RFK Jr. threatens to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threatened to stop government scientists from publishing their work in major medical journals on a podcast on Tuesday as part of his escalating war on institutions he says are influenced by pharmaceutical companies.
Speaking on the 'Ultimate Human' podcast, Kennedy said the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet, three of the most influential medical journals in the world, were 'corrupt' and publish studies funded and approved by pharmaceutical companies.
'Unless those journals change dramatically, we are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing in them and we're going to create our own journals in-house,' he said, referring to the National Institutes of Health, an HHS agency that is the world's largest funder of health research.
His comments come days after the White House released a major report, spearheaded by Kennedy, that says overprescribed medications could be driving a rise in chronic disease in children. The report suggests that influence from the pharmaceutical industry and a culture of fear around speaking out has drawn doctors and scientists away from studying the causes of chronic disease. It also comes after both JAMA and the NEJM received letters from the Department of Justice probing them for partisanship.
Kennedy's stance, however, conflicts with that of his NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, who recently told a reporter with POLITICO sister publication WELT he supports academic freedom, which 'means I can send my paper out even if my bosses disagree with me.'
On the podcast, Kennedy claimed the heads of the leading journals, including The Lancet Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton and the former editor-in-chief of the NEJM, Marcia Angell, also no longer consider their publications reputable.
Kennedy was referring to 2009 and 2015 statements, respectively, by Angell and Horton: Angell wrote it 'is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published' due to financial ties with pharmaceutical companies while Horton wrote about concerns about the replicability of scientific research.
Kennedy went on to say Horton 'really disgraced himself' during the Covid-19 pandemic. Horton was at the center of a 2020 controversy when The Lancet retracted a study linking the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine to increased Covid-19 deaths. Horton said the publication would change its peer review process.
The London-based journal also published a letter from prominent scientists including EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak that said questioning whether Covid had a natural origin amounted to a conspiracy theory. A Trump administration web site says that EcoHealth facilitated 'dangerous gain-of-function' research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology that President Donald Trump believes caused the pandemic. The Biden administration barred Daszak and EcoHealth from receiving further government funding, citing their failure to follow grant protocols.
A JAMA spokesperson said the journal had nothing to add when asked about Kennedy's remarks while NEJM and The Lancet did not respond to requests for comment. HHS also did not respond to requests for comment.
Bhattacharya and FDA chief Marty Makary recently launched their own journal, the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, which they say will promote open discourse. Both are on leave from its editorial board.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Drinking sugar may be worse than eating it, study finds
PROVO, Utah (KTVX) — Drinking your sugar may be worse for you than previously thought. That is, according to a recent study conducted by Brigham Young University (BYU) researchers in collaboration with several researchers from Germany-based institutions. The study, which analyzed data from over half a million people across multiple continents, found that sugar consumed through drinks, such as soda and juice, was consistently linked to a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes. Sugar from other sources reportedly showed no such link or were, in some cases, associated with a lower risk of diabetes. Karen Della Corte, the lead author on the study and a BYU nutritional science professor, said this was the first study to draw clear 'dose-response' relationships between different sugar sources and Type 2 diabetes risks. 'It highlights why drinking your sugar, whether from soda or juice, is more problematic for health than eating it,' said Della Corte. The study suggests the more problematic nature of sugary drinks may come down to differing metabolic effects. Researchers said sugar-sweetened drinks contain isolated sugars that lead to a higher glycemic impact that overwhelm and disrupt metabolism in the liver. This, in turn, increases liver fat and insulin resistance, the study says. Meanwhile, the sugars that can be found in fruits, dairy products, or whole grains do not overload the liver. The beneficial nutrients, such as fiber, fats, and proteins, help slow the blood glucose responses that dietary sugars bring. 'This study underscores the need for even more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars such as those in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice, as they appear to harmfully associate with metabolic health,' Della Corte said. 'Rather than condemning all added sugars, future dietary guidelines might consider the differential effects of sugar based on its source and form.' The study has been published in the Advances in Nutrition journal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Councils fly flags to support Ukraine – but block defence spending
