If I, as a member of the general public, had written an opinion piece about the covid shots starting with, "They are trying to kill us," it would have been a lot closer to the truth. And 100% unlikely to get published.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes! Thank you for writing this. I agree with all you say, but am especially bothered by scientific medical journals (and societies) getting into social issues. It is appropriate for them to publish opinions critiquing studies, but IMO not regarding social issues. For me this decreases the reputation of the scientific validity and purpose overall.
Thank You for your engaging piece Dr. Flier. I enjoyed reading it and though I am not Black (or even White) I do feel the points you raise are very valid, especially regarding editorial oversight in the Voices section.
However, given how charged the issue is especially since it involves a minority academic's suicide, I feel if the writer was asked to bring changes in the piece by the journal, it would have raised a thorny issue that the journal itself was censuring opinion pieces in the name of editorial oversight and stifling minority voices as a result and preventing freedom of expression.
I think there is one point that needs clarification, the sentence you quote and analyze "I don’t care whether any of these allegations against Prof. Arday were true" is in partial as there is a second part in the piece "None of them were worth his career. And certainly not his life.". I agree that "She didn’t need to dismiss the importance of the truth of the allegations to convey her personal distress caused by Arday’s career-ending exposure, or her career concerns as a Black academic" but I can understand where Dr. Doll comes from that the allegations were certainly not worth ending one's life especially because of the smear campaign which followed.
I understand that given how thorny the issue has become, it is highly possible emotionally charged pieces will be published. However, the response shouldn't simply be a dispassionate analysis of such charged pieces and the role of the journal's editorial oversight in publishing opinion pieces, but also one should factor in the subtext and nuance of the piece and the circumstances in which this piece by Dr. Doll was published when analyzing the journal's role in all this.
I like your post overall and genuinely appreciate your thoughts. Hoping that you will continue to engage on this important issue.
Dr. Flier, there is a sense of gratitude on my part for your courage in writing this, but there is also a sense of disappointment. As someone with such a lofty collection of titles and accomplishments, it is curious that it took the example of the Arday affair for you to speak up. The Arday story is a "slam dunk", so to speak, in terms of institutions egregiously going beyond their roles and attempting to manipulate and create a society that fits their world view. The fact that this ended tragically should clearly be a wake up call but this slow moving ideology of institutions using their previously earned gravitas in areas outside their expertise has been occurring for years.
The NEJM, while a past venerable publication, has lost any semblance of that in the general medical population. As a younger physician, I was stunned 20 years ago, to hear a speaker at a large annual conference denounce the NEJM as a "leftist rag". He was extremely accomplished and well respected. But his comment made me consider why he would say that. I then began to realize he was correct. An insidious streak of social commentary was becoming more and more prevalent to the point that medical science and societal and political opinion became equal in importance.
The author of this article to which you refer has strong feelings and as you say is entitled to them. The NEJM is also free to publish them. But let's admit what is going on here. The author has developed a sense that they are a victim of an unjust system that attacks and "kills" them. This of course is despite the fact that they have reached a level to where they are accomplished and respected enough to have an article published in NEJM. There is a circular reasoning here that some may consider a bit difficult to understand.
The NEJM certainly has the right to publish whatever it wants. To be hyperbolic, it is free to publish pornography however it doesn't, at least to my knowledge. But if it did, would it not be considered distasteful and inappropriate? Of course. Would it damage its perceived "reputation"? Undoubtedly. But stepping out of its purview of medical science into the political and social sciences seems to be an example of intellectual arrogance that borders on an attempt at intentional manipulation.
Lastly, I fear that the Arday example may be a harbinger of things to come. This world is changing and tolerating the false pretenses of those at the leadership level of our most respected institutions is bound to meet up with truth and reality. Misleading their followers, and the people in general, while avoiding the truth is a dangerous game and always culminates in tragedy.
While just a fable, what do we think happened to the emperor who proudly wore his "new clothes" during a parade in front of his people? His chamberlains dutifully continued to hold up his non existent train as the people laughed and denigrated him as he revealed his foolishness. I suspect the NEJM editors, along with many others, are these same chamberlains and hopefully can eventually see the truth. Something tells me not to hold my breath waiting for this.
