Below is my column in the New York Post on the prestigious award given to Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya last week and what it has to say about those who censored, blacklisted, and vilified him for the last four years. In celebrating his fight for “intellectual freedom,” the National Academy effectively condemned those who joined the mob against him as well as the many professors who stayed silent as he and others were targeted.
Here is the column:
Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award.
The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.
That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.
All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.
It did not matter that positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many.
Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.
Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.
Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.
I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions.
They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.
Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.
So what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?
Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”
None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.
There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.
The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
* I’ll sign the Great Barrington Declaration as a regular person. Odd how people get medals now for common practices.
Battacharya was censored. Isn’t that the point? Common sense is censored. Bravery is needed now in the face of groupthink aka mass hysteria produced by purpose? Our leaders—> BE AFRAID!
* Medical psychologists wanted to know if mass hysteria producing physical symptoms could actually produce a physical immune response verified by tests. It did.
Mind over matter experiment. It didn’t work on children . Covid never actually existed . Respiratory or RSVP is all that was needed. Steroids suppressed the inflammation. 3 days
* RSV
Congratulations to Dr. Bhattacharya! I would also say good on those who recognized his efforts and awarded him accordingly.
G R E A T commentary exemplifying, once again, that the deaf, dumb and blind flock of sheep are susceptible to being slaughtered.
There were and remain thousands of others like Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who deserve an award as well. They all stood the tide against the damaging policies advanced by hordes of scheming doomsayers.
They said that Covid would kill the young and that the border was secure. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/fcda2b08-dc1f-4ed2-98c0-cf16ecef4174. They also tell us that removing a boy’s penis and a girl’s breasts before the age of consent is a good thing. Now it’s, someday someway you’re going to wake up and find a bat with covid in the Wuhan lab. It’s just a matter of time. Sorry Mr. Travis.
TiT,
And Biden said it would be a winter of death for the unvaccinated too. How did that turn out?
Biden also said,” frmpp der buf kor drmrpff ffer”, I didn’t listen to that either!
Whenever I hear “winter of death”, I think of the old song Mother-In-Law:
Wi-i-inter of death,
Wi’ner o’ death.
Wi-i-inter of death,
Wi’ner o’ death.
Like when I hear “lockdown”, I think of the old song Wipe Out. Extended guitar riff about some surfer guy, then they all sing “Lockdown!”
* Those issues serve to increase anxiety and fear and increases mass hysteria making it easier to rip you off. I hear you’re paying for that, cash?
Little boys are sweating bullets someone will cut off their privates. Major trauma so the boy becomes an ill man. It’s obvious.
Wikipedia still says COVID-19 came from a bat, despite the abosolute NON EXISTANCE of COVID-19 in ANY bat anywhere on the planet.
As super contagious as it is, NOT ONE single case. Yea, that’s science.
Covid-19 almost certainly came from a bat.
That is not the question.
The question is whether the route from bats to humans went through nature or a bio lab in Wuhan.
At this point the evidence of an entirely natural route to humans is non-existant.
We have never had a virus natually jump to humans were we did not find the immediate precursor without a few months.
While the evidence that it is from a laboratory is pretty high.
How did the bat get into the lab?
Dracula
“Covid-19 almost certainly came from a bat.”
Wrong. The coronavirus had an an origin in bats. SARS-COV-2 was engineered in a lab to be highly contagious to humans and escaped by exposure to a human in the lab. Stay in your lane, John.
*second an supposed to be “ancestral”
* Bat guano is a prized fertilizer rich in nutrients. Data on farming and purchase of bat guano? Got any?
You filled once-free America with communists, and now you’re disappointed with the results?
Communism must be fully and completely eradicated.
America must be placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Article 1, Section 8:
Congress may not tax for anything other than debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” which is comprised, by definition, of basic infrastructure and security.
Congress may not regulate anything other than the value of money, commerce among nations, states, and Indian tribes, and land and “naval Forces.”
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.
See below as the demented draft dodger, Dennis McIncrier, as he totally ignores the CONSENSUS of the scientific community that the vaccines neither prevented infection or transmission of the disease.
Then he makes some idiotic statement that social distancing and vaccines is how we “got control” of the pandemic.
Despite the fact that only 28% of adults are fully vaccinated. Bwahahahahahahaha
LMAO what a stooge.
Jonathan: Since the “Great Barrington Declaration” was published on 10/4/20 you supported it–despite the fact it was debunked by the rest of the scientific community. The Declaration was based on the dubious assumption that Covid-19 restrictions should be limited to the vulnerable, i.e., the elderly–and almost all restrictions on the rest of the population should be lifted under the theory that “herd immunity” would solve the problem. Bhattacharya and his co-signers opposed vaccinations.
