Federal Prosecutor Fires Off Letter To Medical Journals Asking About Their Policies On ‘Competing Viewpoints’
from the prepping-for-anti-vax-propaganda dept
Another day, another new bit of ugliness from the Trump Administration. What was first reported by MedPage Today appears to be the initial wave of attacks on medical journals for preferring scientific rigor to splashing around in the swampier parts of the marketplace of ideas.
A federal prosecutor sent a letter to a medical journal editor, probing whether the publication is “partisan” when it comes to “various scientific debates.”
Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a list of questions to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, asking how the journal handles “misinformation” and “competing viewpoints,” among other things.
MedPage Today has learned that at least two other journals have received similar letters.
The language is coded, but definitely not clever. Composed by a DOJ prosecutor perhaps best known for his hundred-plus appearances on Russian state-owned media outlets, the letter [PDF] is full of phrases that make it clear at least one federal prosecutor is interested in deterring scientific rebuttals to the parade of horrors that will be emanating from RFK Jr.’s Dept. of Health and Humans Services over the next few years.
Martin’s letter claims “more and more” scientific journals and publications are “conceding they are partisans in various scientific debates.” He alludes to possible federal crimes being committed by these journals if they are “advocating due to advertisement” (which Martin links to the postal code) or sponsorship (which Martin pretends might have something to do with federal fraud laws). In order to find targets for his prosecutorial attention, Martin asks every journal receiving this letter to respond to the following questions:
How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation?
How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relationships with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?
Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?
How do you assess the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Insitutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?
How do you handle allegations that authors of your work in your journals may have misled their readers?I am also interested to now if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints. Are there new norms being developed or authored?
These are pretty weird questions to be asking scientific journal publishers. These are exceptionally weird questions for a federal prosecutor to be asking scientific journal publishers. While there are certainly valid concerns about AI involvement in crafting scientific reports, along with some pay-to-play operations that undermine the scientific community in general, it’s generally accepted that these publishers usually publish work that has been subjected to peer review and scientific method best practices.
What this letter sounds like is a very vague threat that prosecutors will start hassling journals that refuse to publish unscientific garbage that appears to support the multiple conspiracy theories pushed by Trump, RFK Jr., and far too many of their supporters. It also suggests that if journals don’t cozy up to the Trump quacks, whatever NIH funding that still somehow exists post-DOGE will vanish completely. It would be worrying enough if this letter had been issued by the HHS. That it came from a federal prosecutor is legitimately horrifying.
Once again, the party of free speech and alleged participant in the marketplace of ideas is showing that it only thinks speech it agrees with should be “free” and that the marketplace of ideas should only offer up ideas it likes. At the very least, this letter has the chance to push some journals into self-censorship, limiting dissemination of studies and essays publishers know don’t align with the Trump Administration’s deep disdain for established scientific principles. And once that end of the idea marketplace begins to dry up, the administration will do all it can to fill the void in the market with bad science, bad ideas, and children’s corpses.
Filed Under: censorship, dc, doj, ed martin, edward martin jr, marketplace of ideas, nih, science
Companies: chest, cleveland clinic
Comments on “Federal Prosecutor Fires Off Letter To Medical Journals Asking About Their Policies On ‘Competing Viewpoints’”
Down with 'Just because you have a lab coat doesn't mean you're doing science' dogma!
I for one look forward to the new Golden Age of American Science, where competing viewpoints like the size and age of the earth, whether it really is possible to make gold out of lead through a complex application of exotic chemicals, and the involvement of storks in childbirth are given equal weight and time with more ‘traditional’ entrench beliefs.
Re:
Let’s not forget the debate between the scientific theory of evolution, which has entire books devoted to the evidence behind that theory, and the “scientific ‘theory’ ” of intelligent design, which has exactly zero proof beyond “trust me, bro”.
Also:
I hear that alchemy is real, but it costs an arm and a leg to pull off.
Re: Re:
It’s not that difficult to make gold these days, you just need a particle accelerator, some Hg-198 (mercury isotope) and whole lotta time and energy to produce 1mg of Au-196 (stable gold isotope) a year per 1kW of beam power, the amount of energy needed to produce said beam is many magnitudes higher though.
I don’t know what the going price is for an arm and a leg these days, but I surmise it’s miniscule compared to the cost of running said particle accelerator and I guess such things doesn’t matter any more since it seems some think that factual science is something bad that should be attacked and preferable silenced because it doesn’t reflect their warped and fact-free view of reality.
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody respects the classics any more. 🙃
Re:
Nowadays, scientific debates are decided by the President with an Executive Order.
A competing viewpoint article would be one that says the first article was wrong because they repeated the firsts experiments and got different results.
I’m not scientist but my response would pretty much be:
Better than you.
