An Obituary for the BMJ: Once Fearsome Watchdog Brought to Heel by Pharma and Government

The avalanche of bad science that accompanied the Covid pandemic has brought long-standing problems with biomedical journals to the fore. The issues are many and are summarised by Peter Gøtzsche in an honest account, which he calls an Odyssey. We would call it a tragedy.

We will not repeat Peter’s words as his vivid description is probably a testament to what was once a great journal. Those who have followed the antiviral series will wonder why we seem to be writing an obituary for the BMJ. In reality, the obituary has been written by the very people who run it. 

From 2009, the BMJ helped us uncover and publicise the gross exaggerations, bias and manipulation surrounding neuraminidase inhibitors. It actively campaigned to get Roche to release the data. It even built a web page to allow us to shed light on the deep biases of organisations like WHO, U.S. CDC, EMA and ECDC. Soon after the campaign’s conclusion, though, things started to change, and it became increasingly difficult and finally impossible to publish anything that seemed critical of the establishment.

One of the BMJ‘s spin-offs, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (once Carl had left as Editor-in-Chief), even allowed anonymous persons to launch personal attacks under the guise of peer reviewers with the Editor’s acquiescence.

And what should one say about the BMJ editorial decision to publish an article accusing Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharyya and Carl of causing harm by sticking to evidence on the matter of Covid? Particularly when it was written by two men with no background of work on respiratory viruses.

Or what should we think of authoritarian articles such as this one, which contains statements such as: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, several groups have been active in opposing evidence-based public health measures.” It then goes on to suggest that the Hallett Inquiry should look at Government weaknesses, which have allowed misinformation and “contrarian views” to spread. 

So Gøtzsche’s arguments are authentic, and we could think of scores of similar episodes happening to us or colleagues at the hands of editors of big journals. Indeed, think of the repeated undermining by the Cochrane Editor-in-Chief of the most accessed Cochrane review of all time.

In the 1990s, journals like BMJ, JAMA and the Lancet were part of a network of research that we have described – research into their own practices and those of the journal industry.

How things have changed. This is where platforms like Substack are gradually taking over the communication role. Yes, there is no pre-publication peer review – there are readers’ comments, but peer review has never been shown to identify good quality research. It is a habit, an untested process with no clear objectives and measures so far. It may do what it says on the tin, but we do not know for sure. However, it is used by editors as a shield, a Teflon mantel, hiding the reality: subjectivity in making decisions.

At present, neither of us can be bothered to go through the pantomime described by Peter Gøtzsche. We prefer to communicate through Trust the Evidence. Why? There is no censorship, no distortions, no personal attacks, and we get direct communication and engagement with our readers.

Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack, Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.