In the scientific community there was virtually no support for the fringe theory of Dr. Bhattacharya and his co-signers. On October 12, 2020 WHO said in a statement: “Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected if a threshold of vaccination is reached…Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it”. This view was shared by the rest of the scientific community. Bhattacharya and his co-signers were the out liars.
With 4 years of Covid-19 behind us we know that the pandemic restrictions through social distancing and others–combined with the two vaccines were–were the reasons we finally got control of the pandemic. Despite all this over 1 million Americans died from Covid-19. Had we followed the advice of Bhattacharya the death toll could have been twice or three times that number!
“we know that the pandemic restrictions through social distancing and others–combined with the two vaccines were–were the reasons we finally got control of the pandemic.”
Science denier Dennis McInliar still believes the lie told by Fauci and Biden, that the vaccine prevents infection and prevents transmission. Science has said otherwise for years.
Dennis is an Apparatchik and useful idiot. Nothing more than that.
Dennis is also a member of the Ministry of Truth (NewSpeak: MiniTru). Bezos know that his WaPo is no longer relevant; hence, he sounds the alarm in today’s OpEd.
Rest assured. Dennis McIntyre has a bat that has covid locked in his basement. He’s going to reveal it on Halloween as the new October surprise. Be very afeard. Just remember, they did everything they could to keep you from asking any questions on social media. Banned it on Youtube, banned it on Facebook and banned it on Twitter lest your pretty little ears be offended. They have to keep the children in line on the way to the cafeteria where the food for thought would gag a maggot.
TiT,
That is why the Democrats are so anti-1stA. They cannot control the narrative. They cannot have us thinking for ourselves. They need good little lemmings to just believe everything they say.
test
idiot
Jonathan: Since the “Great Barrington Declaration” was published on 10/4/20 you supported it–despite the fact it was debunked by the rest of the scientific community.
Professor Turley, your freeloading grifter false friend Dennis is lying to you. As always, again. While insulting you, his good friend, every time he does so.
1. “Debunked by the rest of the scientific community”? How does Dennis define ‘the rest’?
More Than 10,000 Scientists Sign Barrington Declaration Petition
https://www.newsweek.com/more-10000-scientists-sign-barrington-declaration-petition-saying-current-covid-lockdowns-are-1539917
2. Dennis wants you to believe that Dr. Fauci – after he funded the Chicoms working on Covid viruses and confessed to misleading Americans has personal or scientific credibility to “debunk”???
Fauci Confesses To Congress His Measures ‘lacked scientific basis’
https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/news/fauci-admits-to-congress-that-certain-covid-social-distancing-guidelines-lacked-scientific-basis-sort-of-just-appeared/
Professor Turley, this is why Dennis McIntyre drops his deuce here every day and then disappears to lie again the next time you publish a column.
He’s brave enough to drop his dueces to pollute your comment section using the same Username… but not brave enough to stick around and defend the feces smeared mess he left you.
Dennis – basic critical thinking combined with simple math would have allowed you or anyone else to know in approx. February 2020, that covid was unstopable.
You claim that various measures are why we finally got control of the pandemic.
But the FACT is that we did not – Covid is still with us, and likely will be forever. We do not have control over it an never will.
All that has happened since 2020 is that the virus has mutated – through normal natural evolutionary processes to become less deadly.
Public Health policies has NOTHING to do with that.
Bhattacharya was wrong about herd immunity – for the same reasons that the Vaccine does not work.
Because immunity to Covid whether through infection or vaccination is not significant enough and not durable enough.
Immunity from infection appears to be stronger and more durable. But BOTH have a short half life. That means that fairly rapidly immunity drops low enough that it will not thwart the spread of the virus.
As to the rest of your rant – No we never got control of Covid, No none of what we did was effective. Almost nothing we did saved lives, and much of the broad public policies regarding Covid – such as masking, lockdowns, social distancing, …. actually INCREASED the death rate – not just to covid itself but to the other negative impacts of those public policies.
The left rants about HCQ and Ivarmectin, These were NOT very effective against Covid – nor was anything else. In fact the only thing that appears to have been effective – and it was effective at preventing covid and minimizing its mortality was normal levels of vitamin D.
Covid entered the genome forever changing mankind. Will it sleep? It altered your genetics.
Dennis – the great Barrington declaration was releases in early october 2020 – there was NO vaccine available at that time.
The recommendations of the great barrington declaration were to end ineffective covid policies and Focus on protecting those most at risk for death or serious long term injury from Covid.
