The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association and its JAMA network of other periodicals have published about 950 articles on race, racism, and racial and ethnic disparities and inequities in the past five years – about a third appearing in just the past year.
A search for “health disparities” on the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed.gov search page shows an exponential “hockey stick” trend in recent years, with articles through October already surpassing last year’s total of 10,719. By comparison, “ovarian cancer” yields 7,134 search results last year, while “aortic aneurysm” yields fewer than 4,000.
These numbers attest to the fact that the academic study of racial justice, power and privilege is no longer the sole domain of non-scientific university departments, such as sociology, literature and education. The trendy topic has migrated to peer-reviewed medical journals, where editors now view systemic racism as a leading cause of disproportionate illness and premature mortality among black people.
A major medical journal in the United States is facing widespread criticism after it published an article declaring that parents should lose their “veto power” to object to their children trying to seek gender-altering surgical procedures, Breitbart reports.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article titled “LGBT testimony and the limits of trust,” authored by Dr. Maura Priest, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at Arizona State University (ASU). In the article, Priest claims that “it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care,” as “only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits.”
Furthermore, Priest declares that “taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related pediatric care.” Priest had expanded on this assertion in a pre-publication draft, where she said that “guardian veto power over identity-affirming care [results] in injustice whenever such power means one trans child is denied the care that another receives.”
The range of acceptable opinion on COVID-19 mitigation efforts may be widening, with peer-reviewed medical journals recently publishing research finding that masks likely harm schoolchildren and questioning whether benefits from COVID-19 vaccines outweigh risks.
Measured carbon dioxide content in “inhaled air,” observed in a study of masked German schoolchildren, was at least three-fold higher than German law allows, according to a research letter published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics.
Last week, the journal Vaccines, affiliated with the American Society for Virology, published research that estimates every three COVID-19 deaths prevented by vaccination are offset by two deaths “inflicted by vaccination,” using Israeli and European data.
The papers share a lead author, Harald Walach, a professor in Poznan University of the Medical Sciences’ Pediatric Clinic in Poland and University of Witten/Herdecke’s psychology department in Germany.
A recent article in an academic medical journal made the absurd declaration that being White is a “malignant” and “parasitic-like condition,” with no “permanent cure,” as reported by Fox News.
The racist and pseudo-scientific claim was made in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA). The article, titled “On Having Whiteness,” was written by Dr. Donald Moss, a faculty member of both the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, who is himself a White man.
Among his baseless claims are the notions that White people suffer from an “entitled dominion” that allows the disease’s “host” to demonstrate “force without restriction” and “violence without mercy,” as well as an increased desire to “terrorize” others.
A leading medical journal terminated an editor who questioned the existence of structural racism. His fellow medical professors expressed approval of the firing.
The American Medical Association wrote in a statement that it was “deeply disturbed” and “angered” by a recent Journal of the American Medical Association podcast that “questioned the existence of structural racism.” Though the organization claimed that “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA,” the statement added that “this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA.”