Complaint
This episode of the series examined claims by Dr Aseem Malhotra that mRNA Covid19 vaccines pose risks to health. A listener complained about the programme鈥檚 treatment of a scientific study, 鈥淪erious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials鈥, which has been cited by Dr Malhotra as supporting his claims. Following a contribution from the epidemiologist Dr Victoria Male, who expressed scepticism about some of the conclusions drawn from the study, the presenter of the programme said 鈥淭he authors were specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used to make the kind of claims Dr Malhotra is making鈥. The listener said the paper鈥檚 lead author had stated there had been no such instruction, and asked the ECU to consider whether the programme had treated the paper and its conclusions with due accuracy and handled Dr Malhotra鈥檚 claims with due impartiality.
Outcome
The most recent version of the paper includes the statement that 鈥淥ur study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs鈥, which warranted the observation that it should not be used to support the kind of claims Dr Malhotra makes. However, the paper does not say whether this was added as a result of advice or instruction. The presenter鈥檚 formulation was based on what Dr Male had said in her interview, and she explained subsequently that, having compared the pre- and post-peer review versions of the paper and noted the way in which its original claims had been toned down, she had made the assumption that the peer reviewers had requested the changes. However, she acknowledged the possibility that the authors of the paper had made the changes independently, without being asked to. The ECU considered that, while the authors might have grounds for disputing the presenter鈥檚 comment, any inaccuracy in that respect would have been immaterial to listeners鈥 understanding of the point at issue, which was that the paper, after peer review, does not provide support for Dr Malhotra鈥檚 claims. The ECU therefore did not uphold the complaint in relation to due accuracy.
In relation to impartiality, the listener complained that the programme presented Dr Malhotra as 鈥渢he claimant to be corrected and institutional science as adjudicating authority鈥. As Dr Malhotra鈥檚 claims about mRNA vaccines were the basis for this episode, it was to be expected that the programme followed a method of claim followed by informed analysis. In addition, the ECU noted that the presenter had referred the criticisms of Dr Malhotra鈥檚 claims back to him for a reaction. The ECU therefore saw no basis for concluding the programme had fallen short of due impartiality.
Not upheld