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

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.