It is worth noting, IMO, that the once-proud NEJM has for decades engaged in some of the biomedical world’s sloppiest and least reliable peer review on its scientific pages as well. Overwhelmingly, those failures favor the Journal’s financial and ideological interests.
I find this most recent failure disturbing, as you note—but no longer surprising. Scientific rigor has become subordinate to advocacy at a journal that increasingly seems unable to distinguish between the two.
Thank you for your balanced, candid, thoughtful response. It really takes a particular strength to write such an intellectually honest piece, particularly in my opinion, in medicine. Certain pervasive ideologies have reigned - and in the face of critical thought, censorship of many types has resulted. Your voice, Jeff, returns us to values so essential to the field of medicine and beyond; an essential reminder to the Journal and beyond.
Few days go by in my world, that I'm not grateful for old white guys.
I really don't care what Obama or anyone else says, History is Clear and white European people founded this county as it evolved to be the USA we know today. Nobody held Ben Carson back. How about Thomas Sowell? There are many brilliant people of all races and skin colors, the world over.
The recent 20 years or so, accelerated by the covid era isolation and censorship, have brought us DEI that can be life-threatening. Look what happened with air-traffic control. Brilliant idea, hire gamers to track stuff on a screen!
We cannot let our desire to be Ten times as "fair" to 15% of the population, let us run roughshod over the other groups who made everything the newbies demand more of, without paying their dues. It's a melting pot - now many put the ethnicity most likely to benefit them financially, on the job application. We need to stop this!
Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth.... He aged very well, despite all that.
It's time to quit demonizing old white guys and be thankful they gave us a huge leap ahead of most of the world.
Thank you Jeff Flier and other old white guys I've so often read here at Sensible Medicine.
If one of us tried to publish "the errors of Fauci" or the "errors of NEJM during COVID" it would be rejected. I know because I asked.
If I, as a member of the general public, had written an opinion piece about the covid shots starting with, "They are trying to kill us," it would have been a lot closer to the truth. And 100% unlikely to get published.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes! Thank you for writing this. I agree with all you say, but am especially bothered by scientific medical journals (and societies) getting into social issues. It is appropriate for them to publish opinions critiquing studies, but IMO not regarding social issues. For me this decreases the reputation of the scientific validity and purpose overall.
Thank You for your engaging piece Dr. Flier. I enjoyed reading it and though I am not Black (or even White) I do feel the points you raise are very valid, especially regarding editorial oversight in the Voices section.
However, given how charged the issue is especially since it involves a minority academic's suicide, I feel if the writer was asked to bring changes in the piece by the journal, it would have raised a thorny issue that the journal itself was censuring opinion pieces in the name of editorial oversight and stifling minority voices as a result and preventing freedom of expression.
I think there is one point that needs clarification, the sentence you quote and analyze "I don’t care whether any of these allegations against Prof. Arday were true" is in partial as there is a second part in the piece "None of them were worth his career. And certainly not his life.". I agree that "She didn’t need to dismiss the importance of the truth of the allegations to convey her personal distress caused by Arday’s career-ending exposure, or her career concerns as a Black academic" but I can understand where Dr. Doll comes from that the allegations were certainly not worth ending one's life especially because of the smear campaign which followed.
I understand that given how thorny the issue has become, it is highly possible emotionally charged pieces will be published. However, the response shouldn't simply be a dispassionate analysis of such charged pieces and the role of the journal's editorial oversight in publishing opinion pieces, but also one should factor in the subtext and nuance of the piece and the circumstances in which this piece by Dr. Doll was published when analyzing the journal's role in all this.
I like your post overall and genuinely appreciate your thoughts. Hoping that you will continue to engage on this important issue.
