Medical Publications Bow to a Political Narrative Causing Loss of Public Trust

Publications in top-tier medical journals must comply with a narrative.  As a prerequisite for publication, authors must affirm that universal vaccination is the best response to pandemic, and that the benefits of vaccination outweigh any harm it causes.  Even articles that describe vaccine injuries must minimize their risks in deference to the goal of universal vaccination.  This misuse of the medical literature suborns the mission of journals to a political agenda, squandering the trust they once enjoyed.

I noticed this trend during research for these blogs.  Here are a few examples to give a flavor of the narrative.

• In a recent review of clotting complications caused by vaccine published in Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, Kakovan et al. end their article by saying, “Finally, since the advantages of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risk of stroke or any other neurological complication, the public should be reassured that the vaccination program is still the best way to combat COVID-19.”  The article gives no support for this conclusion.  It is as if the authors knew that homage to this dogma was the price of publication.

• In a Reviews in Medical Virology article presenting data showing that vaccination causes a 13.6 times increase in myocarditis among 16-19 year-old males, Faziollahi et al. conclude that these complications are “rare,” missing this obvious data signal.  

• “VITT [Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia—the blood clots caused by vaccine] appears to be a very rare side-effect of vaccination…” Perry, et al. in The Lancet.

• “The very low prevalence of this complication of vaccination, however severe, relative to the benefits of preventing Covid-19 (a condition with 1 to 2% mortality and potential long-term sequelae) must be emphasized.” Clines and Bussel in New England Journal of Medicine.

• “Independent safety reviews by regulatory authorities of available clinical and real-world evidence have concluded that the benefits of AZD1222 outweigh the potential risks.”  Falsey et al. in New England Journal of Medicine.

• “The thromboembolic complications do not represent a contraindication to complete the vaccination cycle…” and “The vaccination for SARS-Cov-2 is essential to overcome the pandemic…” Serrao et al. in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

The narrative is fully stated in this quote from an article published in Journal of Clinical Medicine to help practitioners provide “evidence-based counseling to their often-alarmed patients” who have new blood clots after vaccination.  Abrignani et al. conclude,

“All scientific societies emphasize the value of continuing vaccination programs to protect patients from severe forms of COVID-19 and to slow the circulation of the virus and its variants. Vaccine hesitancy risks regressing progress in infectious disease control. Abstention is not an option, as it results in a failure to assist a large population that remains in danger. Action, with increased vigilance, is the best solution in our public health mission.”

Medical journals should be places of conflict, where ideas clash, paradigms are upended, and the status quo is challenged.  The New England Journal of Medicine claims, “Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes.”  But the crossroads of biomedical science and clinical practice is not a static location, unchanging over time.  Without medical journals exposing dangers of established practice, physicians might never have learned that diethylstilbestrol treatment causes cancer or that thalidomide therapy causes birth defects.  

Today’s medical journals have devolved into a repository of orthodoxy where platitudes are exchanged among the sanctified.  They bow to a narrative that coincides with a political agenda, mocking the missions of these publications.  The trust accumulated from two centuries of diligence and integrity has been lost in a few months.

The erosion of trust does not stop with the journals.  It extends to my entire profession of physicians. Yet too few of my colleagues have acknowledged this trend.  Instead, most parrot the narrative to their patients.  Why?  Are they afraid they will never be published again?  Are they afraid they will be ostracized from the society of physicians and scientists?  Or are they just too lazy to observe and think for themselves?

Physicians have a sacred duty to the patient in front of them.  This duty requires honest observation, independent thought, and attention to the patient’s best interest.  Without these, we deserve the loss of public trust.