Councils are flying flags for Ukraine from their town halls while blocking investment in the British defence industry. At least a dozen English councils have passed motions to 'divest' from defence companies because of the war in Gaza, or have taken steps to reduce their holdings in arms companies. A report by two Labour MPs has found that defence companies have missed out on at least £30 million in investment because of action taken by local councils to focus their pension funds on 'ethical' firms. Despite this, several of the councils have displayed the Ukrainian flag from their town halls in solidarity against Russia. The MPs, Luke Charters and Alex Baker, said there was 'untapped potential' in local government pensions that could be used to boost investment in the defence sector, which often struggles to access finance. They argued that supporting British defence companies would help Ukraine, which has received more than £18 billion in military and humanitarian support from the UK. The MPs said there was a 'concerning trend among UK councils to divest from defence, with at least a dozen authorities implementing partial or full exclusion policies since 2022'. The MPs did not name the councils, but The Telegraph has found evidence of town halls in London, Bristol, Somerset, Oxford and Dudley where motions have been passed banning defence investment in support of Palestine. Dudley council, which is under no single party's overall control, passed a motion to divest from defence companies with the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. The council has flown the Ukrainian flag several times since the Russian invasion in February 2022, and lit up its town hall in blue and yellow. Labour-run Manchester city council, which voted to pressure its pension provider to abandon weapons manufacturers in November last year, has celebrated Ukrainian independence day and spent £50,000 to support Ukrainian refugees arriving in the city. The motion noted that councillors 'recognise the inextricable link between war, climate destruction, and human suffering' and that 'armed conflicts not only result in loss of life, including civilians and children, but also lead to intense environmental destruction'. Labour-run Waltham Forest Council, which announced plans to sell all defence investments in August last year, has hosted events for Ukrainian residents affected by the 'crisis' in their home country. Mr Charters told The Telegraph: 'With war on our continent, this is not the moment for councils to pull back from investing in UK defence. 'Firms and financiers have been clear when we have engaged with them: barriers like weak demand signals, short-term contracts, divestment, and regulatory uncertainty are holding the sector back. 'Our report calls for urgent engagement with local government pension schemes – and sets out 12 reforms to help unlock the capital and credit our defence sector needs to grow. 'Financing sovereign defence isn't optional – it's vital to our security and economic future.' The report's findings also include an apparent admission from the parliamentary pension scheme for MPs that their savings are often deliberately not invested in defence. A letter to the MPs from the chair of the fund said that while there was no specific ban on defence investments, 'environmental, social, governance and climate change issues tend to be more pronounced in some defence companies'. Mr Charters and Ms Baker said: 'There needs to be a holistic review by officials to understand how public investment vehicles are performing when it comes to defence sector investment. 'The UK cannot afford to miss this moment due to outdated ethical aversions. 'Defence investments represent not only a financial opportunity, but also an ethical obligation to secure the nation's future amidst an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.' Dudley council, Manchester city council and Waltham Forest council have all been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Non-Surgical Nose Jobs Are Replacing the Knife
