Inadvertent is no excuse and adding that "context" to the statement would tend to be misinformation as its not a valid excuse in the context of clinical trials governed by strict policy. Its "we followed policy" or "we failed to follow policy", FDA is not equipped to audit the entirety of all locations and there is a hell of a lot of trust involved. Pfizer getting their bell rung over these infractions should be expected and appreciated not refuted.
The complete story of what happened is never misinformation. Greater and more complete sets of facts, un-editorialized, is the basis from which we draw out conclusions.
That you view something through a certain binary lens does not make that the only valid lens through which the scientific community and the public will perceive something. An article that purports to be "just the facts" must report just that, the complete facts and context as best they are known. An article that is correctly represented as an editorialized opinion may do whatever it pleases. The BMJ in this instance is purporting to be the former, while carrying out the latter.
I don't have a problem with the opinion Pfizer should be pursued or have "their bell rung" or whatever. I have a problem with willfully ignoring what the BMJ has done here, which is to use their reputation as a factual medical authority to push spin and then have the audacity to express outrage at being called out for that.
"The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying and Ignored Reports of Flaws in Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials"
Did the original article claim trial disqualification? It's like pointing out a rotting foundation and someone says "Hey that's not fair! The house is still standing!" Who is doing the editorializing?
