Talk:The BMJ

	This Alternative medicine related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Diet topics

@DietResearcher if you'd like you can write a section about their coverage of diet topics. I can do it if you don't want to, but I figured you would know more about that aspect.

By the way, apparently that James DiNicolantonio guy you mentioned at the saloon bar before still works for Open Heart as an associate editor. He never left. His LinkedIn indicates he's been there since 2013. Chillpilled (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also of potential interest: https://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/09/never-a-dull-moment-the-bmjs-attack-on-the-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee-report/

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/28/bmj-corrects-controversial-critique-of-us-dietary-guidelines-report/

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/29/following-criticism-bmj-clarifies-dietary-guidelines-investigation/

https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/23/bmj-wont-retract-controversial-dietary-guidelines-article-says-author/

https://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/02/bmj-wont-retract-controversial-dietary-guidelines-article-issues-lengthy-correction/

https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/23/9389391/us-dietary-guidelines-flawed-investigation-bmj-medical-journal

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/26/9616122/bmj-nina-teicholz-dietary-guidelines-correction-investigation

https://theconversation.com/expert-is-as-expert-does-in-defence-of-us-dietary-guidelines-48007

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bullet-holes-in-dietary-guidance-the-bmjs-reputation_b_5846b560e4b0e0184289f0ad Chillpilled (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

DiNicolantonio is no longer the associate editor of BMJ's Open Heart journal, perhaps he just hasn't updated his personal profiles yet. If you check the editorial board, his name was removed [1]. Nina Teicholz needs a RW article. 46.101.94.92 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is an old archived page from 2017 of the above link I cited [2], DiNicolantonio name was on it back then. He's kept all this quiet but I suspect he was booted out. He's been writing a lot of crazy stuff on Twitter. 46.101.94.92 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same editorial board page? There are two columns there. Chillpilled (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The IP above has sadly made a mistake, if you read the present editorial board list he is still listed on there as an associate editor. The BMJ has mostly gone to shit. That guy has written books with anti vaxxers. 82.132.235.60 (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on the BMJ at this point. However I do see them publishing things that I take no issue with still, it's just they're also publishing garbage alongside it. I think that if I scrutinized JAMA, NEJM or the Lancet enough I would probably find things going wrong over there too (Wakefield's fraud appeared in the Lancet after all), but I'm convinced at this point that BMJ is probably at the bottom of the top 4 and their choices in picking editors has had a lot to do with it. I'll have plenty to add to this page soon, especially BMJ stuff regarding vaccines, COVID-19, and as it happens, COVID-19 vaccines. They have an editor who's known as antivaccine adjacent who David Gorski has written about for some time. The acupuncture section is not really even finished yet. Chillpilled (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Trans topics

I know the "Too far, too fast?" section is currently a bit underdeveloped. Block's article has already received multiple responses because it was published online last month. Abbasi's piece only dropped a few days ago and so I imagine responses will be forthcoming. Abbasi's article did get a favourable write-up in the Daily Heil though. Nope Rocket (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You could try contacting Science-Based Medicine about it if you want to. They may or may not have seen it already and they have covered trans topics in the past. They also may or may not find it worth commenting on. I thought about looking for how to contact them about it and sending them a few main points regarding Block's commentary (such as the Florida study being commissioned by a medical body stacked with CMA members) but wasn't going to bother, personally. Thanks for writing the bulk of that section by the way, else I would have had to do it. Chillpilled (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe we could directly rebut his claims as long as the counterarguments were reasoned and evidenced. But I'm not feeling that ambitious at the moment. Building criticism sections out of other peoples' quotes is just my own personal article-writing strategy. There's some critical replies to the promo tweet for the article. Nope Rocket (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving the main space

I think it's ready ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. Although I like that draftspace allows me to keep empty sections for some time. No rush, right? Though I don't mind too much. Chillpilled (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's ready when you are. Bongolian (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's ready too. @Chillpilled You can keep adding to it while it's in mainspace and use <!--- --> to hide unfinished sections or headings of sections that are completely blank.Spud (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Peter Doshi

The fact that the BMJ might well have a germ theory denier as a top editor is insane. To be fair I'm not aware of him writing such garbage in recent years. But he's still JAQing about vaccines constantly. I knew from editing the germ theory denialism article that the anti-vaccination movement feeds into that community, but I just viewed it as almost a mere curiosity, albeit one that had grown a worrying amount due to COVID. I never expected they may have sympathizers in such high places in mainstream medicine. Chillpilled (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)