Why is Ed Martin So Interested in Medical Journal Publication Practices?

Just what the doctor ordered - more lawyers and prosecutors meddling with scientific journals!

Ed Martin, the Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, has sent out a letter to a rather obscure medical journal, "Chest" - a journal published in Illinois by the American College of Chest Physicians and focused on pulmonary and sleep-related medical research[*].  The letter, dated 4/14/2025, was first reported on the website "Medpage Today," and was, apparently, one of at least three that Martin sent out to different medical journals.

The letter raises a number of interesting questions.

1.  Why in God's name is the US Attorney for DC interested in the publication practices of an obscure specialty medical journal published in Illinois?  Is there not enough crime in DC to keep him otherwise fully occupied?
2. Why is the text of the letter such a mishmash of incomprehensible nonsense?

What does it mean - in English - to say that publications like CHEST Journal "are conceding that they … have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations)." [Emphasis added]

Why does it say "I look forward to I look forward to and appreciate your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request"?

Why does Martin begin by declaring that he "receive[s] frequent requests for information and clarification" and that he "take[s] these requests seriously and act[s] on them with letters like this one you are receiving"?  What is he talking about?  Is he implying that he has received a "request for information and clarification" about CHEST's publication practices, and that he "takes the request seriously"?  What does it mean to take a request for information and clarification about medical journal publication practices "seriously"?

I ask these questions not merely to embarrass Mr. Martin and to chide him for - rather unprofessionally - having sent out a letter over his signature that appears to have been neither edited nor proofread. Rather, it makes me wonder: perhaps this letter - like the now-infamous letter to Harvard, in which the Administration presented its astonishing new demands and which led the university to announce that it would not comply with them - was sent out by mistake?    

3. Here's an easier one:  Does the Editor-in-Chief of "CHEST" have any obligation to respond to Mr. Martin's questions?  The answer, of course, is "No, he does not," and if I were CHEST's lawyer, I'd recommend replying to Martin's request with a polite but firm "No." No obligation is (or can be) imposed on the Editor by a letter -- even a letter from a US Attorney - simply requesting information about how he runs his operations. Mr. Martin has plenty of ways to impose such an obligation on the Editor and to get that information via subpoena or warrant if, in fact, he requires it for an investigation his office is conducting or some case his office is prosecuting.

4.  Perhaps most importantly: What is the ultimate purpose - the grand strategy - behind the Administration's war on science and scientific research?  I don't get it. As readers are well aware, there are plenty of Administration policy objectives that I think are unwise, short-sighted, ineffective, or worse.  But in most cases I understand what they're trying to accomplish, and why some people believe they're worth pursuing. Getting rid of the Department of Education, eliminating US foreign aid, opening up more coal-fired electrical plants, loosening/eliminating environmental regulations - they're all terrible ideas (in my opinion), but I get where they're coming from and I understand that there is a viable and coherent point of view behind them, misguided though it may be (in my opinion).

But the war on science makes no sense to me whatsoever; perhaps there are some readers who can enlighten me on that. In what alternate world are we made better off by weakening or crippling our major scientific institutions?  In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc. Why the hostility? Why would anybody want to take them all down?

---

*The most recent issue, for example, contained articles on "Beta-Blockers in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension," "The Role of Bronchial Biopsy in the Prediction of Response to Biologic Therapy in Severe Uncontrolled Asthma," "Risk Factors and Clinical Impact of Severe Pneumothorax After Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction With Endobronchial Valves," and the like.

 

Comments

[Drewski]

Medpage Today is reporting that at least two other medical journals have received similar letters, although it did not name them in its article.

[BBSquatter]

blame the Democrat Judge in New Mexico because ...you know.... dem Judges can't help themselves when it comes to breaking the law. It's all part of the Resistance™

David Post will likely be writing an in-detail analysis of this travesty of judicial miscarriage, knowing Post is always "fair & balanced". But in the event he is tripping on his TDS (since January 2025), here's the 411:

You're welcome DP

Democrat Judge Resigns After Suspected Tren De Aragua Gangbanger Arrested At His Home

A New Mexico Democrat judge resigned after an illegal migrant suspected of being a Tren de Aragua gang member was arrested at his residence.