Much better than you.
Depend who define this “viewpoints” competition rules.
Until now, pretty fine. This may change.
I let the whole scientific community decide who is a charlatan.
Only if you’re forcing me.
Cheers.
Re: Well Done!
I hope you get comment of the week!
It may be apocryphal, but...
“And yet it moves” is still the best response ever given to anti-science fanatics.
‘Are you guys giving the humours, phrenelogy, reparative therapy. chiropracty, reiki, homeopathy, faith healing, the works of Charles Murray and so on equal page space to actual science? If so we’re coming for you. We’re not sure how we’re going to, but we’re looking for ammunition to pollute medical science with raw sewage the same way we have everything else we’ve touched.’
The GOP is not to blame for everything
Prosecutors are not political employees but career personnel. Their job is to advance justice on behalf of the American people independent of party affiliation; so blaming a political party for a potentially rogue prosecutor’s behavior is out of line.
Wait, is it 2025 already? My, how the time flies. Forget what I just said, I was lost in the past for a moment.
I suppose adding an astrology column might help placate these bird brains.
“I am the science”, meet “I am the anti-science.”
Happy to help
Our responsibilities are to accept only peer-reviewed articles from practitioners in the field, who have demonstrated academic training and knowledge in the field sufficient to earn one or more advanced degree(s) from reputable institutions.
When credible and articulate issues are raised by knowledgeable persons (see above) to our attention, our panel of experts may review the issue and we will handle the results appropriately.
Our viewpoints are irrelevant. We publish on-topic submissions that—again—have gone through the peer-review process.
See the first answer. We welcome academically-rigorous submissions. Submissions from laypersons, those that have no advanced degrees in the article’s subject field and those that have not been peer-reviewed are welcome to submit their articles to 4chan. Oh, sorry, too soon?
Subjects and topics are beneficial to the public rit large, and which may require resources only available from the government are important beneficiaries of government funding.
If you happen to be confused as to whether “the government” can influence the publication of articles that serve some sort of “deep state” interests, please read our first answer, or seek out someone with a command of English reading comprehension to explain it to you.
If the allegation is from a recognized expert in the subject, and they present evidence supporting their allegations, we will take it seriously.
You might, perhaps, educate yourself on the scientific method, as your utter and total lack of knowledge is apparent and—frankly—embarrassing.
We expect them to adjusting nothing and continue to use the scientific method.
Again, 4chan or perhaps Trump University would be more appropriate for your views and “theories”.
Re:
Lol. Prosecutors don’t understand evidence of any sort, never mind the scientific method.
Good answers, tho’!
Imagine announcing to the world that you’re this big of an idiot.
Re:
It’s announcing to the nation’s academics “we will come after you for publishing things we don’t like.”
Re: Re:
Sure, but they were going to do that anyways. This is attacking them in literally their strongest position. Anyone who has submitted a paper to a journal knows they will 100% accept a mediocre disagreeing paper before an excellent supporting paper.
I usually respond to things like this with a version of the 1974 Cleveland Browns letter.
This question once again demonstrates that the right wing has an anti-reality bias.
Re:
No, reality still has an anti-rightwing bias. But reality is capable of change.
Why do I suspect that the anti-vax circle jerking peer review “journals” of RFK jr’s anti-vax cult, like “ Science, Public Health Policy and the Law” won’t be getting such letters?
The next letter will be about why the scientific journals keep talking about the round earth when the tRump MAGAts really know that the earth is actually flat.
Re:
No it is a mobius strip shaped.
Oh, that pesky science
Our policy is to give preference to papers submitted by heroin addicts and people suffering from brain worms
Re:
If you are talking about RFK Jr, he wasn’t suffering from a brain worm. It was rather the other way round, with the brain worm finally being killed off by shere vacuousness.
Cruelty to animals it was.
Dear Mr. Martin. Jr,
Thank you for your refreshing letter. In answer to all of your questions, here is a link to our website. https://journal.chestnet.org/ Ten seconds of Googling would have worked for you, but we are sure you are quite busy writing thinly veiled threat letters these days, so we included the link for your convenience. If you have further questions, please hesitate to contact us. If we come up with a need to meet with you, we will certainly come visit your office in NS Ordensburg.
Heil Tangerine!
1. How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation?
Gravely, and directly. The entire purpose of science IS to protect the public from misinformation.
2. How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relationships with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?
In the world of science, viewpoints are changed by observation, evidence, and facts, so I understand why you’re so confused. If, however, there are situations where a published study has been funded by a source that might be affected by the results, then a Conflict of Interests statement is published.
3. Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?
Always. Science is about questioning.
4. How do you assess the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Insitutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?
