Micah Berman

@micahberman.bsky.social

Stephen F. Loebs Professor in Health Management Services and Policy & Professor of Law, Ohio State University Public Health Law & Policy; Health Policy; Global Public Health; Tobacco Regulation

Astonishing. RFK Jr. adds 8 members to a 6 member FDA advisory panel. 6 of them were sellers of peptides, and the 7th a compounding pharmacist. In an 8-6 vote with all 8 votes coming from these new panel members, the panel approved 4 peptides against the objections of FDA scientists.

FDA Panel Supports Lifting Restrictions on Four Peptides (Gift Article)

In an all-day hearing, the agency’s scientists argued against allowing broad access to unproven drugs that the agency had banned three years ago.

nytimes.com

"The Trump administration is moving religious freedom to the forefront of its health policies, ... likely affect[ing] reproductive health, LGBTQ+healthcare, and vaccine policy." via HHS restructuring and a DOJ report, via @melodyschreiber.com @theguardian.com www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

Trump administration puts religious freedom at heart of US health policy

Critics say the new focus could reshape LGBTQ+ healthcare, abortion access and vaccine policy

theguardian.com

to the Trump DOJ, if an ally of the administration breaks the law and the administration decides not to do anything to stop them, they can also prevent anyone else from making sure the law is enforced, regardless of the law’s explicit language. An open invitation to corruption.

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · last mo.

The Department of Justice is trying to get the NAACP’s Clean Air Act suit against xAI tossed because it claims the government should be able to block *all* citizen suits it opposes to avoid “Article II” concerns. As today’s “One First” explains, this argument is as scary and alarming as it is novel:

NEW from Important Context: All eyes have been on the Trump slush fund settlement, but a week earlier, the DOJ settled a Biden-era censorship lawsuit brought by anti-vax writer Alex Berenson, which was on appeal from a federal court dismissal. According to Berenson, it included a 6-figure payout.

Trump DOJ Settles Lawsuit By Vaccine Skeptic Despite Winning in Court

Anti-mRNA vaccine writer Alex Berenson said he received a six-figure payout from the case.

importantcontext.news

Science is built on a foundation of hundreds of papers. If the removal of a single paper from that foundation completely upsets your hypothesis, it often means you’re sciencing incorrectly. He has so little evidence for his claims that he has to cling to this paper and fight tooth and nail.

Lawrence H. Lash, Ph.D.
Wayne State University School of Medicine
Department of Pharmacology
540 East Canfield Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201 USA
Dear Dr. Lash:
I am writing to you regarding the editorial process concerning the removal of the article
"Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature," by Neil Z. Miller. As you may know, research integrity and academic freedom have been important issues to me for decades in my private career and continue to be important to me in government service. In the case of research conducted or supported by the Public Health Service, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity promotes research integrity through education programs and oversees investigations of alleged research misconduct. Research integrity and academic freedom are vital to high-quality and trustworthy scientific investigation and debate.
For that reason, the recent decision to remove the article is of great interest to me. Retraction, and even removal, of seriously flawed publications is appropriate in certain cases. However, it should be accompanied by a transparent and full explanation of why such an action was carried out. For example, a guide on publication ethics, Wager et al (2009), states that the notice of retraction should "state the reason(s) for retraction."
The notice of removal you issued had only two sentences explaining the retraction. Given the high levels of public interest in vaccine safety and a history of both overt and obscure pressure against the study of some of these topics, such a brief notice of removal is woefully insufficient.
To assist me and my staff in understanding the editorial standards regarding retraction, removal, and research integrity being applied by Toxicology Reports, please provide the following information by June 25, 2026:
1. How the removal decision was reached: Please provide the full internal written analysis that justifie…methodological flaws in this article, the journal initiated an investigation." Please identify the experts who conducted this investigation and the conflicts of interest these experts may have.
3. Clarification of treatment of corroborating literature cited by Miller: The Miller paper cites an extensive literature on an association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and recent vaccinations, from 1933" to 2014". Did the experts involved in investigating the Miller article also investigate those cited papers?
4. Criteria "potential implications for medical practice": you cite "the potential implications for medical practice" as a reason for retraction. Can you please define the criteria by which a scientific paper's "potential implications for medical practice" are determined and considered for the purpose of retraction? Are they applied equivalently to papers with similar subject areas and hence, implications for medical practice- but with different conclusions?
5. Criteria for article removal versus retraction: Please explain why you opted for the removal of an article rather an expression of concern or retraction. Which specific guidelines on scientific integrity and publication ethics did you follow when deciding to remove the paper?
To rebuild the American public's trust in public health and medical science, full transparency regarding these decisions is essential. The public deserves to know how and if the scientific publishing industry is taking its duty to ensure research integrity seriously and ethically.
1 look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Platkamax
Robert F. Kennedy,

'Texas A&M philosophy professor Martin Peterson is leaving the university after administrators told him in January that he couldn’t teach Plato’s Symposium in his philosophy class; they said the ancient Greek philosopher’s work violated the system’s restrictions on gender and sexuality content.' 1/3

Faculty Defect From Texas Publics, Citing Censorship

Fed up with the state’s censoring of Plato, Joan of Arc and Romeo and Juliet, humanities professors are leaving Texas public institutions in pursuit of academic freedom.

insidehighered.com

The leadership at HHS has an agenda, and that is to deprive the United States of vaccines, most especially COVID19 vaccines. These people have no problem making claims about their belief that COVID19 vaccines are harmful without any data at all. Now they are hiding data showing the benefits.

CDC delays publishing report showing covid vaccine benefits

The acting CDC director cited concerns with the methodology, but the design has long been used to test vaccine effectiveness.

washingtonpost.com

tl;dr: NIH is running at about 60% of pre-Trump levels and NSF is running at about 20% of pre-Trump levels of funding-outlays (some directorates far below even that). Utterly catastrophic. An unforced disaster for U.S. society, and the world

Noam Ross@noamross.net · 4mo ago

For #NSF and #NIH watchers, Grant Witness now has interactive data on numbers of grants and total funding obligations, broken down by institute and directorate, new awards and non-competitive renewals. The stranglehold on new awards is still a disaster. grant-witness.us/funding_curv...