KaminskiMed
LightNews LightNews
banner
kaminskimed.bsky.social
KaminskiMed
@kaminskimed.bsky.social
4.3K followers 370 following 1K posts
First Generation Physician-Scientist, & many other things. This account is Private - opinions and tweets do not represent any of the organizations I work with.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
kaminskimed.bsky.social
KaminskiMed @kaminskimed.bsky.social · Nov 16
As a physician-scientist I feel advocating for #ClimateAction, #healthcare, #vaccines, #GunControl is not politics, it is a professional duty!
@michaelemann.bsky.social said it beaytifully 10 yrs ago - it’s truer now more than ever!!!
#IfYouSeeSomethingSaySomething
www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/o...
Opinion | If You See Something, Say Something (Published 2014)
Climate scientists can no longer stay on the sidelines of the global warming debate.
www.nytimes.com
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Finally a good animal model of human Pulmonary Fibrosis?
The Ferret bleomycin shares IPF features including: patchy distribution of fibrotic foci, honeycomb cyst-likes, ⬆️ blood MMP7, KL6, presence aberrant epithelial basaloid cells.
Kudos DrsWu, Liu & team
#CureIPF
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Ferret model of bleomycin-induced lung injury shares features of human idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis - npj Regenerative Medicine
npj Regenerative Medicine - Ferret model of bleomycin-induced lung injury shares features of human idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
www.nature.com
November 22, 2025 at 5:25 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Honored to be invited to give the annual Ronald H. Ingram Jr. Lecture at the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine. Great to meet so many amazing clinicians, researchers, educators & trainees
#FutureIsBright
#PulmIsBest
November 21, 2025 at 4:06 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
So sad to walk by the CDC, the once proud US government agency, see the posters commemorating past success in fighting for public health in the US, knowing that it is now controlled by charlatans, grifters and anti vexers.
#RIPCDC
November 21, 2025 at 2:08 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
The website is changed 👇🏼
ddiamond.bsky.social Dan Diamond @ddiamond.bsky.social · 2d
Cassidy sat with @punchbowlnews.bsky.social today, where Anna Palmer asked if RFK Jr has abandoned his promises to the senator.

Cassidy dodged the question, talking broadly about the tragedy of failing vaccination rates and declining public trust.
November 20, 2025 at 8:53 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Cassidy betrayed his voters, and his professional oath as a physician, bu voting and supporting people who do harm.
Simple.
ddiamond.bsky.social Dan Diamond @ddiamond.bsky.social · 2d
Anna also asked Cassidy directly: do you regret your vote for RFK Jr?

Cassidy declined to answer, saying “life is lived forward” and he’s focused on vaccine safety.
November 20, 2025 at 8:52 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Pliny the magnificent in her new office
November 20, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
jeremymberg.bsky.social
I am so tired of “full responsibility” that involves no action and “shame” that kicks in only upon public disclosure.
carlquintanilla.bsky.social Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla.bsky.social · 5d
SUMMERS: “.. I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.”

@politico.com
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
November 18, 2025 at 1:35 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Not sure why @lpachter.bsky.social did not post this here. But it is brilliant. Single cell genomics finally makes it to the clinic.
November 18, 2025 at 2:19 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Amazing attendance at the Yale Center for Asthma and Airway Disease 2025: Moving Towards a Unified Approach for the Management of Asthma and COPD
#ScienceMatters #CureCOPD #CureAsthma
November 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
The most irritating in talks is a speaker saying of course ““I recognize that I’m the only thing standing between us and lunch”’ (or dinner) which is usually a guarantee that the talk will go on forever
richardsever.bsky.social Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 8d
What's more irritating in talks?

A) Speakers saying "I'm going to switch gears" when they mean "I'm going to change direction and talk about something else"?

B) A metaphorical collaboration slide that shows 3 or more gear cogs in a configuration that could not possible work.
November 14, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
kaminskimed.bsky.social
True story:
Nature comms Editor when asking for #PeerReview: Please return review within 10-14 days.
Nature Comms editor when asked about r2 paper in review for 70(!) days: sorry, we’ll return to you in a week or so.
Then they'll charge you $6.8K to publish YOUR work.
System is broken.
November 13, 2025 at 2:23 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Authors can strike. Imagine if for one months the world’s top 5% researchers did not submit papers to for profit publishers? 👇🏼
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11d
Fundamentally, what we need is leadership. But we break with the chorus of most #OpenScience initiatives here and emphasize very strongly that this leadership must come from funders and institutions.

We researchers can support the battle, but we cannot lead the charge. Funders hold the cards.

