[rayiner]

There is nothing “thuggish” about demanding corrections of factual errors, and it’s not “gross and morally bankrupt” to engage to talk about those changes instead of waiting for the damage to be done after inaccurate facts are published. The law protects you from that. I suspect that you’re presupposing, without a basis, that the cited errors are not errors but rather unflattering characterizations.

[jacquesm]

In any scientists-vs-lawyers battle I would be more than happy to let the scientists publish before the lawyers get to have their say. It is possible that this is a complaint on merits but given the past performance of the legal profession in situations like these the chances are much better than even that they are protecting some commercial interest rather than that they are suddenly interested in accurate and factual reporting by scientists.

[rayiner]

The lawyers work for the clients, which in this case are other doctors.

[jacquesm]

That is not an accurate description of the situation as far as I can see it. The one group of doctors is a bunch of researchers, the other group is a large corporate entity that makes gobs of money from certain products.

[rayiner]

> Dr. Matt Leavitt heads Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery, the largest dermatology practice in the United States, which is backed by private equity. It is one of the practices that objected to the article.

[jacquesm]

So the guy graduated a Dr. That does not presently make him a doctor other than in the legal sense. For all practical purposes in this dispute he is a businessman that sees his revenue stream endangered and moves to protect it using the law. This has absolutely nothing to do with two doctors arguing over 'who is right' or 'what is true'.

[ItsMe000001]

It is the head of a private equity backed business. That he also happens to be a dermatologist is not the key - unless you think he would have complained if he were only a dermatologist and not a big-business owner?

From the NY article:

> Eight days later, after an outcry from private equity executives and dermatologists associated with private equity firms

So the complained is from business people. If any of them also happens to be a dermatologist that does not seem to be the key, they don't complain about anything medical. That's because the paper was

> a research paper on its website that analyzed the effects of a business trend roiling the field of dermatology

It was about business, not about medical issues.

I recommend you read the NY Times article.