Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician with decades of experience in infectious diseases, and a critic of COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates, has faced pushback from the public health establishment.
Now, as co-founder and co-editor of the new Journal of the Academy of Public Health, Kulldorff is pushing for academic freedom and a renewed commitment to evidence-based medicine. "We have a crisis in the public health community," he says. "The basic principles of public health were abandoned during the pandemic, and we need to restore them."
Kulldorff’s new journal is designed to challenge the traditional model of scientific publishing. "It has four basic pillars," he says. "First, it's open access, meaning that anyone—not just scientists at wealthy institutions—can read it. Second, we make peer reviews public so that readers can see the critiques and reasoning behind published articles. Third, we pay our reviewers a nominal honorarium of $500, because peer review is valuable work. And fourth, we uphold academic freedom, ensuring that excellent scientists can publish research even if it challenges the prevailing narrative."
The principles have already drawn attention—and concern—from certain quarters of the public health world. Some have questioned the journal’s motives and potential impact. "I think they have reason to be concerned," Kulldorff says bluntly. "This new model threatens the existing business structure of scientific journals. But it's good for science, good for rank-and-file scientists, and good for the public."
As new leadership takes shape in Washington, Kulldorff sees an opportunity to rebuild trust in public health. "Trust in public health has plummeted for good reason," he says. "Closing schools, lockdowns, vaccine passports—these were bad policies. We need to restore evidence-based medicine, and I think the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the NIH is a step in the right direction. He is a scientist deeply committed to evidence. The same goes for Dr. Marty Makary at the FDA. It will take years to rebuild trust, but these are the right kinds of changes."
However, not everyone shares his optimism. Critics have suggested that the recent appointments will undermine science. "Some claim that the sky is falling, that NIH and the FDA will collapse," Kulldorff says. "But when I ask them to be specific, they have no real arguments," he says.
One of the most contentious issues remains vaccines. While some fear that the new administration will dismantle vaccine programs, Kulldorff dismisses the concerns. "I’m a big fan of vaccines," he says, and adds "the smallpox vaccine alone has saved millions of lives.”
He says the reason confidence in vaccines has plummeted isn't because of so-called anti-vaxxers. “It’s because the public health establishment misrepresented COVID-19 vaccines, ignored natural immunity, and pushed mandates,” he says. He also says the way to restore confidence is “through honesty and rigorous research."
He also sees a need for reassessment of the vaccine schedule itself. "In Scandinavia, children get fewer vaccines than in the U.S., yet they are just as healthy, if not healthier,” he claims. When asked if vaccination schedules should be reassessed, his answer is, “Probably–but we need real studies to guide that discussion.” He concludes that “Science should always be open to questioning."
Kulldorff is also concerned about the broader relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. "There’s a revolving door between the FDA, CDC, and pharma," he says. "Regulators should not be financially tied to the industries they oversee."
The bottom line, according to Kulldorf is, “we need reform,” and he offers a place to start. “With the right leadership, we can restore integrity to public health,” he says.
For Kulldorff, the mission is clear: bring back open debate, demand accountability, and ensure that science serves the public rather than political or financial interests. "Public health belongs to the people, not bureaucrats," he says.