Dona Ana County Magistrate Judge Jose “Joel” Cano resigned from the bench shortly after Cristhian Ortega-Lopez was arrested by federal authorities in March, according to the Albuquerque Journal. Ortega-Lopez, a 23-year-old Venezuelan national, is accused of being an illegal migrant in possession of firearms and having affiliations with Tren de Aragua, an international criminal syndicate and U.S.-designated terrorist organization

https://www.aol.com/news/democrat-judge-resigns-suspected-tren-172543588.html

[hobie]

Clearly Putin wants this...but why?

[David Nieporent]

Doubt it. Martin is a zealot. He just wants to keep his name in front of Trump for doing Trumpy things as much as possible.

[hobie]

But why has he (Martin) been on Russian TV nonstop for years now

[Zarniwoop]

With that strategy, Martin probably has a better shot at getting nominated to the S.Ct. in case of a vacancy than Prof "Top 200" Blackman does.

[hayesmi5]

It reads like he took an old collection form letter he used and tried to turn it into a DOJ document. Nothing more than political hackery.

[Jett's Pop]

"In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc."

Less (however modest) public debt? Determinations of what constitutes "good science" worthy of financial support being made by actors other than the government?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with those objectives (or, with respect to the first, that it would make any difference of consequence). But it seems as easy to come up with possible justifications as it would be to justify eliminating the Department of Education or foreign aid.

[JasonT20]

In the short term, reducing the number of IRS employees would reduce the federal deficit, right? Or would it, since the deficit is the difference between spending and revenue? If there are fewer auditors checking to see if people are being honest in paying taxes, would revenues stay the same?

Wanting to cut spending as a way to reduce the federal debt is a rational goal. Doing so with so little thought about the benefits of particular spending programs that it would have highly negative results? There is no rational connection between that and the goal of reducing debt. It is inherent in the word "rational" that they would have considered the consequences of those actions, if they were acting rationally. If those cuts are justified, then they would have articulated their thinking as part of their justification to the public. So, what do they say those cuts? How rational is their justification?

[Longtobefree]

Here's a really interesting concept; instead of considering subjective "benefits" of a federal program, consider if the US Constitution authorizes it.

I say subjective because it is always a good idea for the recipients, never a good idea for the few that pay for it.

[A Japanese Student]

We have long concluded that Taxing and Spending Clause authorizes all kinds of federal grants and contracts.

Another view is that the federal government has all the powers a regular corporation would have - to enter into contracts, for example. Under this theory enumerated powers only matter when the government seeks to exercise its sovereign authority.

[ReaderY]

I’ll leave the corporate theory aside. The Spending Clause authorizes Congress to spend money to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” That’s a pretty open grant of power. People often disagree on what’s good for the welfare of the American people. But it’s Congress’ job to resolve those disagreements.

There are limits on Congress’ power to regulate. But Congress’ power to spend money has been very broad since the Founding.

[Rossami]

No, Congress' spending power was remarkably narrow for the first century. There aren't a lot of legal cases saying though, so, because Congress itself thought so. The federal legislative record is full of debates over whether X was a constitutionally-authorized expenditure - very often ending with an answer of "no".

That legislative opinion on Congress' spending power took a hit during the Wilson years and had a stake put through its heard during the Roosevelt years. But compared to "the Founding", that's a recent innovation.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Something like 75% of medical peer-reviewed papers could not be replicated. This might not matter as much for psychology and other faux sciences with a 90% replicability failure rate, but it sure as shit matters for medicine.

Get government out of science subsidies. All it does is encourage marginal researchers to publish shit.

[damikesc]

Yeah. The replication problem is becoming an outright crisis. We do not seem to have science any longer.

[Sarcastr0]

Your last sentence does not follow from your first.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

His first is "Yeah.", and by george, yes the last sentence does follow the first.

(I uncapitalized that word just for you.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

But the psychology and other faux sciences are also government funded....

