Questions For Dr. Martin Kulldorff
Link: https://publichealth.realclearjournals.org/
Hi everyone,
Tomorrow on the podcast I will be interviewing Dr. Martin Kulldorff about his brand new science journal “Journal of the Academy of Public Health.” As you all know, Martin was a co-author of The Great Barrington Declaration with Jay and Sunetra. He was a fierce opponent of vaccine mandates and was fired from both the CDC and Harvard for his heterodox views.
From Martin:
Scientific journals have had enormous positive impact on the development of science, but in some ways, they are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse. After reviewing the history and current problems with journals, a new academic publishing model is proposed. It embraces open access and open rigorous peer review, it rewards reviewers for their important work with honoraria and public acknowledgement and it allows scientists to publish their research in a timely and efficient manner without wasting valuable scientist time and resources.
As we’ve learned over the past few years, we need new institutions that are not politically compromised. Martin’s new initiative is an exciting new project worth highlighting and discussing.
Paid members: please leave you questions below for Martin and I will try and ask him as many as possible. You can look into his journal here and see what captures your interests.
If you support my journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.
Awesome! Please thank him for all his amazing work! Weird peer review question: many great scientific breakthroughs in history were so paradigm shifting they rendered the scientist’s peers irrelevant, and they certainly weren’t welcome by those peers initially. Doesn’t peer review retard scientific progress? Alt: does he believe science/medicine made more significant/impressive breakthroughs in the centuries before peer review, or the period after it was so rigorously adopted?
Hey Rav. How do we address the problem of Principal Investigator bias in clinical trials? As an example: In the original J & J adenovirus vector vaccine trial, a young man suffered a cerebral venous thrombus (VITT) after receiving the vaccine. This was deemed "not related to therapy" by the PI, and the vaccine was approved. As we all know, it was later withdrawn from the market because of the "rare" and "unforeseen" incidence of VITT (which it should be noted was 1/22,000 in the study group). There were incidences of PE's and DVT's that were similarly dismissed in the vaccine arm.