Carl Bergstrom, a theoretical and evolutionary biologist, believes that the journal is part of the constant effort to doubt the scientific consensus. “If you can create the illusion that there is no concentration of opinion that says that vaccines and masks are effective ways to control the epidemic, you can undermine that concept of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, you can create uncertainty, you can create uncertainty, And you can press a forward. According to him, the articles reviewed by peers can cover and be used in court for politicians who want to make certain decisions.
Coldorf said that when they arrived on Thursday, he said that Bahataria and Makari were present at the editorial board before President Trump’s candidates. “At present, they are not active members of the board,” he said. (The website of Bhattacharya and Makary is “on leave”) he added that there is no connection between the magazine and the Trump administration.
Coldorf told Wired that the magazine will be a local magazine for open discourse and university freedom. “I think it is important for scientists to be able to publish what they think is important, and then it must be open for discussion rather than preventing the publication of the public,” says Caldorf.
Coldorf and Andrew Nimer, an epidemiologist at UC Irvine, who fan of the Lab’s leak theory of COVID origin, are identified as journal editors. Scott Atlas, who was used by Trump in 2020 to serve in the White House Working Group of Coronavirus, has also been named as a member of the editorial board. Atlas, a radiologist, has made false claims that masks do not work to prevent the spread of chronavirus.
In January, Neimer wrote a candidate for Bhattacharya’s nominee for the NIH manager. In that, he praised Betharia for his free mentality to different perspectives. This version was released in RealClearpolitics.
Angela Rasmussen, an American research scientist and scientist at the University of Saskatchewan, says she is concerned that the magazine can be used to advance and legitimize quasi -scientific and anti -public views. “I don’t think this will give them credibility with real scientists. But the general public may know the difference between the Academy of Public Health and the New England Medical Magazine.”
Taylor Datson, a professor of the New Mexico Mining and Technology Institute, studying the intersection of science and politics, says: “There is legitimate concern” that this magazine can become a reservoir for evidence that people’s favorite arguments are in government. . If approved, the head of Bhattacharya and Makary can potentially Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a nominee for the leadership of the Ministry of Health and Human Services, is known to promote a wide range of destroyed scientific beliefs, including a link between vaccines. And autism and AIDS are not caused by the HIV virus.
Datson warns that there is a danger that the presence of journals with a particular political perspective may increase the politics of science. “The worst scenario is that you start magazines for people who are a populist and anti -deployment and magazines for people who read the NPR and the New York Times.”