The recomendations of the great barrington declaration are fully consistent with 100 years of epidemiological research and practice.
Contra your claims it is Public – aka GOVERNMENT healthcare experts like Fauxi who violated established norms and practices regarding epidemics.
The idiocy that alleged public health experts put us through is at odds with the actual standards and practices of epideology.
The nonsense from public health experts was the misapplication of a never before tried theory that openly ceded that its purpose was to protect the healthcare system – NOT people.
If and only If there wre effective treaatments for covid – which there were not, but The healthcare system was unable to impliment those because the epidemic was moving too fast Then and only then MIGHT these public health policies have made sense as a means of Slowing the spread of Covid – not stoping it, to lighten the burden on the healthcare system so that it could actually perform the lifesaving interventions needed to save people.
But NONE of those condictions were true – and if by magic they happened to be, This STILL was an untested theory.
One that as applied had a very high risk of killing MORE not less people.
There is no opposition to vaccines in the great barrington declaration. In point of fact one of the issues in the great barrington declaration was that the stupid public health policies were delaying normal vaccinations and putting children at risk of other diseases.
As we all know you never bother to check Facts before spewing nonsense.
Bhattacharya is responsible for developing the Test to determine if you have covid.
He is not a light weight. He is one of the top immunoligists and epidemiologists in the world.
He has also NEVER been a vaccine skeptic. Frankly he has more faith in the vaccine than I and many many others.
He is among those who I beleive are downplaying the risks.
“Bhattacharya: The mRNA vaccines were already proven safe when they were first rolled out, and considering billions of shots have been administered at this point, I think we have a pretty good handle on the safety profile of this technology. You might not feel great the day you get the shot, but it is a much better experience than being sick with COVID-19.”
As is typical – you really cant get much of anything correct when you post.
John Say
Why do you simply make stuff up.
Bhattacharya had no role in developing a test for Covid.
He is not an immunologist or epidemiologist.
He has no clinical training or expertise in any branch of medicine.
He is an economist.
He went directly from medical school to a PhD program in Economics, and has worked as an economist ever since.
He never did an internship after medical school.
He never did a residency.
He has no postgraduate clinical training of any kind.
He has never held a license to practice medicine.
He has never treated a patient for any condition in his career.
He is a professor of Health Policy which is a basic science department at Stanford that is associated with the medical school.
He is not a professor of medicine.
He is an economist who just happens to have graduated from medical school.
If you do not like being attacked for your idiocy – actually bother to check your claims from reputable sources before posting.
It will save you a great deal of embarrassment.
You are clueless about Covid,
Clueless about Bhattacharya
Clueless about what worked and what did not.
Clueless about the FACT that Government public health “experts” who were very unexpert, imposed by force a stupid and untested theory that was not even suitable for the purpose, and that failed.
It is possible that failure resulted in more deaths in the short run – not less.
It is likely it resulted in more deaths in the long run.
Covid is now Endemic – we are not likely to ever get rid of it.
It is actually rare for an epidemic to become an endemic disease.
We have the flue every year – but we do not have the same flu each year. In fact we rarely see the same flu a 2nd time ever.
Why ? Because the flu runs through the world, some people are vaccinate others are not, some of those get infected and get immunity that way, and nearly always withing 18 months that particular flu burns out – with too many people having immunity to continue to spread.
That is the NORM. That is most likely what would have occured with Covid had we NOT engaged in the stupidity of the left and government public health experts. Covid would have spread fast, killed alot of people, and left for ever.
By slowing it down without killing it, we dramatically increased the odds it became endemic.
And that means way way way more lives lost in the long run.
John Say
What you say is complete nonsense.
What happens with the flu virus, and what has happened with COVID is exactly the same phenomenon. There is absolutely no possibility that Covid would have spread fast, killed a lot of people, and left for ever, as you say. This is nonsense.
The flu virus is endemic because it can undergo antigenic drift and antigenic shift. It has a remarkable ability to mutate and change its hemagglutinin and neuraminidase capsid subunits which are necessary for viral insertion into a host cell. It is antibodies to these capsid subunits that confer immunity by preventing viral insertion. As a sufficiently large number of people become immune by infection or vaccination this provides selection pressure for mutants to arise. Mutant strains arise constantly but we rarely see them because they are mostly lethal mutations that prevent viral replication. However, as selection pressure rises a non-lethal mutation will occur that allows the flu strain to both replicate and evade immune responses in previously immune individuals. It does this by mutations within the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subunits. This is known as antigenic drift, and accounts for the emergence of new strains every year.