Dr. Flier, there is a sense of gratitude on my part for your courage in writing this, but there is also a sense of disappointment. As someone with such a lofty collection of titles and accomplishments, it is curious that it took the example of the Arday affair for you to speak up. The Arday story is a "slam dunk", so to speak, in terms of institutions egregiously going beyond their roles and attempting to manipulate and create a society that fits their world view. The fact that this ended tragically should clearly be a wake up call but this slow moving ideology of institutions using their previously earned gravitas in areas outside their expertise has been occurring for years.
The NEJM, while a past venerable publication, has lost any semblance of that in the general medical population. As a younger physician, I was stunned 20 years ago, to hear a speaker at a large annual conference denounce the NEJM as a "leftist rag". He was extremely accomplished and well respected. But his comment made me consider why he would say that. I then began to realize he was correct. An insidious streak of social commentary was becoming more and more prevalent to the point that medical science and societal and political opinion became equal in importance.
The author of this article to which you refer has strong feelings and as you say is entitled to them. The NEJM is also free to publish them. But let's admit what is going on here. The author has developed a sense that they are a victim of an unjust system that attacks and "kills" them. This of course is despite the fact that they have reached a level to where they are accomplished and respected enough to have an article published in NEJM. There is a circular reasoning here that some may consider a bit difficult to understand.
The NEJM certainly has the right to publish whatever it wants. To be hyperbolic, it is free to publish pornography however it doesn't, at least to my knowledge. But if it did, would it not be considered distasteful and inappropriate? Of course. Would it damage its perceived "reputation"? Undoubtedly. But stepping out of its purview of medical science into the political and social sciences seems to be an example of intellectual arrogance that borders on an attempt at intentional manipulation.
Lastly, I fear that the Arday example may be a harbinger of things to come. This world is changing and tolerating the false pretenses of those at the leadership level of our most respected institutions is bound to meet up with truth and reality. Misleading their followers, and the people in general, while avoiding the truth is a dangerous game and always culminates in tragedy.
While just a fable, what do we think happened to the emperor who proudly wore his "new clothes" during a parade in front of his people? His chamberlains dutifully continued to hold up his non existent train as the people laughed and denigrated him as he revealed his foolishness. I suspect the NEJM editors, along with many others, are these same chamberlains and hopefully can eventually see the truth. Something tells me not to hold my breath waiting for this.
Interesting and well argued, sir, thank you.
It is worth noting, IMO, that the once-proud NEJM has for decades engaged in some of the biomedical world’s sloppiest and least reliable peer review on its scientific pages as well. Overwhelmingly, those failures favor the Journal’s financial and ideological interests.
I find this most recent failure disturbing, as you note—but no longer surprising. Scientific rigor has become subordinate to advocacy at a journal that increasingly seems unable to distinguish between the two.
Thank you Dr. Flier for this much needed piece. And for your other writings in the last several years.
Thank you for your balanced, candid, thoughtful response. It really takes a particular strength to write such an intellectually honest piece, particularly in my opinion, in medicine. Certain pervasive ideologies have reigned - and in the face of critical thought, censorship of many types has resulted. Your voice, Jeff, returns us to values so essential to the field of medicine and beyond; an essential reminder to the Journal and beyond.
Few days go by in my world, that I'm not grateful for old white guys.
I really don't care what Obama or anyone else says, History is Clear and white European people founded this county as it evolved to be the USA we know today. Nobody held Ben Carson back. How about Thomas Sowell? There are many brilliant people of all races and skin colors, the world over.
The recent 20 years or so, accelerated by the covid era isolation and censorship, have brought us DEI that can be life-threatening. Look what happened with air-traffic control. Brilliant idea, hire gamers to track stuff on a screen!
We cannot let our desire to be Ten times as "fair" to 15% of the population, let us run roughshod over the other groups who made everything the newbies demand more of, without paying their dues. It's a melting pot - now many put the ethnicity most likely to benefit them financially, on the job application. We need to stop this!
Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth.... He aged very well, despite all that.
It's time to quit demonizing old white guys and be thankful they gave us a huge leap ahead of most of the world.
Thank you Jeff Flier and other old white guys I've so often read here at Sensible Medicine.