I assess it tragically. In the past, the Government helped to fund scientific research for the betterment of mankind, and maybe attach the “Made in America” tag to significant breakthroughs. It was a show of faith in good ol’ American Knowhow, not to mention the fulfillment of the will of the American People. Now that the Government has abandoned all of that, and is now pivoting toward a more “customized” return on investment, “tragedy” is the only word.
5. How do you handle allegations that authors of your work in your journals may have misled their readers?
There is only one author of my work, and if you have an allegation about my work, I’m listening.
6. I am also interested to now if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints. Are there new norms being developed or authored?
I do not know if or how other publishers, journals, and organizations are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints. I would assume that they would still be accepting them by hand-delivery, standard mail, private shipping company, or various electronic methods, like email, web based submission, or maybe even ftp. I don’t think those methods of acceptance need to be changed depending on the “viewpoint”.
Re: Re
“Gravely, and directly. The entire purpose of science IS to protect the public from misinformation.”
thats why its so serious that US medical journals are promoting evidence free claims (per BMJ report gender dysphoria in young people is rising and every related gov systematic review every done in the history of the earth) and silencing the army of actual scientists’ voices who are pointing out their flaws.
“the world of science, viewpoints are changed by observation, evidence, and facts, so I understand why you’re so confused. If, however, there are situations where a published study has been funded by a source that might be affected by the results, then a Conflict of Interests statement is published.”
ok then they should have no problem answering this question.
”
Always. Science is about questioning.”
i guess youre not aware that based on the literal boycott of opposing info thats the standard practise of US medical journals, activists claim gender medicine is “settled science”. this claim has made the US a laughing stock world wide as other countries look at evidence and US science journals ban it
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
DOJ asking needed questions
every gov systematic review ever done in the history of the earth found gender meds do not help kids gender dysphoria, mental health or anything else. nothing. none. zero benefit. yet, 100s of studys published by US medical journals claim they do help. systematic reviews found medical journal products misrepresent findings and prevent expert comments.
Re:
I see your comment hasn’t been systematically reviewed and it is also lacking citations which means it is classified as bullshit and can be safely ignored in all aspects.
Have a nice day.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: re
UK medical group BMJ report gender dysphoria in young people explains how theres actually no evidence to claims gender meds help kids. UK gov Cass review looked at 100’s of studys that claim gender meds help kids. they found all of these studys to be of low quality or very low quality. finland did a systematic review and so did sweden. all three countries found gender meds dont help gender dysphoria, mental health or anything else. in the process they found US medical groups are promoting misinformation and preventing speech of actual experts
Re: Re: Re:
You said every government systematic review in history, but just provide anecdotal evidence. Great…
People tend to be more inclined to listen to what you say when you don’t straight up lie and use hyperbole, but you seem hellbent on doing that, so enjoy getting flagged into oblivion here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: re
“Year after year, NEJM has used the Perspectives section to platform only one side in the pediatric gender-medicine debate and to demonize competing viewpoints. It has allowed authors to peddle scientifically false and at times slanderous allegations against their critics, including against highly respected medical professionals.
The most plausible explanation for this is editorial bias”
“In 2023, NEJM published a study by Olson-Kennedy on hormonal treatments for transgender-identified adolescents. Titled “Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones,” the study claimed to find improved mental-health and psychosocial-functioning outcomes among its 315 participants…
A closer look at the study’s data, however, shows nothing of the sort. The boys in the study experienced no improvement. The girls’ improvement was so marginal and of such questionable clinical value that the authors used dubious statistical methods to hide their true results. Almost a third of participants failed to report mental-health outcomes at the two-year follow-up.”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-england-journal-of-medicine-transgender-activists
Re:
This would work better if he was sending letters to journals that deal with treatme ts for gender dysphoria.
But no.. he sent it to a journal for chest doctors.
And even if there is such a bias… and he sent his letters to a journal on related topics. It’s way out of his jurisdiction.. editorial bias in a publication is not a federal crime, it’s not even a crime period, because we have a constitution that prevents lawmakers from making it a crime.
The solution our system of government has chosen for editorial bias, is for the people who the editors are biased against, is to publish their own journal.
Which the existance of anti-vax, and creationist journals show has been done in spades.
This same lloon just fired off a letter to Wikipedia, threatening their tax exempt status if they didn’t demanding they answer his questions about what they do to stop “foreign propaganda” and people “rewriting history”.
And Pro-publica just dug up more on him…
https://www.propublica.org/article/ed-martin-trump-interim-dc-us-attorney-secret-judge-attacks
Why he hasn’t been disbarred yet is beyond me…
The only place Conservatism belongs in science is as a chapter in the DSM-V.
In other words: “We want to know why you’re presenting all of these facts instead of the bare-faced lies that we promote.”