Every few years the flu virus undergoes antigenic shift. This results in a complete exchange of a totally novel hemaggutinin or neuraminidase or both subunits. This occurs when a susceptible host becomes infected with 2 different strains of virus which exchange subunits. This most commonly occurs in animals. The flu virus also infects pigs and birds. On a farm where humans, pigs, chickens and geese interact the probability of this happening is quite high. This also explains why most new strains with antigenic shift occur in Asia, where farms typically have humans, pigs and chickens in close contact. When antigenic shift occurs we are confronted with a completely novel virus that can result in widespread and severe pandemics. The most notable shifts occurred in 1918(H1N1), 1957(H2N2) and 1968(H3N2).
Like influenza, COVID is a single stranded RNA virus. Most single-stranded RNA viruses have the same remarkable ability to mutate. Your claim that Covid could have been “killed” by letting it spread fast and have it be gone forever is preposterous. Just like influenza, Covid can mutate rapidly so that new strains arise as selection pressure increases from higher levels of immunity. It behaves exactly as influenza does. It inevitably became endemic just as influenza did. There was absolutely no way to stop this from happening. Covid undergoes antigenic drift by mutations in the spike protein, analogous to the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subunits of influenza. This constantly produces new mutant strains, most of which are lethal for viral replication, but every now and again a non-lethal strain will arise with the ability to evade antibodies to older strains. Thus a new round of infection begins. What we still do not know is whether Covid will undergo antigenic shift to produce a totally novel virus that will trigger a new pandemic.
Your claims that Covid could have been “killed” forever by letting it run is absurd. It is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect where people with very limited knowledge of a subject vastly overestimate their ability to express a valid opinion.
Dennis – we do not and have NEVER had control of Covid. Covid mutated to the Omicron and then XBBD variants – which drove out all other variants. The good news is that these new variants – while incredibly contagious, have a far far lower mortality rate.
Covid has mutated itself into a form of the common cold.
We did not do that – Nature did it.
it is still arround, people are getting it all the time. What is “new” is that people are not getting as sick and fewer are dying.
Not because of public health choices, not because of the vaccine, but because the virus mutated to something more contageous andless deadly. Which is what happens if a virus does not burn itself out.
* Most likely died of malpractice
“Bhattacharya and his co-signers opposed vaccinations.”
That is a lie.
He and others very clearly argued, countless times, that vaccination is a private choice between patient and doctor. That is the only civilized argument.
HeyJon, love how you’re avoiding having to address trump’s nazi rally in NY by…, wait for it…, trumpeting your misunderstanding of virology, epidemiology and public health measures. Solid work, cap.
Glad you’re continuing to do your part to, for the first time in American history, politicize a pandemic. Not exactly a profile in courage…, let’s just say that.
“Hey Jon, watch me repeat the vulgar lie started by Hillary Clinton and pushed by a DNC email to everyone in the media. It’s just a coincidence that we all know there was a Nazi rally in MSG in 1939. Aren’t I a good little Nazi myself?”
—-Lawn Boy Elvis Bug
“Oh wait, no not me, I came up with that all on my own. I would never let someone else GIVE me my opinion. I promise, I watched the rally and reached that conclusion all on my own”
—Lawn Boy Elvis Bug, the booger eating, day drinking troll
Momma’s boy.
Woof, woof.
Is that supposed to mean something?
Or are you still sulking because I got your nephew that job at the Pleasure Chest glory hole that you gave up? Dont blame me, he was very upset that you wouldnt call him back after the condom breaking incident. He tested negative for syphilis, so you didnt pass it on.
Thanks for exposing yourself again, “Dr of Microbiology and Immunology”
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
“trump’s nazi rally in NY” Seriously? This is the best you got? Obviously, a serious case of TDS who does NOT believe in “Free Speech”…sadly.
not the same anonymous, but I would love to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that he does not “believe” in free speech by labeling a campaign rally as a Nazi rally?
There is no logical way that such a conclusion could be drawn based on that information.
Not the same anonymous that you asked the question of but yes, name calling is frequently used as a tactic to stifle free expression. Especially names with a stigma asscociated.
Now, give the phone back to mommy and go clean your room.
Hey, genius: The politicization of a pandemic wasn’t done by Dr. Jay and his peers. it was done by a pharma/government industrial complex supported by clowns like you. You might want to study up on the concept of self-awareness and see if any light bulbs go off …
“HeyJon, love how you’re avoiding having to address trump’s nazi rally in NY by”
And Jon… please don’t let anyone remind you that harris has embraced the New Hitler Youth Movement and we’ve had the anti-Semitic Nazi Squad for years in our party.
