'Vaguely Threatening': Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal
Source: New York Times
April 25, 2025, 1:37 p.m. ET
A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted The New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested without evidence that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures. Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letter as “vaguely threatening” in an interview with The New York Times. At least three other journals have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of the administration.
His letters accused the publications of being “partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles. Do they accept submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints”? What do they do if the authors whose work they published “may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others”? News of the letter to N.E.J.M. was reported earlier by STAT, a health news outlet.
Mr. Martin also asked about the role of the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, and the agency’s role “in the development of submitted articles.” Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the information published in reputable medical journals like N.E.J.M. is broadly protected by the Constitution.
In most cases, journals have the same robust rights that apply to newspapers — the strongest the Constitution provides, she added. “There is no basis to say that anything other than the most stringent First Amendment protections apply to medical journals,” she said. “It appears aimed at creating a type of fear and chill that will have effects on people’s expression — that’s a constitutional concern.”
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/health/nejm-prosecutor-letter.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Schlafly is definitely a bat-outta-hell blast from the past. 
So glad both are dead. I celebrated when I heard of both their croakings. 
Now they are all like that. 
I used the archive.ph (and variants) which are basically screenshot images of these sites similar to the Wayback Machine. I know there have been threads refuting those who have any issues but there are some hills that I don't feel like dying on. I sub to a bunch of sites - including at least 3 that offer gift links, so I just use those (unfortunately Bloomberg limits it to 5 a month, but the others allow 10 
)
But since knowing stuff has never been a prequisite for holding a position in the Schlump administration, I guess there's no reason why he should know anything about that! 
Fuck off.
