I got an angry email this week. That happens, of course, when you publish an opinion section: People disagree and get mad. In a lot of ways, that's good. If an op-ed section never makes anyone mad, then it's a pretty boring one.
This particular email recycled an accusation that I've often received before: that I'm a paid pharma shill. I'm not, I promise — if I were, I'd have a much nicer car, a full-time nanny, maybe a GLP-1 prescription, paid for out of pocket.
The email also asked, in more colorful language, about why I don't publish more pieces that disagree with conventional public health wisdom or support HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Let me be clear: I've published lots of essays by conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans, including former Trump administration officials. I have several others in the pipeline and am always looking for more. I am certainly open to publishing a persuasive defense of HHS cuts, for instance.
But I can only publish essays that are sent my way, either through the transom at first.opinion@statnews.com or after I reach out directly to a potential author.
So if you want to see more ideological diversity in these pages, email me your good-faith argument and let's talk.
The one bias I will cop to: The essays I publish must be rooted in evidence-based science.
That doesn't mean that, say, vaccines are completely off-limits. First Opinion has published a first-person essay on the controversial idea of "post-vaccination syndrome," written by patients who say they are affected by it, and one arguing for updating the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, written by two well-respected commentators, Dorit Reiss and Arthur Caplan.
In short: Discussions at the margin are very welcome. Questioning their very existence? Nope.
Recommendation of the week: New York magazine's profile of the Kennedy family in 2025 is illuminating — and just the right amount of gossipy.
No comments