Jon… no more columns on Biden and Harris and what they did with Covid. please restrict yourself to BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP! columns.
you do know that the “Trump is a Nazi” nonsense – is not only not working, but backfiring.
Ordinary people know who the authoritarians are.
Betting odds are no 63:38
RCP has Trump doubling his lead in the popular vote in the past week – though that lead is still tiny.
If there is no polling error – Trump wins easily.
If the polling error is similar to 2020 and 2016 but only HALF what it was then – Trump wins in a landslide.
Harris’s route to victory requires the polling error to favor Republicans – which has not happened in a long time – possibly not in my lifetime.
The reality is all of you “doctors” are still “practicing” medicine with no perfection – I am glad you are, but the fall from the high horse can be far.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d0/75/38/d0753858bc143881215c2d7023409882.jpg
Lin,
Good one!
UpstateFarmer
I am intrigued by your psychological need to identify yourself as a farmer.
“I never understood how some people feel they are defined by their degree or job”
he likes subsidies for farms. Government handouts are his jam.
Says the Lawn Boy, notorious drunken day trader and booger eater, sitting on his ass at home waiting for his next COVID check
Lawn Boy responding to his own posts again. Wow, he almost made it until noon today. Must have slept in after a binge last night.
Maybe he’s not a farmer. Prove that he is, dipshlt.
“Maybe he’s not a farmer. Prove that he is, dipshlt.”
Prove that you’re not a poorly paid professional communist troll, smegma breath.
I’m just your worst nightmare, booger eating, day drinking Lawn Boy. Thanks for outing yourself again!
Prove that you don’t cornhole your nephew anymore, after the condom breaking incident.
I only read your comment as you quoted me.
If you think a handle name on the good professor’s blog is my identity, then you truly are a moron. I first identify as a father. Then husband. Former Marine. American. Patriot. Probably another dozen things non-occupation related.
So you agree that your original comment was a stupid, hypocritical and snide insult directed at another individual who was commenting here.
Your surname is Farmer. Maybe Tom Farmer.
A few interesting facts about “Doctor” Bhattacharya.
I speak as a physician-scientist with an MD and a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, with specialization in the characterization of immune responses to respiratory viruses, and vaccine development.
1990: Bhattacharya received undergraduate degree in Economics
1997: Bhattacharya received MD from Stanford
2000: Bhattacharya received PhD in Economics from Stanford
He went directly from medical school to a PhD program in Economics.
He never did an internship.
He never did a residency.
He has never held a license to practice medicine.
He has never treated any patient for any condition.
He is not permitted to prescribe any medication.
He is not permitted to perform medical procedures.
He works as an economist who just happens to have attended medical school.
His medical knowledge is that of a medical student in 1997.
As any real physician would testify, Medicine is something that one practices, not reads about.
His understanding of herd immunity and the epidemiology of viral disease is wrong.
His co-authors for the Barrington Declaration are Kuldorff, a mathematician, and Gupta, a zoologist.
If you were seeking medical advice, how much confidence would you place in a team consisting of a medical student, a mathematician, and a zoologist.
When you seek medical advice you should listen to acknowledged experts who actually engage in the practice of medicine. If you have cancer you should listen to oncologists, not some huckster selling snake oil guaranteed to provide a cure. Listening to Bhattacharya is the equivalent of listening to a snake oil huckster. His views are not to be given equal weight to acknowledged experts. Just because he has a right to express an opinion, does not mean that his opinion is to be taken seriously.
As for the “prestigious” American Academy of Sciences and Letters, it is completely bogus. It was created in November of 2023, solely for the political purpose of “honoring” those outside the mainstream of academic thinking. It has a total of 80 members.
Eat ch1t and die, troll.
“I speak as a physician-scientist with an MD and a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, with specialization in the characterization of immune responses to respiratory viruses, and vaccine development.”
Really? Because you sound like a stark raving lunatic. And a liar.
“His medical knowledge is that of a medical student in 1997.”
I notice you don’t mention that he is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford.
Real doctors lay out all the facts. You’re a hack. I wouldn’t let you treat me for toenail fungus.
In fact, I suspect you are Lawn Boy Elvis Bug, who likes to pretend to be other people. A Reagan Republican, a moderate Democrat, other commenters here, a comedian, a service member, a college basketball player, a successful business man, a succssful stock market guru, etc.
Yep, along comes Elvis, addressing “Jon” now (anonymous 11:35) He just can’t help exposing himself.
Still keeping his left hand free to do the Toobin, though.
Awww…, always a pleasure to listen to you gurgle the alphabet, heckler cletus.
I knew it. He couldnt resist outing himself. Who will you be tomorrow, troll?
