanation which called the BMJ a “news blog”), so the editors wrote an Open Letter From The BMJ To Mark Zuckerberg, saying “actually, we are one of the most powerful medical establishment institutions in the world, you can’t do this to us”. The fact checker who Facebook subcontracts their censorship decisions to, Lead Stories, then wrote a surprisingly thoughtful response saying: they thought the BMJ article lacked important context, that was all they told Facebook, and they stand by their decision even after learning that the BMJ is much more prestigious and important than they thought. I’m having trouble figuring out what emotions to have here: on the one hand I hate censorship, but on the other hand seeing the BMJ seething at their inability to pull rank is oddly satisfying. Also, this same thing apparently happened around the same time with Instagram and the Cochrane Collaboration.
Inline links: Open Letter From The BMJ To Mark Zuckerberg, a surprisingly thoughtful, Instagram and the Cochrane Collaboration
Response To Alexandros Contra Me On Ivermectin
February 01, 2023 · Original source
No direct inline source block was recovered for this mention.