At PRI, as at any pro-life organization, recognition of media bias is a fact of life. It is something planned for and worked with while still trying to get the message out. But the extent of this bias is taking a disturbing trend when it occurs in medical journals. Medical journals have the responsibility of keeping physicians abreast of the latest developments in medicine. This information directly affects the care they give their patients.
In recent months PRI has been involved in educating the public on the dangers of the Morning After Pill (MAP), also known as “emergency contraception,” being marketed by Barr Laboratories under the brand name “Plan B.” (PRI Weekly Briefings, of March 5, 12, 19, April 2, 16 and May 5). One of PRI’s arguments involves the lack of safety-testing of the drug for girls under 16 (apparently a target consumer group).
Fortunately the FDA rejected over-the-counter approval of this drug, but the battle goes on. On April 8 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article, “The FDA, Politics, and Plan B” claiming that the postponement of over-the-counter approval for Plan B, “suggests that the FDA’s decision-making process is being influenced by political considerations. The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that emergency contraception is safe and effective when available without a prescription.”
It has become a constant refrain that “political motivations” are at work in anything that restricts the widest possible spread of contraceptives rather than an honest concern for the health and well-being of women and girls.
PRI president, Steve Mosher, responded to NEJM’s editors on April 12 in serious scientific and medical nomenclature providing data rebutting this article. It was not published, as a specious objection was made to one paragraph. Steve took out the “offending” paragraph and resent the letter. This submission did not receive the courtesy of a response.
On June 16 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article by Brian Vastag: “Plan B for Plan B? FDA Denies OTC Sales of Emergency Contraceptive.” The article hints the FDA decision was politically motivated, citing expert sources from Planned Parenthood, the Alan Guttmacher Institute and National Organization of Women.
One is left to presume those sources have no “political motivation.”
PRI senior fellow, John Mallon, responded to JAMA with a letter citing PRI’s warnings on Plan B. This too was rejected for publication. On inquiring why, Mallon received a polite email from Robert M. Golub, M.D., Senior Editor of JAMA, stating in part, “After considering the opinions of our editorial staff, we determined your letter did not receive a high enough priority rating for publication in JAMA. We are able to publish only a small fraction of the several thousand letters submitted to us each year, which means that published letters must have an extremely high rating.”
No publication is required to publish any letter to the editor, but this comment caused a researcher at PRI to say, “Why is it a high priority rating to publish an article promoting Plan B MAP, but not a high enough priority rating to publish a letter criticizing the article?”
A fair question. Mallon’s letter was also shared with Catholic Medical Association (CMA) members, prompting one CMA member, Thomas Zabiega, M.D., to fire off an angry letter to Dr. Golub:
Dear Dr, Golub,
I am writing this letter in protest to the fact that JAMA all too frequently ignores the letters of physicians that do not have “politically correct” views about certain topics such as the Morning After Pill issue. A letter from Dr. Mallon is a case in point. Therefore, I personally would like to withdraw my subscription to JAMA that I am entitled to as a member of AMA. I will also file a protest with AMA about the lack of representation of the views of Catholic and Christian physicians in the letter portion of JAMA, I hope to make other physicians in the Catholic Medical Association and other organizations aware of this discriminatory policy of JAMA.
Sincerely,
Thomas Zabiega, M.D. (Emphasis in the original)
Dr. Zabiega’s letter indicates PRI’s experience is not an isolated incident of non-physicians. (Mallon is not a physician, but appreciates the promotion from Dr. Zabiega, who could not have known that when he wrote his letter.)
So the question is raised: Have the major medical journals, responsible for informing physicians on the latest developments concerning care for their patients been taken over by ideologues like so many other things? If sexual ideologues and population controllers (whose chief tactic is accusing their opponents of what they practice in terms of political motivation like those who have essentially taken over the UN conference and treaty system) have taken over the major medical journals and are censoring views that do not fit the agenda (i.e. politically incorrect), then the future of medicine, especially medical ethics, is dim indeed.
John Mallon is a senior fellow with PRI