[Reallynotbob]

I think the opposite conclusion is warranted: don't let private funding be the dominant source of research grants. The reason for the replication "crisis" as it's being called appears to arise from researchers reporting in a way that emphasizes exciting results, i.e. novel ones. That is happening already naturally, but swapping the funding source to, say, pharma interests or for-profit research funds puts more, not less, pressure on researchers to report results of dubious replicability.

[bernard11]

"In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc."

Fewer smartass scientists running around telling people the "science" they read on Breitbart or hear on Fox is wrong.

[MollyGodiva]

So you trust partisan news networks more than actual PhD scientists who are experts in their field?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Given the person's comment history, I took the comment as sarcastic.

[bernard11]

Check out Poe's Law, Molly.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Like Michael Mann? Your knee is jerking pretty heavily today, maybe you ought to get it checked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Count on it. What will come next will be attempts to use government to compel publishers to, "diversify," content. The aim will be to compel publication of unscientific right-wing counter-advocacy, masquerading as science, into scientific journals. Medical and environmental counter-advocacy will be prominent among the themes demanded.

[hobie]

RFK wants more carcass-related content. Has to be.

[SRG2]

The problem with science:

1. Science is elitist, so ignores real Americans
2. Science sometimes gives you answers you don't like, and so is wrong
4. You can't tell scientists what the science should be, which is disloyal.
3. Many scientists are liberals, :Jews, Chinese, etc and so they're not real Americans
4. Science depends on evidence and so sometimes when new evidence comes in, the science changes., This is confusing to real Americans. What's true yesterday must be true today, and tomorrow (unless it's something Trump said).

[Stephen Lathrop]

5. In context of scientific advance, accurate inferences about the founding era require more-and-more historical expertise, making originalism too hard to practice for mere lawyers and judges.

[hobie]

Just like curriculum on slavery makes the redneck feel bad, science makes the redneck feel dumb. Better to just eliminate them both than to rehabilitate the redneck

[rloquitur]

Science told us that there was no way that the lab leak theory was true . . . .

Well, not real science. The definition of science is not "that which comes out of a scientist's mouth."

You idiots lost us when you tried to defend Mann's "hide the decline" comment. Fuck off.

[SRG2]

Science told us that there was no way that the lab leak theory was true . .

I think you'll find that the general claim was that the wet market explanation was the most likely, and the lab leak hypothesis was unlikely

<You idiots lost us when you tried to defend Mann's "hide the decline" comment. Fuck off.

Nah. You were not there to be had. And the science doesn't depend on what Michael Mann says. And meanwhile, https://skepticalscience.com/mikes-nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

So you can fuck right off.

[rloquitur]

Give me a break. The media, aided and abetted by "scientists" like Dr. Fauci suppressed the lab leak theory. It was pathetic.

And as for Mann, you people cheerleaded his bullshit lawsuit.

And by the by, I think anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps is a fucking moron.

[damikesc]

If the science cannot be replicated, do we have science at all?

[Sarcastr0]

You still have information.
You still have something that is more likely than not.
You still have very smart people working on challenging puzzles.
You still have the fact that it couldn't be replicated! That's a big and well-defined puzzle!

After all, the greatest paradigm-shifting discoveries don't begin with 'Eureka' they begin with 'that's funny.'

Remember, we couldn't get chemistry until we had alchemy for quite some time.

[Reallynotbob]

"....anyone who DOESN'T believe that CO2 DOESN'T exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps..."

This should be good. I'll bite.

What DOES exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps, given that measurable upward global temps are a thing?

[JasonT20]

And by the by, I think anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps is a fucking moron.

Trying to unpack that double negative: you're calling people that do believe that CO2 does exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps "a fucking moron." Right?

Why? What is your understanding of climate and CO2's role in it, that you'd think this?

[Don Nico]

The "wet market" was actually not an explanation or origin as it was merely a claim of zoonotic origin with no evidence of an animal source.
Hence it was a claim about an intermediate source. In contrast the lab leak theory was a claim that the WIV has the original source of the virus.
The lab leak explanation was never unlikely; it was discounted by the NIH and CDC. And we now know why.

