Weaponization of Science: Winning the War for Truth

REPRINT of a Substack Posting by Dr Xavier Figueroa, a Treat NOW Team Fellow

Science, Engineering and Medicine journals need to figure out if they are in the business of publishing about reality or publishing what is acceptable to funders, members and industry agendas.

Xavier Figueroa (POST 62)
Oct 27, 2025

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler was recently interviewed on Steve Bannon’s War Room. See: https://rumble.com/embed/v6yfb90/?pub=foqnp

The interview looked at the epidemic of fraud and bias that is built into the American system of public health, publicly funded research and what is allowed to be disseminated in academic/industry journals.

The discussion was broad and targeting the massive fraud that is embedded into all aspects of research in academia, industry and government.

Fortunately, the HHS Secretary is a new force within the Trump administration, demanding that a level and non-biased playing field be applied.

During the interview, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler pointed out to Bannon that there was a list of 28 journals that were identified for investigation by the DOJ. During the last 5 years, many peer-reviewed and accepted publications were retracted by the editors or the journals, against COPE standards of scientific publishing. There was nothing incorrect or fraudulent in the publications…someone didn’t want that information out there.

These retractions occurred over subject matters reported in articles and manuscripts that ran counter to CDC and federal policies on COVID and public health programs. The COPE standards are guidelines that journals agree to abide by, in order to adhere to publication standards to avoid bias, conflict of interest and censorship. In the 28 identified instances, there is evidence that the decisions to retract the papers ran counter to COPE standards. Seemingly arbitrary and opaque reasons were given (or not) for removing the articles. This is censorship and fraud by journals that rely on NIH and NSF funding (you, the taxpayer) for publication fees.

I’m ready to add another journal to the mix that is acting in the same manner as the other 28 journals.

The Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS)

The UHMS is a medical society that grants accreditation to a few facilities and is one of many organizations that regulate the training of physicians in the application of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Currently, the UHMS has 15 approved indications. The majority of these indications are for relatively rare conditions that have few, if any, clinical trials to support efficacy effects for their coverage. Yet, due to UHMS recommendations, the FDA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) support and reimburse only these small number of conditions.

As many of my readers know from past posts, HBOT has a well-established record for improving symptoms and neurocognitive deficits from mild traumatic brain injuries, including cerebral palsy. Yet, UHMS has resisted and actively interfered with researchers and clinicians from expanding indications into areas with larger populations of affected individuals, namely veterans with mTBI and PTSD. The resistance stems from conflicts of interest and a history of arbitrary control over hyperbaric medicine. In 2023, the organization redefined HBOT as requiring treatment at ≥2.0 ATA with >99% oxygen—a convenience that excludes and muddies the water on nearly all positive mTBI/PPCS and CP studies, which typically use lower pressures or oxygen levels.

A hyperbaric treatment, which is defined by UHMS (which has changed repeatedly since 1986) is arbitrarily defined and contradicts FDA guidance, which recognizes HBOT as a dual-component therapy of pressure and oxygen. Research shows biological and neurological effects beginning at pressures as low as 1.1 ATA, well below the UHMS threshold for what it recognizes as a therapeutic threshold (again, the UHMS asserts a number with no empirical or theoretical evidence – it is merely their opinion, which flies in the face of the laws of biology and physics).

The resistance by the UHMS has kept millions of Americans in a state of chronic illness with mTBI/PPCS, contributing to a mounting suicide rate in our nation’s veteran population. HBOT (as defined by biology and physics, not UHMS) has demonstrated the ability to reduce PTSD symptoms, reduce/eliminate the need for anti-depressants/drugs, and restore functionality to affected persons. Yet, as the budget for ineffective and expensive interventions and programs grows (see chart below), results only grow worse.

The actual Veteran suicide totals are reflected in this chart, derived from data provided by the VA to Cong. Greg Murph, MD (R-NC) under FOIA.

The number of suicides now exceed 153,000 since 9/11, over 17 Veteran suicides every day for 24 years. Chart from TreatNow.org

How does this relate to the weaponization of scientific publishing?

Well, as I posted earlier with Dr. Skidmore, Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Rose and Dr. McCullough, publishers are making unilateral decisions to retract papers. The publishers are not acting in good-faith and in a transparent and fair fashion to the researchers that have done the yeoman’s work to inform the public. There is certain information that is viewed as too outside the Overton Window, to be allowed out in the open.

Too bad this is science and not politics – with politics you would expect this level of underhanded, power-seeking behavior. With science, this is never acceptable.

In the case of Dr. Daphne Denham’s work, the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical journal appears to have violated both COPE and their own standards of editorial review – and the lack of publicly available documentation of the process is worrying.

The pattern of behavior that I’ve experienced and recorded in the hyperbaric medical and research community is perplexing. The DoW (formerly the DoD) has repeatedly worked with Institute of Medicine (IoM) to play down the ability of HBOT to effectively reverse and repair neurological tissue damage. All the animal models and clinical trials demonstrate definitive proof of effectiveness and improvement.

The repeated attempts to shut down HBOT use in active service members and veterans with mTBI/PPCS (with or without PTSD) is well-documented (see Post 37 I and Post 37 II). The UHMS’s lack of support to push for an indication that will have TREMENDOUS health benefits, reduce health care costs and bring more business to hyperbaric facilities and practitioners, is worrying. They wander further and further from their avowed Mission to support science.

The fact that Dr. Denham’s paper demonstrates that HBOT can be used to cut short recovery time and protect brain injured children and young adults, should be shouted from the rooftops. The fact that a medical society that specializes in HBOT is trying to silence a dues paying member and keep critical data suppressed (remember, the threat of retraction was initially coupled to keeping the copyright and stopping any future attempts of publishing the data) is worthy of a much deeper and prolonged investigation in this matter.

At some point, trying to keep this information suppressed enters into the realm of malpractice, potentially RICO and a national security breach due to sabotage of the health care system. If I were the UHM journal, I would be convening an internal committee to review policies and practices in publication and policy training manuals for the editors. The DOJ doesn’t generally look the other way on potential RICO issues…unless there is involvement of intelligence assets.

I hope that Jack has added another journal for investigation.

On A Lighter and More Hopeful Note

In an earlier post, I wrote about a documentary on HBOT and Veterans.

That documentary recently won an award in Syracuse, NY. It will be coming to DC for a free viewing on Veterans Day.

Dr. Harch had a brief message and request for Secretary Kennedy: View it here:

UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE: “Clean Medicine, Dirty Politics”

Stay Frosty.
Tell A Friend.
Fight, fight, fight, fight.
Pray, pray, pray, pray.

Information provided by TreatNOW.org does not constitute a medical recommendation. It is intended for informational purposes only, and no claims, either real or implied, are being made