After one of the nation’s largest academic publishers withdrew a scientific study on the risks posed by chemical abortion that is part of an upcoming Supreme Court case, the authors of the study It accuses publishers of caving in on activists.
On February 5th, Sage Publishing withdrew. 2021 survey In the journal Health Services Research and Administrative Epidemiology, an analysis of Medicaid data found that the number of emergency department visits after chemical abortions with the pill mifepristone increased by 507% between 2002 and 2015. .
Another study in 2022 A paper published in the same journal that was retracted showed that complications from chemical abortions are frequently misclassified as miscarriages and are a “significant risk factor for subsequent hospitalization.”
Both studies were cited in the ruling of U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmalik. Stop FDA approval of mifepristone April 2023, decision to be made later. suspended by the Supreme Court Following an appeal by President Biden’s attorney general, Elizabeth Preloger.
Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for March 26. Both the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have said mifepristone is “safe” and “effective” for abortions up to 70 days into pregnancy.
After Kaczmarik’s ruling, James Studnicki, lead co-author of the study, told the Post: Concerns A July 2023 paper from Sage mentions “potential issues with the presentation of data within the paper and conflicts of interest for the authors,” as well as a conflict of interest with one of the original reviewers.
Studnicki and his co-authors were kept in the dark about who reported their concerns, but the identity of the person has now been revealed. State Newsroom Articles Chris Adkins, a professor at the University of the South’s School of Pharmacy, was told later that year that both studies had been retracted.
The journal Health Services Research and Management Epidemiology also removed Studnicki from its editorial board without explanation.
In a response letter, Studnicki criticized Sage’s decision, saying the study’s findings were “not only invalid but also not clearly challenged,” there was “no evidence of error, miscalculation, fabrication, or falsification,” and that the standards were “invalid.” It is clear that it is.” The retraction was not met under publication guidelines and therefore the study’s retraction was “manifestly unwarranted.”
of sage Notice of withdrawal The two studies and one other paper did not meet the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which claimed that a post-publication peer review found “fundamental problems with the study design and methodology.” are doing.[d] Lack of scientific rigor and invalidation[d] All or part of the authors’ conclusions. ”
The study’s cover reveals that Studnicki and two other co-authors, Tessa Longbonds and Dr. Ingrid Schopp, are affiliated with the Charlotte Rozier Institute, an anti-abortion research organization based in Virginia. I made it.
Mr. Studnicki currently serves as the group’s vice president of data analytics, and Mr. Skop, vice president of medical affairs, is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist with more than 30 years of experience. Longbonds is a senior researcher.
All told the Post that the retraction was “unprecedented,” and Studnicki said the expression of concern “came across as someone trying to harass us.”
“I’ve been involved in research for 50 years at three different universities, and I’ve never been involved in a retraction,” Studnicki said. “There is absolutely no suggestion that this science is in any way inadequate or flawed.
“This feels like a double standard, because one of their claims, of course, was that we didn’t report a conflict of interest,” Longbonds said.
“And none of us make a ton of money doing the work we do. But nevertheless, working at the Guttmacher Institute and other very vocal pro-abortion groups… Researchers never report their struggles.”
“This undermines their claims that it’s very safe,” Skopf also said of research into the potential risks of complications from chemical abortions.
“And obviously I think that’s why we were targeted.”
“This case is indicative of a larger, new phenomenon in which many of our nation’s scientific institutions and publications can no longer defend open research,” Longbonds said.
“Rather, we are witnessing biased elites throughout the medical community doing everything in their power to suppress research that runs counter to their endorsed pro-abortion claims. Scientific research and publishing is driven by ideology. It should be based on science, not based on
The Post has reached out to a Sage representative for comment.
