When Jonathan Leo, a neuro-anatomy professor, pointed out that a JAMA article not only failed to disclose financial bias but also incorrectly implied that a pharmaceutical therapy was better than a non-drug one, the Journal of the AMA (of which I have not been a member since fresh out of medical school) flashed its true colors:

Leo says he received an angry call from JAMA executive deputy editor Phil Fontanarosa last week, shortly after Leo’s article was published on the BMJ Web site. “He said, ‘Who do you think you are,’ ” says Leo. “He then said, ‘You are banned from JAMA for life. You will be sorry. Your school will be sorry. Your students will be sorry.” Fontanarosa referred a call for comment to a JAMA spokeswoman, who said Leo’s retelling of the conversation was “inaccurate.”

Then, the editor-in-chief of JAMA, as cited by the Wall Street Journal, showed her own lack of class:

“This guy is a nobody and a nothing” she said of Leo. “He is trying to make a name for himself. Please call me about something important.” She added that Leo “should be spending time with his students instead of doing this.”

When asked if she called his superiors and what she said to them, DeAngelis said “it is none of your business.”

Maybe we need Jon Stewart to interview her.