https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1dpr22k/during_the_covid_pandemic_the_british_medical/

During the COVID pandemic, the British Medical Journal massively
published zero COVID zealot views & seldom the other side
The BMJ failed to live up to the role of a scientific journal & revealed
the editors' bias

VINAY PRASAD
JUN 27, 2024
A new preprint is out now and it is damning. It shows the British
Medical Journal failed to foster debates about COVID 19 policies and
instead sided with the most irrational, zero COVID zealots, massively
publishing views supporting unproven restrictions. They took sides,
betraying their duty as a medical journal, and ended up on the wrong
side of history. Check it out.

The authors examined who published frequent COVID19 articles/
commentaries and grouped them based on their membership or signatory
among known advocacy groups. UK signers of the great barrington
declaration naturally supported fewer restrictions. And members of
independent SAGE favored more restrictions. The figure below compares
authors in the BMJ who published 5 or more BMJ papers (left) vs. those
who published 10 or more (center) against scientists in the UK who
published the MOST articles on COVID19 irrespective of journal. Wow!

As you can see, the BMJ was preferentially publishing people with
extreme views about maximal restrictions and this did not reflect the
underlying attitudes among the most published scientists— i.e. those
most interested in COVID. (Right)

Now for the most damning figure

The tall black bar are pro-restriction authors publishing opinions
during COVID. The figure shows that during the pandemic, scientists with
the most extreme views— including the delusional idea that covid could
be eradicated if we all abided by restrictions, i.e. zero covid,
published massively more opinion pieces.

The authors tested their theory with 5 control groups and in all cases
they find a huge bias with ORs that make smoking look like a modest risk
factor!

What is going on?

The BMJ like all medical journals has a duty to showcase the range of
opinions among all scientists, and foster debate on controversial,
unprecedented policy at time of crisis. It is not supposed to merely be
a reflection of the biases and fear of the editorial staff.

Sadly, the BMJ failed. It was a one-sided fear mongering compelation of
articles. Editorial leadership should be questioned.

Why did the BMJ fail?

The answer is simple. The BMJ is an extreme progressive organization.
They force drug makers to share data if they publish, and have
transparent peer-review. Sometimes, being very progressive is helpful—
if a policy is an advance. I think they were ahead of the curve on
data-sharing, for e.g.

But lacking voices with a range of views really gets you in trouble when
progressives stupidly latched on the most insane COVID19 policies—
masking toddlers, closing schools, and thinking that if we all wore n95s
for 3 weeks covid would vanish. Progressives did this not because they
wanted to help poor people— these policies hurt the poor— but because
Donald Trump wanted the opposite, and most progressives lack the ability
to independently think about issues, instead reflexively opposing their
enemy.

The BMJ’s extreme political bias meant that on COVID19 it was little
more than a rag during the pandemic— completely missing the big picture
and promoting policies that did massive harm. Sadly, they have not
course corrected and still publish COVID19 drivel.

It’s a shame because the real progressive policy of the pandemic was
best captured by the GBD. They wanted schools open for poor kids.

Michael Ejercito wrote:

>https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1dpr22k/during_the_covid_pandemic_the_british_medical/
>
>
>During the COVID pandemic, the British Medical Journal massively
>published zero COVID zealot views & seldom the other side
>The BMJ failed to live up to the role of a scientific journal & revealed
>the editors' bias
>
>VINAY PRASAD
>JUN 27, 2024
>A new preprint is out now and it is damning. It shows the British
>Medical Journal failed to foster debates about COVID 19 policies and
>instead sided with the most irrational, zero COVID zealots, massively
>publishing views supporting unproven restrictions. They took sides,
>betraying their duty as a medical journal, and ended up on the wrong
>side of history. Check it out.
>
>
>The authors examined who published frequent COVID19 articles/
>commentaries and grouped them based on their membership or signatory
>among known advocacy groups. UK signers of the great barrington
>declaration naturally supported fewer restrictions. And members of
>independent SAGE favored more restrictions. The figure below compares
>authors in the BMJ who published 5 or more BMJ papers (left) vs. those
>who published 10 or more (center) against scientists in the UK who
>published the MOST articles on COVID19 irrespective of journal. Wow!
>
>
>As you can see, the BMJ was preferentially publishing people with
>extreme views about maximal restrictions and this did not reflect the
>underlying attitudes among the most published scientists— i.e. those
>most interested in COVID. (Right)
>
>Now for the most damning figure
>
>
>The tall black bar are pro-restriction authors publishing opinions
>during COVID. The figure shows that during the pandemic, scientists with
>the most extreme views— including the delusional idea that covid could
>be eradicated if we all abided by restrictions, i.e. zero covid,
>published massively more opinion pieces.
>
>The authors tested their theory with 5 control groups and in all cases
>they find a huge bias with ORs that make smoking look like a modest risk
>factor!
>
>What is going on?
>
>The BMJ like all medical journals has a duty to showcase the range of
>opinions among all scientists, and foster debate on controversial,
>unprecedented policy at time of crisis. It is not supposed to merely be
>a reflection of the biases and fear of the editorial staff.
>
>Sadly, the BMJ failed. It was a one-sided fear mongering compelation of
>articles. Editorial leadership should be questioned.
>
>Why did the BMJ fail?
>
>The answer is simple. The BMJ is an extreme progressive organization.
>They force drug makers to share data if they publish, and have
>transparent peer-review. Sometimes, being very progressive is helpful—
>if a policy is an advance. I think they were ahead of the curve on
>data-sharing, for e.g.
>
>But lacking voices with a range of views really gets you in trouble when
>progressives stupidly latched on the most insane COVID19 policies—
>masking toddlers, closing schools, and thinking that if we all wore n95s
>for 3 weeks covid would vanish. Progressives did this not because they
>wanted to help poor people— these policies hurt the poor— but because
>Donald Trump wanted the opposite, and most progressives lack the ability
>to independently think about issues, instead reflexively opposing their
>enemy.
>
>The BMJ’s extreme political bias meant that on COVID19 it was little
>more than a rag during the pandemic— completely missing the big picture
>and promoting policies that did massive harm. Sadly, they have not
>course corrected and still publish COVID19 drivel.
>
>It’s a shame because the real progressive policy of the pandemic was
>best captured by the GBD. They wanted schools open for poor kids.

In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).

Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

(BMJ) 06/28/24 Again not a LoosePeeledDisgustingMemoryQuackBigot ...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/Ai33hw5PINI/m/wytVpY68MwAJ

Instead be "woke" to the sin of racial prejudice:

https://tinyurl.com/JesusIsWoke (i.e. not a Nazi bigot) *and* risen!!!