I’m sure the Supreme Court will want to use only the best scientific evidence

It turns out that the publisher is retracting three papers on which Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk based his opinion that the FDA had not properly approved the drug mifepristone, used in abortions.

[The publisher] found, for example, that with a 2021 study cited by Kacsmaryk, all but one of the eight authors were affiliated with an anti-abortion advocacy organization “despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest.” The investigation also discovered that a peer reviewer who initially reviewed that study had been affiliated with one of those groups — the Charlotte Lozier Institute — as well.

So – who knew? – the forced pregnancy faction lies. The publisher involved is reputable, and many journals require a statement of possible conflicts of interest. Lying on those statements is cause for retracting the paper. But it’s worse than that. When questions were raised about the paper, a second peer review was done. (Thanks to J- in the comments.)

Two subject matter experts undertook an independent post-publication peer review of the three articles anew. In the 2021 and 2022 articles, which rely on the same dataset, both experts identified fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part. In the 2019 article, which relies on a different dataset, both experts identified unsupported assumptions and misleading presentations of the findings that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and render the authors’ conclusion unreliable.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case next month.

Photo is public domain.