Surgical rhinoplasty may be the gold standard, but in 2025, the scalpel is no longer the default. Today's patients want precision without permanence, and they're getting it in under 30 minutes. 'More and more patients are looking for impactful changes without the permanence or downtime of surgery,' says Dr. Ali Ghiyam, MD, of Simi Doctors. 'What used to be a multi-week commitment is now a 20-minute visit with results that can be just as transformative.' Enter the liquid nose job, a fast, reversible fix that's transforming the world of facial aesthetics, one hyaluronic drop at a time. A new generation of patients is reshaping beauty culture, and it's happening through subtle 'tweakments' instead of full-scale transformations. With platforms like TikTok flooding feeds with sculpted side profiles and filter-perfect noses, people are showing up to appointments with screen grabs, not celebrity references. What they want isn't dramatic: it's a touch-up. A straighter bridge. A more lifted tip. A camera-friendly angle. Thanks to the tweakment trend, those wishes now come true with a syringe instead of a scalpel. 'A liquid rhinoplasty uses hyaluronic acid filler to smooth bumps, lift the nasal tip, or create a straighter profile,' explains the Cleveland Clinic. 'It's fast, non-invasive, and delivers immediate results, often with zero downtime. The key advantage? It's temporary and reversible.' The procedure takes less than 30 minutes. Filler (often Juvederm or Restylane) is injected to contour the nose and refine its shape without reducing size or correcting internal structure. It's ideal for patients seeking cosmetic improvements without long recovery or surgical commitment. And if you don't love the results? Hyaluronidase can dissolve the filler in minutes. Liquid rhinoplasty has expanded far beyond the surgery-averse. It's now the go-to tweak for influencers, professionals, and even patients test-driving their future surgical look. Non-surgical procedures like this are part of a broader movement: over 4.4 million filler treatments were performed in the U.S. in a single year, with nose reshaping topping the request list. For younger patients, especially, the appeal lies in control: you can try, adjust, or undo, no operating room required. Despite the no-scalpel promise, liquid rhinoplasty is still a medical procedure, and one that carries risk. The nose contains critical blood vessels. If filler is improperly placed, it can lead to vascular occlusion, potentially causing tissue damage or even blindness. That's why expert care is non-negotiable. Choose a board-certified provider with advanced knowledge of nasal anatomy and vascular safety. Minor swelling and bruising are common. But if you experience pain, skin blanching, or vision changes, you should seek immediate medical attention. The rise of liquid nose jobs marks a shift in how we approach beauty: not as a permanent destination, but as a journey we can refine in real-time. A 2022 NIH study found that younger patients are significantly more likely to choose non-invasive procedures for cosmetic concerns, citing flexibility, reduced downtime, and lower risk. This isn't about perfection, it's about personalization. It's skincare meets sculpting, minus the irreversible choices. If you're curious about rhinoplasty but not quite ready for the OR, this might be the aesthetic middle ground you didn't know you needed. Expect to pay between $600 and $1,500, with results lasting 6 to 12 months depending on the product used and your body's metabolism. Just remember: this is still a medical procedure, not a facial. Choose wisely. Ask questions. And don't let a filter talk you into a filler without doing your homework. A liquid nose job, also known as non-surgical rhinoplasty, is a cosmetic procedure that uses injectable dermal fillers (usually hyaluronic acid) to temporarily reshape the nose. It can smooth bumps, enhance symmetry, and lift the nasal tip without the need for surgery or downtime. Most non-surgical nose jobs last between 6 and 12 months, depending on the type of filler used and how your body metabolizes it. Some patients may need a touch-up around the 9-month mark to maintain results. Yes, when performed by a qualified, board-certified injector. However, the nose is a high-risk area due to its blood vessel structure. Complications like vascular occlusion are rare but serious, so safety depends on the skill and anatomical expertise of the provider. Technically, no, it won't reduce the size of your nose. But by adding filler in strategic places, a liquid rhinoplasty can create the illusion of a smaller, straighter, or more balanced nose by improving proportions and smoothing out irregularities. The average cost of a liquid nose job in the U.S. ranges from $600 to $1,500, depending on the injector's experience, location, and filler brand. It's significantly more affordable upfront than traditional rhinoplasty, but the results are temporary. Yes. If hyaluronic acid filler is used, the procedure is said to be reversible. An enzyme called hyaluronidase can be injected to safely dissolve the filler within 24 to 48 hours. This procedure is ideal for individuals who want minor cosmetic refinements (such as smoothing a dorsal hump or lifting the nasal tip) but aren't ready for the permanence, downtime, or cost of surgery. It's not recommended for those needing structural correction or breathing improvements. Click here to learn more about Dr. Ali Ghiyam, MD.