Jay Bhattacharya is not a Professor of MEDICINE.
He is a professor in the Department of Health Policy.
This is a basic sciences department, not a clinical department.
He has no clinical expertise or responsibilities.
Check the Stanford faculty directory.
Jay Bhattacharya | FSI – Stanford Health Policy
Stanford Health Policy
http://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu › people › jay_bhatt…
bhattacharya from healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research.
“Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research.”
This statement was lifted from here:
https://podcasts.la.utexas.edu/cepa/speaker/dr-jay-battacharya/
It is false.
Bhattacharya has never claimed to be a Professor of Medicine.
Nowhere on the Stanford website is he described as a Professor of Medicine.
He is a Professor in the Department of Health Policy.
This is a basic sciences department within the School of Medicine.
That does not make him a Professor of Medicine.
Professors of Medicine are part of the Department of Medicine, which is simply a department of the medical school.
In his CV he correctly describes himself as follows:
2001 – present Professor (Assistant to Full), Stanford University School of Medicine
There are many other basic science departments within the school of medicine such as:
Biochemistry
Bioengineering
Biomedical Data Sciences
Chemical & Systems Biology
Developmental Biology
Molecular & Genetic Medicine
Epidemiology & Population Health
Genetics
Microbiology & Immunology
Molecular & Cellular Physiology
Neurobiology
Structural Biology
The professors in these departments are not Professors of Medicine, although they are Professors within the medical school.
Bhattaracharya correctly identifies himself as Professor at the School of Medicine, not a Professor of Medicine.
Bhattacharya is not a clinician, and has no clinical expertise or responsibilities.
Jay Bhattacharya
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Jay_Bhattacharya
bhattacharya from en.wikipedia.org
Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya (born 1968) is an Indian American professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University.
Wikipedia ?????
Your joking right ???
Your desperation is showing.
Bhattacharya has never described himself as. Professor of Medicine.
Nowhere in his CV does he make that claim.
Nowhere on the Stanford faculty website is he described as such.
He correctly describes himself as a professor at the medical school in the basic science Department of Health Policy.
That does not make him a Professor of Medicine.
He has never made that claim himself.
He has published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, economics, health policy, epidemiology, statistics, law, and public health among other fields. He holds an MD and PhD in economics, both earned at Stanford University.
Health Policy is Medicine, you dunce. Thanks for proving you are Lawn Boy, and not some doctor.
“Jay Bhattacharya is not a Professor of MEDICINE.”
RACIST!!
Sorry for your toenail fungus! That’s probably how the Russians targeted their disinformation at you as they linked their disinformation to toenail fungus ads dating back to ’16.
As to your paranoid ramblings about EB, you’re flailing wildly out into the universe again
By the way, and I speak with internal knowledge on this, EB also coached basketball for 15 years, too. Coaching one team to a state championship, and playing for a couple more. He also worked in physical therapy for a long time and is currently a writer as well. Add this to the high end stone wall building biz and his trading in the forex and grain markets, getting his start in that all the way back to high school. He’s done a lot stuff, known a lot of people and just generally has many pursuits other than just laughing his ass off at your inane ramblings on this blog.
“I speak as . . .”
Unzip your pants to reveal your CV. Always a sign of intellectual impotency. And a warning: What comes next is two fallacies — appeal to authority and ad hominem.
You didn’t disappoint. There is not a single *argument* in your entire comment.
Really? In my opinion, Bhattacharya deserves his prize, especially given the persecution suffered by him and others who sought to understand COVID and explain it to the public rather than scare-monger.
During 2020-2022, I followed the analyses offered by Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford), Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff (then at Harvard), John Ioannidis (Stanford), Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins), researchers at the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, especially Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, and those at other universities and research institutes. I was able to do so only because I had the interest and the leisure time to spend hours searching the internet, something most people are unable to do.
It was obvious early on, given various pieces of evidence — including an interview in 2019 during which Peter Daszak bragged that his organization, Ecohealth Alliance, was funding research at Wuhan, the concentration of early cases in northern Italy, which has strong ties to China, and statistics from the US and European countries — that COVID had been ‘designed’ in a laboratory in Wuhan, that most of the ‘experts’ favored by WHO and the media were less than expert, and that COVID was only deadly to those who were over 70 or had two serious prior conditions that could be aggravated by the virus, or both.
It was also obvious that the vaccines were therapeutics, not true vaccines, and that some of the therapeutics that were ignored actually might be of use, that the virus was airborne, that the actual death rate was well below the rate popularized by experts and their echo chambers in the media, and that, as in any properly designed experiment, there was a control group — in this case Sweden.