[JasonT20]

Why the hostility? Why would anybody want to take them all down?

Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public. Once that is accomplished, then anyone that wants to use government power can simply assert that they know best. And they can then dismiss challenges to their assertions by the "experts" in relevant fields. If expertise is not valuable, if there is no objective truth based on verifiable facts, then anything that they want to be true can be asserted to be true without logic and evidence to support it.

People are easier to manipulate through emotional appeals if they can't turn to objective facts or trusted experts to counter irrational justifications. Or, if the people have been demotivated from wanting to seek objective evidence.

Populists, personality cults, demagogues, and grifters view experts and their knowledge as obstacles to their goals. They will misuse the idea of skepticism to point it at those professionals, in that they will work to convince their targets (marks) to only view the experts with skepticism, not them. That isn't skepticism. Skepticism is a way of thinking that applies to all claims of fact and all arguments equally.

"Don't trust the experts. If you see anyone saying that I'm wrong, then you know that you can't trust them! Only someone corrupt would doubt us me!"

[SRG2]

Very good!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Once that is accomplished,"

Too late! Government does not have to do it, science has largely done it to themselves.

[rloquitur]

I'll tell you where the hostility comes from:

(1) lockdowns without any cost-benefit analysis

(2) dismissing the lab leak theory is fantasy.

All of you can go fuck yourselves.

[Reallynotbob]

People running from beach: "It's a tsunami!! Run!!!"
rloquitur: [does cost-benefit analysis]

[grb]

If that's where the "hostility" comes from, then take your own advice.

1. Even if lockdowns were overbroad or mistaken in scope, I wonder at your whining about a traditional measure done during previous pandemics and taken while this disease was underway. Please note there was never any "science" involved in the Right's childish tantrums over covid measures or its precious lab-leak theory. Both were pure politics, nothing more. Now, I agree a serious and comprehensive study should be made of what measures did & didn't work, and I'm sure some scientific judgements were mistaken. That goes without saying given the circumstances. But the scientists were trying to make rational fact-based decisions in a ongoing emergency. That's in total contrast to their right-wing critics, who were throwing terrible-two-grade snits based on nothing but polling.

2. Apparently you don't know that the science still supports a natural origin for covid, now more so than before. You're dependent on politicians doing political things, with the recent CIA reassessment being a case in point. Their original conclusion was "impossible to tell", but the incoming agency head was a lab-leak fanboy and announced he wanted a decision. So they dusted off the old report, changed the finding, and added as caveat that the conclusion was shaky and based on no new evidence. From that bureaucratic two-step, hundreds of exultant posts from the rloquitur-style ignorant ensued. Or there was the German "conclusion", which was obviously absurd by its 80-90% certainty number.

Meanwhile, scientific research continues to support a zoonotic origin of COVID. Please read the below link on findings that suggest the intermediate host is now identified.

https://jabberwocking.com/are-raccoon-dogs-the-key-origin-of-the-covid-virus/

[Magister]

Starting a pandemic could have been an effective strategy to oppose human development that the racoon dogs in Pom Poko did not attempt.

[damikesc]

"Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public."

"Experts" did that exceedingly well without any help from others.

[JasonT20]

You, Bob, and rloquitur said basically the same thing, so I'll just make one reply to you all.

What makes you think that scientific "experts" did this to themselves? If it is skepticism that has driven you to that opinion, then surely you can explain it.

[David Nieporent]

Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public.

A similar approach applies to the news media. Fox News was not Fair & Balanced, but it aspired (especially at the outset) to provide a different take on the actual news. But its even farther out there counterparts don't care whether you believe them; they're fine if you believe nobody and think everything is a lie. That serves Trump's interests just as well.

[ReaderY]

The war on science makes perfect epistemological sense in an epistemology thoroughly explored in George Orwell’s 1984. Scientists provide a basis for people to question whether their leader is telling the truth. No leader who seeks total power - and Trump is a leader who seeks power over the individual self as absolute as Oceana’s, including the power to have people not just declare but actually BELIEVE that white is black and black is white on his say-so - can put up with people who have psychological difficulties doing what their Leader demands of them. And 1984 thoroughly explores, in the person of Winston Smith, the kind of psychologically disabled anti-socially disordered people that scientists are in such a world, antisocial psychoses in deep need of healing and obliteration in the Ministry of Love.