6/n
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 13, 2025 at 5:16 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
time to end the exploitation!
Researchers should get a part of the profits make on their publications. Reviewers should be paid for reviewing. Simple.
#Pay4MyPapers #Pay4PeerReview
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 13, 2025 at 5:14 AM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
True story:
Nature comms Editor when asking for #PeerReview: Please return review within 10-14 days.
Nature Comms editor when asked about r2 paper in review for 70(!) days: sorry, we’ll return to you in a week or so.
Then they'll charge you $6.8K to publish YOUR work.
System is broken.
November 13, 2025 at 2:23 AM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
We finally found the perfect hiding shoes for Markie
November 11, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Tell me the system is broken without telling me. “Pressure to publish is rising as research time & resources shrink” finds a survey of scientists made by a publisher who makes billions in profit, charges thousands from authors & never pays reviewers.
#Pay4PeerReview
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Pressure to publish is rising as research time shrinks, finds survey of scientists
Researchers feel that pressures to publish are increasing, but the time and resources available to do research are decreasing, according to a survey by Elsevier.
www.nature.com
November 9, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Who would've thunk?
In a multicenter randomized clinical trial including 200 patients with persistent AF undergoing cardioversion, the risk of recurrent AF was SIGNIFICANTLY ⬇️ in the group allocated to coffee consumption (47%) compared to abstinent group (64%).
#ScienceMatters
#DoctorsWhoLoveCoffee
Caffeinated Coffee Consumption or Abstinence to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation
This clinical trial compares the effect of caffeinated coffee consumption vs abstinence from coffee and caffeine on recurrent atrial fibrillation.
jamanetwork.com
November 9, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Who said there were no reproducible biomarkers for IPF progression/mortality?
MMP7 alone or in combination with CCL18 predicted increased risk of death or FVC decline in 1280 IPF patients in ISABELA 1 & 2. Kudos Drs Randall, Bauer & Isabela investigators.
publications.ersnet.org/content/erjo...
November 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
lpachter.bsky.social
One of the curiosities of genomics history is that James Watson was vehemently against cDNA sequencing (for ESTs), and fought with Craig Venter & Bernadine Healy who championed it. Tl;dr Watson ended up resigning from the HGP, Venter plowed ahead... and we now have #scRNAseq.
November 9, 2025 at 9:41 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Who said there were no reproducible biomarkers for IPF progression/mortality?
MMP7 alone or in combination with CCL18 predicted increased risk of death or FVC decline in 1280 IPF patients in ISABELA 1 & 2. Kudos Drs Randall, Bauer & Isabela investigators.
publications.ersnet.org/content/erjo...
November 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
I also hate carrying umbrella! Also i never had an umbrella for more then 6 hours 👇🏼
rheumcat.bsky.social Rheum Cat @rheumcat.bsky.social · 13d
The problem here is that rain doesn’t tend to remain a light drizzle. And I still hate carrying an umbrella.
November 9, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
mikejohansenmd.medsky.social
fwiw: we already know the EtOH increases a fib.

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10....
Alcohol Abstinence in Drinkers with Atrial Fibrillation | NEJM
Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with incident atrial fibrillation and adverse atrial remodeling; however, the effect of abstinence from alcohol on secondary prevention of atrial fibrill...
www.nejm.org
November 9, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Reposted by KaminskiMed
felixbehrens.bsky.social
Known it all along ☕️
kaminskimed.bsky.social KaminskiMed @kaminskimed.bsky.social · 13d
Who would've thunk?
In a multicenter randomized clinical trial including 200 patients with persistent AF undergoing cardioversion, the risk of recurrent AF was SIGNIFICANTLY ⬇️ in the group allocated to coffee consumption (47%) compared to abstinent group (64%).
#ScienceMatters
#DoctorsWhoLoveCoffee
Caffeinated Coffee Consumption or Abstinence to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation
This clinical trial compares the effect of caffeinated coffee consumption vs abstinence from coffee and caffeine on recurrent atrial fibrillation.
jamanetwork.com
November 9, 2025 at 6:01 PM
kaminskimed.bsky.social
Who would've thunk?
In a multicenter randomized clinical trial including 200 patients with persistent AF undergoing cardioversion, the risk of recurrent AF was SIGNIFICANTLY ⬇️ in the group allocated to coffee consumption (47%) compared to abstinent group (64%).
#ScienceMatters
#DoctorsWhoLoveCoffee
Caffeinated Coffee Consumption or Abstinence to Reduce Atrial Fibrillation
This clinical trial compares the effect of caffeinated coffee consumption vs abstinence from coffee and caffeine on recurrent atrial fibrillation.
jamanetwork.com
November 9, 2025 at 4:16 PM