The BMJ article is light on conclusions and is mostly just a report of facts. In the way of true conclusions I can find these:
> Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.
> for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety
Which of these conclusions do you think make zero sense? The entire rest of the article looks like a recitation of facts to me.
> Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.
> for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety
Which of these conclusions do you think make zero sense? The entire rest of the article looks like a recitation of facts to me.