You will note that there was essentially no technological progress of any kind between the 1940s and 1984 in Orwell’s novel, except perhaps for weapons and techniques of psychological manipulation. None of the world’s powers had the slightest interest in such things. Why should Trump? He wants followers whose faith in him is strong enough that they will believe not just whatever he tells them about the outside world, but also that he can walk on water and heal them by laying on hands. Why would such a person be interested in Western medicine? It could only serve as a rival source of power. And Trump wants no rivals.

Belief such things have efficacy directly detracts from belief in him as the sole source of efficacy, just as belief in alternative sources of truth directly detracts from him as the sole source of truth. No person who aspires to power over others, as absolute and total as Trump craves, who craves not just to be loved but to be worshipped, who seeks to help his followers get beyond the limitations of their rational minds into the total bliss of raw adulation and utter obedience, could put up with such things.

[rloquitur]

This ignores the roles of scientists in the Covid coverup.

[SRG2]

Do you deny that viruses exist?

[rloquitur]

Do you deny that man-made ones exist?

[Bruce Hayden]

They lied about the probable origins of the virus. They lied about masking and social distancing. And they lied about the safety and efficacy of their novel, mostly untested, experimental, gene therapy that they forced much of the world to take as if it were a traditional vaccine. It wasn’t, and isn’t.

[Reallynotbob]

I disagree, but let's assume you're 100% correct.

Why would those circumstances lead you to conclude that science should not be conducted?

[SRG2]

Answer mine first.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump is a leader who seeks power over the individual self as absolute as Oceana’s, including the power to have people not just declare but actually BELIEVE that white is black and black is white on his say-so "

You need help. This is just insane.

[ReaderY]

Completely agree with you. But since it’s where we are right now, we all need help.

There are numerous tells over the years. For example, the size of his inaugural crowd. Lies are every bit as important to Trump as they were to Orwell’s 1984. So is belief in Trump’s omnipotence. There many, many tells that Trump seeks followers willing to believe his word over what their eyes and ears tell them, and look to him in a messianic/avataristic way.

Seeking that level of cult-like power over others simply fits in with both his personality and his behavior. I mean, it’s not like the personalities and behavior of smaller-scale cult leaders haven’t been studied before.

I’m not the one making the war on science. I’m just pointing out why that war makes conplete rational sense according to Trump’s own logic, which, while crazy from our point of view, is internally consistent in its own way once you understand it. It also helps explain why so many people are attracted to him and why those deeply into him seem to have their personalities altered. Human beings are in many respects wired to be attracted to cults, and cult leaders no how to manipulate the wires to convert them into totally obedient followers.

This is not a joke. The cult leader hypothesis is a very serious hypothesis that I am offering to Professor Post as an explaination and proposing that he seriously consider.

[ReaderY]

Heck, it’s not like there haven’t been other head-of-state cult leaders in the past. Or present, for that matter. There’s a family resemblance. There are tells.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You will note that there was essentially no technological progress of any kind between the 1940s and 1984 in Orwell’s novel"

And how much technological progress was England responsible for during those 50 years?

[Reallynotbob]

More importantly, how much was America responsible for during those 50 years? Seems like we should keep going, no?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If we make policy based on science, then whoever controls the science controls the policy. We saw this with the lab leak coverup, and with the Biden administration trying to influence the WPATH standards to affect the policy and legal outcomes, and I'm sure we'll see it in the Trump administration.

[MollyGodiva]

Nobody "controls" science. That is kinda the point of science.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure Jan.

[JasonT20]

Scientists advance their careers, get grants, and tenure based on their ability to come up with new insights and new discoveries. Original research that breaks new ground or confirms the new discoveries of others is what is rewarded. That makes science highly competitive. If someone comes up with some new hypothesis and an experiment or study supporting it, being the one to prove it wrong would be valuable to one's career. If their own experiments support it, on the other hand, that experience working with that new idea will be valuable as they try and find ways to extend it even further and make their own fresh discovery.

The goal is to find models and theories that work. No scientist would look back on a 30-40 year career and be content with having a mediocre and undistinguished record, see that the hypotheses and research that they published has been proven wrong, and think, "Well, at least I made decent money and get to retire now." People that would think that way are highly unlikely to go into science. People that are dishonest, lazy, or dogmatic can find greater success and rewards elsewhere. Like becoming a law professor at some low-ranked college in Texas.

[Zarniwoop]

People that are dishonest, lazy, or dogmatic can find greater success and rewards elsewhere. Like becoming a law professor at some low-ranked college in Texas.

Thread winner!

[Rossami]

Interesting, given that you've repeatedly commented previously that whoever pays for "the science" is obviously controlling it and that's why you can't trust tobacco research paid for by tobacco companies, etc. But suddenly, the government is immune to that entire part of human nature?

[MollyGodiva]

I don't recall saying that. I don't know why I would because that is not my position. Granting agencies can direct the direction of the science they fund, but not the outcome of the research.

[rloquitur]

Yeah, government officials had no part of the lab leak coverup. Fuck off.

[MollyGodiva]

If there was a lab leak coverup, it was done by Trump political appointees.

[rloquitur]

Um nope. You're so full of it.

[MollyGodiva]

Who else would? It was Trump appointees that were in charge and controlled the messaging.

[Don Nico]

Wow. That it a lame comment. There was a clear reason why the NIH Director Collins and D. Fauci wanted that hypothesis squelched. That had nothing to do with Mr. Trump or his many flaws

[Reallynotbob]

And...? What was their clear reason?

[A Japanese Student]

The government is not immune. If your research is subsidized by the government, you have an ethical obligation to disclose it to the public.

Publicly funded research is seen better than tobacco-company directed research because the government is not expected to intervene once the grant is made. Also, any reasonable scientist would disapprove of government intrusion into academia.

[Rossami]

Numerous studies addressing publication bias disagree with your assumptions.

And while i strongly agree with your statment that "you have an ethical obligation to disclose [your research results] to the public" that paid for it, the government itself (and a great many researchers) strenuously disagree.

[Sarcastr0]

And while i strongly agree with your statment that "you have an ethical obligation to disclose [your research results] to the public" that paid for it, the government itself (and a great many researchers) strenuously disagree..

First, you misinterpreted what AJS said.

Second, what in the world are you talking about? Scientists want to publish. So does the government.

[rloquitur]

The problem, Molly, is that "what scientists say" is somehow "science." Let's take the issue of AGCC. Only a fool would say that increased CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on atmospheric temps. (How do we think Snowball Earths melted?) But does that mean we need to listen to scientists about what needs to be done? Scientists don't know if, net net, the AGCC is a bad thing. They don't know if the proposed responses are worse than the disease. They don't know the time horizon (is this a 500 year problem?), and they don't know if decarbonization is viable, given free-rider issues, national sovereignty etc.

[MollyGodiva]

Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. One does not disregard science because it does not have all the answers. Also there is far more known about climate change than you are giving them credit for. We are seeing the negative effects of climate change now.

[rloquitur]

"Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. One does not disregard science because it does not have all the answers. Also there is far more known about climate change than you are giving them credit for. We are seeing the negative effects of climate change now."

Sez you. I am pretty knowledgeable about climate science. But I am guessing that you were good with all the lockdowns. Where was the science behind that massive ruination of people's lives and freedoms?

[Don Nico]

"Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. "
Actually it only gives one partial information with its uncertainties to about how to make a prudential decision.

[SRG2]

The argument "if you don't know everything then you don't know anything" is not a good one.

[rloquitur]

Yes, but we are going to be spending untolled trillions, as well as massive lost freedoms to combat something that may or may not even be harmful. That's just stupid.

[MollyGodiva]

When did we do that?

[rloquitur]

If you don't know what the Climatistas have in store for us, you're not paying attention, Hope you like eating bugs.