Of course, none of that mattered because even a friend who was a virologist was taken in by the propaganda, and governments suppressed dissident voices, while most of the media echoed the experts and government bureaucrats. The result was fear, which reinforced groupthink and led most people not to question the experts and their own governments. People still are careful about stating what is now blindingly obvious, so ingrained are the lies that rationalized the lockdowns, which might not have been so easily imposed had speech in the “West” been truly free.
Classic argument from authority. He didn’t follow the herd pathway, therefore his opinions aren’t worth consideration. Got it. Top-drawer critical-thinking skills there, chief.
I’m having a hard time understanding why not sticking your finger up an old guy’s bunghole disqualifies you from mathematically modeling a viral outbreak.
Well that’s awkward. I didn’t notice that one of the contributor’s monikor was “An old guy.” Apologies!
Mathematical modelling of a viral outbreak is something done AFTER the outbreak, not during the outbreak. It is not something useful for deciding how to deal with an ongoing outbreak of a completely novel virus. Mathematical modelling is done retrospectively after gathering data from the outbreak.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of an aircraft engineer trying to design and build a new aircraft after it is already in the air.
It is simply not possible.
I speak as a physician-scientist with an MD and a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology…If you were seeking medical advice, how much confidence would you place in a team consisting of a medical student, a mathematician, and a zoologist.
You are?? Or are you just an Anonymous cosplaying as Dr. Kildaire, whose feels were hurt because Dr. Bhattacharya wouldn’t obediently get in line with Dr. Fauci? Going to try and sell us that Fauci’s “social distancing” was valid medical science?
1. If we were seeking medical advice how much confidence should we have in a COWARD claiming to be a physician-scientist who refuses to provide a name or where they practice while posting what they claim is a medical opinion or analysis? What is the probability that they’re just a political hack instead?
There are people here who post as doctors on topics here that concern health and medicine, who willingly use the same Usernames every time they post. And yet, here you are, claiming your MD and PhD and you just can’t bring yourself to post under a Username. Just “Anonymous”… seems a great name for a Snake Oil Salesman
2. Do all the doctors in the Biden administration who have been pushing “men can menstruate and get pregnant” for four years meet your anonymous allegedly medical criteria?
3. Does Dr. Fauci meet your criteria for being a doctor? When was the last time Dr. Fauci actually examined, diagnosed, and treated a patient as opposed to when he fvcked up dealing with the AIDS crisis? Or collaborating with social media and doctors doing gain of function research that he funded to censor any criticism? 50 years ago?
Fauci Confesses To Congress His Measures ‘lacked scientific basis’
https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/news/fauci-admits-to-congress-that-certain-covid-social-distancing-guidelines-lacked-scientific-basis-sort-of-just-appeared/
More Than 10,000 Scientists Sign Barrington Declaration Petition
https://www.newsweek.com/more-10000-scientists-sign-barrington-declaration-petition-saying-current-covid-lockdowns-are-1539917
The thing with angry Soviet Democrat Marxist tyrants is that they never defend what they’ve said or done. The only thing they have in place of an honest discussion is angry attacks on those who don’t share their beliefs and claims.
I wouldn’t trust an Anonymous alleged doctor to wash his hands after taking a dump, much less touch anyone.
An Anonymous Dr. Kildaire/Snake Oil Salesman posted His understanding of herd immunity and the epidemiology of viral disease is wrong.
I wonder if Dr. Anonymous feels cheated that Stanford has Dr.Bhattacharya as a faculty member of Stanford Medical School… while Dr. Anonymous still hasn’t been able to either get out of the minor leagues or pay off their student loans.
This Anonymous sounds remarkably like those attempting to censor those men and the Barrington Declaration while at the same time they were claiming Wuhan Flu came from a pangolin having a Grindr date with a bat.
Within a week of it’s release, the Barrington Declaration was signed by 27,860 medical practitioners and 10,233 medical and public health scientists, I have no idea what the numbers are now, but is Anonymous going to attempt to Anonymously smear all of them as well.
A few interesting facts about “Doctor” Bhattacharya.
A few interesting facts “Doctor” Anonymous attempted to hide, particularly his extremely troublesome omissions from Dr. Bhattacharya’s biography, as well as the rest of the signers of the Barrington Declaration and their expertise to criticize Dr. Fauci/Joe Biden’s Wuhan Flu policy.
