The Justice Department has sent letters to leading medical journals, requesting information on how the publications chose and present their content.
Although the letters do not constitute a formal DOJ investigation into the journals’ practices, their wording leaves little doubt the publications are under scrutiny in the latest escalation of the conflict between the Trump administration and the nation’s health care establishment.
A letter dated April 14 from then-interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward R. Martin to the editor-in-chief of CHEST Journal, published by the American College of Chest Physicians, stated. Martin starts the six-paragraph letter by telling Editor in Chief Peter Mazzone, M.D., that he gets requests of “information and clarification” frequently and he takes the concerns seriously. Martin justifies his inquiry by stating influence due to pressure from sponsors or advertisers falls under the U.S. Postal Code and “relevant fraud regulations.”
“It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates—that is, that they have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations), wrote Martin. “The public has certain expectations, and you have certain responsibilities.”
‘Assess Your Responsibilities’
Martin requested answers to several questions.
“How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation? wrote Martin.
Other questions included, “How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations 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 Institutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?” and “How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journal may have misled their readers?”
Martin then asks if publishers, journals, and organizations Mazzone works with are adjusting the “method of acceptance of competing viewpoints,” and whether “new norms” are being set.
Healthcare Innovation reported that The New England Journal of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology also received DOJ letters questioning their editorial practices.
Martin was replaced as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in early May by Jeanine Pirro, a former judge in Westchester County, New York. The move was unrelated to the DOJ’s medical journal inquiry.
‘Vaccine Promotional Vehicles’
Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Center for Consumer Choice, says the DOJ inquiry is an indication of a crisis in the medical literature.
“Studies published in peer-reviewed journals become the basis for everything from the advice your doctor gives you to the very laws that govern us,” said Stier. “A journal’s ability to tell good science from bad is critical. But some journals have used poor judgment, and even rejected judgment with a bias of their own. The Trump administration is right to try to shed some light on this process.”
Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist, says he believes the DOJ letters “raised legitimate concerns about bias, lack of transparency, and whether these journals fairly presented competing scientific viewpoints—especially on topics like COVID-19 policies and treatments,” in a post on the Focal Point substack.
“The consistent direction of bias was to suppress any new studies or combination of early therapeutics, and I have reports on poor efficacy and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Hulsher.
“Essentially, the journals became vaccine promotional vehicles,” wrote Hulsher. “None of the major journals published manuscripts that concluded the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination, despite more comprehensive papers published elsewhere arriving at the truth.”
‘Not an Editorial Inquiry’
Editors, former editors, and associates of the medical journals were quick to respond.
“What are they doing?” Michael Eisen, former editor of the biomedical journal eLife, told NBC News. “I’ve just never been in this position of providing information to the Department of Justice about something. This is not an editorial query. This is from an organization that prosecutes crimes. That makes it different.”
In his response to the DOJ, dated April 25, Eric Rubin, M.D., Ph.D., editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, defended his publication’s editorial practices.
“As practicing physicians, we recognize our responsibility to doctors and patients, wrote Rubin. “We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish. We support the independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression. The Journal actively fosters scholarly scientific dialogue and remains steadfast in its commitment to supporting authors, readers, and patients.”
‘Like-Minded Reviewers’
Part of the problem is too much groupthink, says Stier.
“All science deserves the utmost scrutiny,” said Stier. “But today, scientific journals lean so heavily on finding potential ‘conflicts of interest’ that they’ve lost sight of the peer-review process. Instead of doing the hard work of bringing together diverse experts to critically analyze a paper, they go into an echo chamber of like-minded reviewers. The journals tout their conflict-of-interest policy, but at the expense of true scrutiny.”
“Because of their track record, it’s about time the gatekeepers were subjected to more oversight,” said Stier.
Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., a resident fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation, says he is “skeptical of the DOJ leaning on medical journals, just as I was skeptical of the government leaning on social media outlets trying to get them to support the government’s position.”
“If DOJ can demand answers from JAMA, could a future Democratic administration demand answers from Christianity Today or the Journal of Church and State, or the publication of the Christian Medical and Dental Association to explain how they decide on which articles to accept?” said Matthews
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D., ([email protected]) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a position he has held since 2002.