[SRG2]

Cancel your home insurance

[Reallynotbob]

This is the Panglossian response. "To alter our future, we must spend money and experience hardships, so the status quo is the best of all possible worlds."

[NvEric]

Orbital position and solar output influence conditions on Earth more than CO2. Add in ocean currents and ocean turnover along with CO2 - these are results of change more than drivers of change.

"Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 has other thoughts.

Science / doctors say lowering your blood pressure can be beneficial, but there's no blood pressure which is optimal.

[rloquitur]

Yes, and that's why I say that we don't know the time horizon of the problem. But CO2 increases, over time, will drive up temps. So given that these other factors exist, ultimately, if we are at, say, 500 ppm CO2, we are going to have a hotter planet, all things being equal.

The Carnian Pluvial Event lasted approx. 2 million years. Presumably, the rains caused more withdrawal of CO2 from atmosphere at a greater rate than normal, which ultimately led to the end of the event.

Right now, increased CO2 may be a good thing, net net. Hard to tell. Ultimately, and who knows timeline, we can get palm trees in Alaska and a mid-American seaway, lol.

[Rossami]

re: "CO2 increases, over time, will drive up temps"

While that is known to be true in laboratory conditions and is true for the Venusian atmosphere, even a simple statement like that is not yet known to be true in a terrestrial (that is, ocean-dominated) environment. The problem is that "all things" are never equal.

Note that the available evidence from ice cores - some of the most time-precise data we have - suggests that CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by several hundreds of years. That is, increasing (or decreasing) temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels (via increasing or decreasing ocean outgassing rates), not the other way around.

[Sarcastr0]

The lag IIRC is regarding the Ice Age.

All this shows is that CO2 is not the *only* driver of climate change.

[Rossami]

This letter may be misguided and is certainly poorly written but in no way is this evidence of a "war on science". Nor, by the way, is the review of NIH grants. You ask "[i]n what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants" while ignoring the fact that we're broke and can't afford endless studies on how transgender hormone treatments affect mice skeletons, how cocaine affects honey bee dances, the "risky" sexual habits of quails on cocaine, hamsters on steroids or whether rats on nicotine are more or less sensitive to pain.

Some NIH-funded studies are probably worth the money. Those will likely have little difficulty finding other patrons to support their research. The vast majority, however, are part of the "scientific-technological elite" capture that Eisenhower warned about in the same speech where he raised the conflicts of interest inherent to the military-industrial complex. The latter half of his speech gets a lot less attention and air time than it should.

[rloquitur]

"scientists" lied about COVID-19 origins; they also failed to do cost-benefit analysis regarding lockdowns etc.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2025/04/18/bonkers-ruling-judge-rules-fathers-cant-wear-pink-wristbands-to-protest-biological-males-in-girls-sports/

More thuggery from the left. You guys suck out loud.

[rloquitur]

So where was Professor Post when the Mass AG was subpoenaing various organizations for their communications etc.? Nowhere to be found--so why should we care now?

[rloquitur]

And the medical journals should write back, "With all due respect, go fuck yourself." to Mr. Martin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" publications like CHEST Journal "are conceding that they … have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations)."

1: There are postal mailing regulations for magazines, and I suspect that CHEST still uses this greatly discounted rate to distribute paper editions of its journal. There are ownership and financial regulations which must be published, and I suspect similar fraud regulations if you are paid to endorse something and don't say that.

2: Much of the country believes that the response to Covid was intended to benefit Big Pharma at the expense of cheaper but equally (or more) effective treatments. I'm not a MD nor do I pretend to be, but when you start yanking MD licenses for disagreeing with Big Pharma, you've made it political and asked for something like this.

3: If you tell people to "shut up and obey" during Covid, you should expect pressback. The same thing happened after Vietnam with the Church Commission.

The tradition of Andrew Jackson lives on -- Big Science and Big Pharma ran roughshod over us and now it's payback time...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Open the Books just reported:

"Controversial National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci left the federal government as America’s highest paid bureaucrat with a final salary of $480,654. That’s tens of thousands more than the President of the United States, a historic number that triggered a similarly unprecedented pension.

