Donald Trump's NIH Pick Just Launched a Controversial Scientific Journal The journal’s editorial board includes multiple scientists, such as Trump health nominees Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makary, who opposed Covid public health measures. www.wired.com/story/... 1/5 - ThreadSky

marcveld.bsky.social • 18 days ago

Donald Trump's NIH Pick Just Launched a Controversial Scientific Journal

The journal’s editorial board includes multiple scientists, such as Trump health nominees Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makary, who opposed Covid public health measures.

https://www.wired.com/story/trump-nih-pick-launched-controversial-scientific-journal/

1/5

Comments

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

"Some experts are worried that the journal, which has links to the right-wing news site RealClearPolitics, could become a scientific mouthpiece for the Trump administration and a platform that these experts allege could publish dubious research."

Exactly this. It makes papers political pieces

2/5

zachhensel.bsky.social•18 days ago

LOL “links” — it’s the tax exempt part of the same company

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

“This seems like more of a club newsletter than a scientific journal,”

In its bylaws, the Academy of Public Health says only members can publish in the new journal. To join, you must be nominated by a current member.

It makes Science a team "sport", it polarises.
3/5

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

“If you can create the illusion that there is not a predominance of opinion that says, vaccines and masks are effective ways of controlling the pandemic, then you can undermine that notion of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, and you can push a particular agenda forward,”
4/5

rwjdingwall.bsky.social•18 days ago

There is a colourable difference between the evidence on masks and on vaccines. The mask evidence goes back a lot further and is more rigorous. Covid vaccine evidence is necessarily hastily assembled, although there is good evidence that other vaccines (e.g HPV) have been very effective.

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

Hmmm... so do COVID-19 vaccines, as in data obtained in 2020, induce qualitative antibody production? Do COVID-19 vaccines, as in data obtained in 2020, induce good CD4 Th1 and CD8 T cell responses?

If they do, what could possibly be the role of this response?

rwjdingwall.bsky.social•18 days ago

Fair points - but you refer to data *obtained* in 2020. I observed expert committees much of that year and uncertainty, especially about T cells was manifest. Also need to allow for the insistence on reinventing every wheel for Covid response and dismissing all prior knowledge/planning.

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

Furthermore, is research into mRNA vaccines for decades, with accelerated discoveries in the 1980, the 00s, pre-clinical trial testing in the 00-10s and human testing in the 2010, with extensive testing of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from March 2020, really hastily?

thinkfungus.bsky.social•18 days ago

No, that’s the exact opposite.
The evidence supporting that Covid vaccines are effective is enormous and a lot more rigorous than for masks. Probably the most thoroughly studied of all time.

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

“I don’t think this is going to give them any credit with real scientists. But the public may not know the difference between the Journal of the Academy of Public Health and the New England Journal of Medicine,”

With thanks to @ellevonhee.bsky.social for the notification.
5/5

thinkfungus.bsky.social•18 days ago

Academia (here I am talking about the US only, it doesn’t apply to your institution) is partly responsible for that.
Until US universities seriously confront their complicity in creating a toxic environment that reflected a deeper moral failure, the situation is unlikely to improve.

tweet-by-sea.bsky.social•18 days ago

This pseudo scientific journal is as you say a tool for the far right conspiracy theorists.

Now they have 'a source' to link to - 'owning the libs', undermining scientific consensus.

marcopiani.bsky.social•18 days ago

Of note: submissions are not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. All submissions (by the “authorized” members) get published unless out of scope or defamatory. The associated peer reviews are more commentaries than anything else. Yet they write “peer-reviewed”.

marcveld.bsky.social•18 days ago

Yes, also that. It undermines any quality controls. A dangerous development and "club".

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply