{"id":372669,"date":"2025-03-29T10:53:44","date_gmt":"2025-03-29T09:53:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=372669"},"modified":"2025-03-29T10:53:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T09:53:45","slug":"science-magazine-unfairly-attacks-the-journal-of-the-academy-of-public-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=372669","title":{"rendered":"Science Magazine Unfairly Attacks the Journal of the Academy of Public Health"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Side view of female lab worker in wheelchair experimenting with fluids in flasks<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Peter C. G\u00f8tzsche<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only two days after the Journal of the Academy of Public Health<\/a>\u2018s official launch, Science Magazine criticised<\/a> it in a news item. A scientist I had recommended as a member of our Academy wrote to me that the fact that Science feared our new journal suggested that we were on the right track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed. Science scored an own goal by illustrating so clearly what is wrong with the legacy media and traditional scientific journals. It started out with denigrating remarks about the journal being the brainchild of President Donald Trump\u2019s pick to direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff \u201cwho became known for his opposition to lockdowns, child vaccination, and other public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its editorial board also includes Trump\u2019s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Johns Hopkins University surgeon\u202fMarty [wrongly spelled as Martin] Makary, who also opposed vaccine mandates.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did Science mention that Trump picked Jay and Marty? This is irrelevant for any scientific judgments about these people. And what was wrong with their positions during the pandemic? Nothing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sweden<\/a> did not lock down and yet had one of the lowest mortalities in the world<\/a>. To vaccinate children against COVID-19 down to 6 months of age as in USA is highly likely harmful<\/a>, and we have not recommended this in Europe. Many people, me included, have argued against vaccine mandates and it was never a requirement in Denmark to become vaccinated against COVID-19. Such mandates are ethically and scientifically indefensible and can increase vaccine hesitancy for vaccines in general.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science\u2019s denigration continued: \u201cThe journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLacks\u201d a paywall? This is a negative statement, although it is positive not to have a paywall like Science has. And mask mandates? There is no need to mandate whole populations to dress as bank robbers given masking\u2019s tenuous<\/a> \u2013 and potentially nonexistent \u2013 benefits on a population level. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since only members of the Academy of Public Health can submit articles, Science is worried that the journal will be used \u201cto sow doubt about scientific consensus on matters such as vaccine efficacy and safety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific consensus is rare, and even when it exists, it has often been proven wrong by later research. Science is the opposite of consensus. The status quo should be challenged, and free scientific debate \u2013 that so many traditional journals have suppressed \u2013 moves science forward. There are many good reasons why some top scientists have abandoned<\/a> publishing in top scientific journals, and they include censorship, and financial and other conflicts of interest among anonymous peer reviewers, editors and journal owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All my life, I have produced numerous scientific results that went against the so-called scientific consensus, and when my opponents had no valid counterarguments, they called me controversial. I realised that this denigrating term always meant that my results threatened financial or other conflicts of interest, not least guild interests. When my statistician and I had demonstrated in 1999 that mammography screening might do more harm than good<\/a>, which I have confirmed many times ever since, a journalist wrote that there is nothing that hurts like the truth about healthcare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not enough for Science to cast doubt about our new journal by referring to Trump: \u201cJAPH\u202fis a nonprofit subsidiary of the Real Clear Foundation, itself a donor-financed nonprofit that has attracted support from major funders of conservative causes,\u202faccording to\u202fThe New York Times. Kulldorff and many other members of the 21-person editorial board have attracted criticism for their views and research during the COVID-19 pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ah well, I am one of these 21 people, and I know many of the others. We are anything but conservative. We try to keep an open mind and are not easily fooled by fraudsters. In 2023, I explained that the origin of COVID-19 is the biggest\u00a0cover up<\/a>\u00a0in medical history. And on 31 January 2025,\u00a0I tweeted<\/a>: \u201cThe CIA said Saturday that it\u2019s more likely a lab leak caused the Covid-19 pandemic than an infected animal that spread the virus to people. They are very slow at the CIA. I have known this for five years and have written a lot about it incl a whole book.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science lamented that Jay, Martin and Sunetra Gupta, also an editorial board member, authored the Great Barrington Declaration that opposed lockdowns. But yet again, they were right and Science and most other journals were wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science said that Jay and John Ioannidis, the most cited medical scientist and another board member, \u201cdrew fire in 2020 for a study that claimed SARS-CoV-2 had infected far more people than currently thought, and was therefore far less dangerous than assumed.\u201d This was totally misleading. Jay has explained<\/a> how they were exposed to inappropriate attacks and censorship from Stanford where they worked. Their initial results<\/a>, that the infection fatality rate was only 0.2%, were reproduced<\/a> in other studies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They first published their results as a preprint, in April 2020. If their results had been accepted at the time, instead of being roundly condemned, also in the media, the draconian lockdowns could have been avoided, as they showed that the virus spread very rapidly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science and the COVID-19 pandemic<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since Science criticised us so heavily for our COVID research and views, even though we were correct, we should look at what Science\u2019s own role has been. It claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are 100% effective<\/a> against severe disease, which wasn\u2019t even correct when Science made the claim because we knew that respiratory viruses mutate fast.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote in my book, The Chinese virus, that Beijing\u2019s useful idiots included Science, which was overly friendly with Peter Daszak \u2013 whose EcoHealth Alliance channelled an NIH grant to Wuhan to fund the highly dangerous gain-of-function research, which he denied<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February 2020, Science reported<\/a> that scientists \u201cstrongly condemn\u201d rumours and conspiracy theories about the origin of the pandemic. If you have no arguments, you raise your voice. This sentence does not belong in a scientific journal but in a tabloid, and it cannot be a conspiracy theory to suggest that the virus escaped from a lab and was likely manufactured there. In the same article, Daszak said that \u201cWe\u2019re in the midst of the social media misinformation age,\u201d but forgot to say he was the main driver of it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, researchers sent a modelling study<\/a> to Science arguing that herd immunity would be achieved earlier than the usual estimates of an infection rate of 60-80% of the population. Science admitted that the paper was rejected for political reasons: \u201cGiven the implications for public health, it is appropriate to hold claims around the herd immunity threshold to a very high evidence bar, as these would be interpreted to justify relaxation of interventions, potentially placing people at risk.\u201d Science was concerned that opponents of lockdown would use the paper to undermine the policy. The lead author said she might leave the field because every paper she had written on this issue had been rejected with the claim that it was not useful or new.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In November 2021, Science published an almost 5,000-word article<\/a> about Daszak that told nothing new. A reporter had spent seven hours with Daszak to put a nice gloss on him. A photo of Daszak appeared on Science\u2019s front page with the title of the article: Prophet in purgatory: Peter Daszak is fighting accusations that his work on the pandemic prevention helped spark COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science published this when the death toll was about 6 million and depicted Daszak as a hero who works on preventing pandemics when it is extremely likely that he and \u201cthe bat lady,\u201d Shi Zhengli in Wuhan, created one, which he had covered up for in two years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science didn\u2019t care much about conflicts of interest either. When NIH\u2019s David Morens praised Daszak, they didn\u2019t tell the readers that he was Daszak\u2019s funder, colleague and co-author. Science mentioned that Freedom of Information Act requests by the US Right to Know and others had uncovered inconvenient truths, but it used Angela Rasmussen to dismiss this as \u201cweaponized FOIA requests.\u201d She was the one who, in <\/a>Nature Medicine<\/a>, called it a world-wide conspiracy when people discussed a possible lab leak. It is still the case that there is not a thread of good evidence that the virus has a natural origin but a lot that tells us it was produced in a laboratory in Wuhan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wait and see<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Science article, Kulldorff said that people had a right to be worried about what might happen and added that our journal should be judged on its output a year or more from now, once it\u2019s more established. I agree. I am very enthusiastic about the journal. And this is not because I cannot publish in traditional journals. I am the only Dane that has over 100 publications in \u201cthe big five\u201d (BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disclosures, Funding & Conflicts of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Affiliations:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter C G\u00f8tzsche, Professor emeritus, Institute for Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, DK <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Only two days after the\u00a0Journal of the Academy of Public Health\u2018s official launch, Science Magazine\u00a0criticised\u00a0it in a news item. A scientist I had recommended as a member of our Academy wrote to me that the fact that Science feared our new journal suggested that we were on the right track.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":372672,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819391,691834134,691834135,691834132,691834133,691818149],"class_list":["post-372669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-covid-19-pandemic","tag-covid-19-vaccine-trials","tag-efficacy-and-safety","tag-journal-of-the-academy-of-public-health","tag-national-institutes-of-health-nih","tag-scientific-consensus","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0ScientistInWheelchair-1600x900-1.jpg?fit=1600%2C900&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1yWN","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":401343,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=401343","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":0},"title":"Chinese Communist Party- funded research has flooded academic journals","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Top-tier academic journals such as\u00a0Nature,\u00a0Science, the\u00a0New England Journal of Medicine,\u00a0and the\u00a0Lancet\u00a0have published reams of research funded by the Chinese Communist Party in recent years, a\u00a0Washington Examiner\u00a0review\u00a0found.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"85 climate experts\"","block_context":{"text":"85 climate experts","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=85-climate-experts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQOc2PU8w8Kp6NuzlMGsA7_BaWEjGmKDhp_o2bCxgySfTKxS-78beMFuvPTIXdb_QEk_-txdTMbZvSAI90XkUb7N5n60LHRXnOG-SxxvFb8XqBfY8A9zN0UNfErNJE-ZvdIv4xhQpp7xzwQB5fODZhWd07BDbg-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365888,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365888","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":1},"title":"The Vibe comes for Academic Publishing","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"There is a long list of things that have been singled out as needing fixing in our current system of academic scientific publishing.","rel":"","context":"In \"academic scientific publishing\"","block_context":{"text":"academic scientific publishing","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=academic-scientific-publishing"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0-The-Vibe-comes-for-Academic-Publishing.jpeg?fit=1200%2C872&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":404894,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404894","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":2},"title":"STEVE MILLOY: Rigged Report By National Academies Aims To Thwart Trump Energy Agenda","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/25\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The National Academy of Sciences just released its so-called\u00a0review\u00a0of the Trump EPA\u2019s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. It is every bit the rigged and predetermined outcome\u00a0predicted.","rel":"","context":"In \"COVID crisis\"","block_context":{"text":"COVID crisis","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=covid-crisis"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMin_4mmuh8GVU193_HG_5IAqT9N8PhXZVPxRl-X11TtyFqnKHmVickBbNIbeUiakKarsGiFnaLgolpMgfg98jV32HIZkBUkMyG-PnTRfKYzkyl0AvlBKTU9vL7K_eK.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMin_4mmuh8GVU193_HG_5IAqT9N8PhXZVPxRl-X11TtyFqnKHmVickBbNIbeUiakKarsGiFnaLgolpMgfg98jV32HIZkBUkMyG-PnTRfKYzkyl0AvlBKTU9vL7K_eK.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMin_4mmuh8GVU193_HG_5IAqT9N8PhXZVPxRl-X11TtyFqnKHmVickBbNIbeUiakKarsGiFnaLgolpMgfg98jV32HIZkBUkMyG-PnTRfKYzkyl0AvlBKTU9vL7K_eK.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMin_4mmuh8GVU193_HG_5IAqT9N8PhXZVPxRl-X11TtyFqnKHmVickBbNIbeUiakKarsGiFnaLgolpMgfg98jV32HIZkBUkMyG-PnTRfKYzkyl0AvlBKTU9vL7K_eK.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQMin_4mmuh8GVU193_HG_5IAqT9N8PhXZVPxRl-X11TtyFqnKHmVickBbNIbeUiakKarsGiFnaLgolpMgfg98jV32HIZkBUkMyG-PnTRfKYzkyl0AvlBKTU9vL7K_eK.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":400868,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400868","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":3},"title":"James Comer Probing Major Science Group Over Potential Partisan Climate Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/08\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer announced Wednesday he is investigating the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) over an expedited review that possibly was designed to undermine President Donald Trump\u2019s agenda.","rel":"","context":"In \"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)\"","block_context":{"text":"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=environmental-protection-agencys-epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AQOU-aZUGVJqzJWaFocsIFyDMIluUITwBQgmaT8yWXP1OqSoyp8aAb1GpKI02kE2SOUBuRenECaCA9aTLF-A3aHSJw1tddNWpu1QqZdZ2O48Ldgmy1w-kSiFMr0kIfgtZEElTMrH_yZYGQriBOLSdu2xAkAsxQ.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":402613,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=402613","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":4},"title":"GAO Submits Comments on NASEM Panel Tackling EPA \u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019 Rescision","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/16\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Comments on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine\u2019s Fast-track Review of the Evidence on Whether Greenhouse Gas Emissions are Reasonably Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare in the U.S., in Response to the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) proposal to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Submitted via NASEM website.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019\"","block_context":{"text":"\u2018Endangerment Finding\u2019","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=endangerment-finding-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0u.s.-environmental-protection-agency-scaled-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277127,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=277127","url_meta":{"origin":372669,"position":5},"title":"The Australian Academy of Science: Science or Wokeness?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a recent article titled\u00a0\u201cThe astonishingly woke Australian Academy of Science\u201d published in the Spectator,\u00a0Peter Ridd sheds light on the current state of the Australian Academy of Science (AAS). The article raises concerns about the AAS\u2019s approach to scientific research, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier Reef.","rel":"","context":"In \"AAS\u2019s priorities\"","block_context":{"text":"AAS\u2019s priorities","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=aass-priorities"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-125.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-125.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-125.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-125.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-125.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=372669"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":372673,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372669\/revisions\/372673"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/372672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=372669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=372669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=372669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}