Well, he’s doing even better post-retirement.

Financial disclosures reveal that Fauci and his wife’s combined financial assets kept climbing by more than $3.5 million in 2023, to just over $15 million total. Most of that growth—$3.3 million—came from Fauci’s accounts."

[Roger S]

How is this a war on science? If the journal editors are such good scientists, they should be able to easily answer some questions about their policies. Their policies should be public anyway.

[rloquitur]

It's not a war on science. It's a war on hackery. They really shouldn't be asking these questions, but the left allowed this sort of shit.

[Kleppe]

"But the war on science makes no sense to me whatsoever; perhaps there are some readers who can enlighten me on that."

The "war on science," to the extent that it exists, is being waged by the people who angrily insist that humans can change their sex.

[MaddogEngineer]

Maybe he's interested in the same way that the Biden DOJ thought the FBI might find insurrectionists and domestic terrorists at local school board meetings.

[rloquitur]

Merrick Garland should be imprisoned for the rest of his life for that.

Nowhere to be found were leftist hacks who whine about letters.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Because most all medical journals (including the most famous of them) are full of DEI, leftist, unscientific claptrap with numbers thrown in for gravitas.

[rloquitur]

But what will Justice Kentanji cite?

[Frank Drackman]

I’m guessing you mean “JAMA”, I won a year of NEJM during Internship, still have them, “Case Presentations” were the best, like you’d ever have everyone in the same room like that, remember they used SI units for some reason, reporting Blood Glucose in millimoles/liter instead of mg/dl, still don’t know what to make of a Glucose of “4”

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

“Chest” is one of the Big names, like the Beatles “White” Album or Prince, the really top Journals have one word titles, like “Brain”, “Spleen” or my favorite
“Vagina”

Frank “Have you seen the new “Vagina”?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK -- what is the ISBN number of Vagina?
If any library carries it, it will have one.
If not, who is the publisher, and address?

I can't seem to find it, and I've also never seen its cover on a dorm door, so I doubt it is in print.

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn’t surprise me that you haven’t seen Vagina and would go to a Library looking for one

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I went to the internet and saw lots of articles about vaginas, including one that had a flashlight in it, but no journal titled "Vagina" so if you can't produce an ISBN number, I call BS.

[Frank Drackman]

Ya think???

[Armchair]

Let's take Mr. Post's questions somewhat seriously...

1. " Why in God's name is the US Attorney for DC interested in the publication practices of an obscure specialty medical journal published in Illinois?"

-Medical journals like these (which despite being published in Illinois have National circulation) have a fair amount of influence over their profession. Doctors, to a certain degree, rely upon them to keep current in their field. If the journal, for example, fully endorses a new Beta-Blocker for a disease...that has influence on the doctor, and potentially affects what medication they prescribe, and thus forwards more profits to the manufacturer of that medication.

If the manufacturer of that medication was, for example, paying the journal for positive press, but was not indicated as doing such payment, that may be viewed as a type of fraudulent behavior.
Openness and declaring all conflicts of interest is important.

2. NA
3. While the editor of CHEST may not have a legal obligation, just telling the USA to pound sand is a poor idea. That type of behavior encourages the USA to come back with legal backing. A more reasonable approach where commonly available information regarding publication practices for CHEST is given to the USA is a better option.

4. "Perhaps most importantly: What is the ultimate purpose?"

Openness, clarity, full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, full scientific discourse, lack of informal censorship of minority opinions. "Science" does best when all views and courses of inquiry are published. When certain views become politically unacceptable to publish, you can get Lysenkoism or other items.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not just profit for the drug manufacturer, but additional expense for Medicare/Medicaid to pay for it, and with really expensive new drugs, the decision to cover a particular drug can be controversial.
Case in point, anti obesity drugs are not covered. https://gi.org/2025/04/17/anti-obesity-drugs-will-not-be-covered-by-medicare-and-medicaid-in-2026/

The same issue is going to SCOTUS with the requirement that all insurance plans must cover PrEP. Effectiveness of it is relevant.