First, it’s a dirty stinking finger looking back at the fraud pointing it to insinuate that statistical analysis, predictive modelling, effective health policy aren’t engaged when dealing with epidemics and research. While “Doctor” Anonymous won’t give his name to go along with his smear, it’s not hard to find the bios accompanying the names of those “Doctor” Anonymous is eager to smear.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff
Professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta
Professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
That’s the background of the three initial signers of that Declaration who “Doctor” Anonymous, alleged Ph.D in immunology, claims have absolutely no knowledge of either immunology, epidemiology, or vaccine development.
The major difference is that they’ve been working at prestigious medical schools for YEARS on that subject matter before Fauci Wuhan Flu arrived.
While “Doctor” Anonymous still hasn’t made it out of the minor leagues.
Neither Bhattacharya, Kuldorff or Gupta are clinicians. None of them have any clinical expertise.
They are theoreticians with absolutely no knowledge or ability to comprehend disease process.
They are number crunchers. They look at the spread of infectious diseases in populations as a whole using mathematical models.
This is fine for historical analysis of infectious diseases, but it has absolutely no relevance to the clinical treatment of individuals suffering from a novel pandemic virus that no one has faced before. Every individual is different and it is up to trained clinicians to manage their patients individually as best they can. The advice of number crunchers who try to make probabilistic predictions about a novel virus is not of great value.
The only value they can provide is to retrospectively analyze an outbreak of disease.
There abilities are of absolutely no use when faced with a completely novel virus.
This morning, I want to thank fellow commenters on this blog for their resistance to, and development of herd immunity against, the recurrent pathogens which appear daily and eagerly to tear down and discredit the good professor–indeed, so eager, that they post their attacks even before reading the entire column and are forced to later apologize. Further, I am truly and humbly thankful for the resistance shown by the professor in allowing the pathogenic penetration without censor–and his resistance to their intended harm.
* exposure is everything.. that was funny.
Lin,
Great comment. Thank you as well. As always, just scroll past all the anonymorons, and the usual trolls. Their comments, lies are not worth reading.
It is a travesty that Bhattacharya was not allowed to pedal his junk science freely. He is a serious intellectual who got it wrong. The system works not by ostracizing but through peer review. His colleagues did not let peer review do the all the talking.
The most scathing academic review of Bhattacharya’s claims came from a Johns Hopkins team which pointed out the simple fact that people were dying of COVID at a rate of 30 out of 1,000, a rate that would have been higher without extra precautions. While the flu only kills 1 out of a 1,000 people. Thirty times deadlier than the flu and Bhattacharya ignored it.
Remember, Chomsky brutally denounced Nazis but defended French professor Robert Faurisson’s intellectual freedom and right to deny the Holocaust. That’s what I’m taking about here with Bhattacharya.
Does joining a conversation anonymously support the free and open concepts you espouse?
You support freedom to speak only on your terms.
“You support freedom to speak only on your terms.”
This from the idiot who just denounced Chomsky for supporting someone’s right to deny the holocaust.
Cant make this shlt up. Double digit IQ for sure.
Lawn Boy wants it to be illegal to deny the holocuast here in the US as well. Even though he hates Jews.
Any data on the victims? Elderly, immune diseases, asthma, cold, co-illnesses?
Thanks
** COPD
“Doctor” Anonymous moved on to try again rather than defend is his original deuce dropped earlier:
Bhattacharya is a serious intellectual who got it wrong. The system works not by ostracizing but through peer review. His colleagues did not let peer review do the all the talking.
That peer review thing… how many articles on Wuhan Flu that supported Fauci have been quietly retracted? “Doctor” Anonymous would you say more or less than 100 retracted articles that were published in refereed journals? Your best guess at how many of the retracted articles were from Johns Hopkins publications?
All of the signatories to the Barrington Declaration also got it wrong in the exact same way, “Doctor” Anonymous? Will you ever, even just one time in your Anonymous medical career, come anywhere close to being recognized for achievement and expertise as these medical signatories to the Barrington Declaration who agree with Dr. Bhattacharya?
Names and Biographies of Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners of the Great Barrington Declaration
https://gbdeclaration.org/
You brag the John Hopkins team got it right saying Fauci’s social distancing and shutdowns were extra precautions that were saving lives. While Dr. Fauci later confessed to Congress that they had no scientific basis and he and his Biden team pretty much made it all up.
Johns Hopkins APL Experts Explain Why Social Distancing Is Critical to Flattening the Coronavirus Curve
https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releases/200323-apl-experts-explain-why-social-distancing-critical-flattening-curve
The same Johns Hopkins team that not only supported Dr. Fauci’s fraudulent “6′ Social Distancing” – and then went beyond that to demand that Social Distancing include Social Justice?
Why Social Distance Demands Social Justice: Systemic Racism, COVID-19, and Health Security in the United States
“Doctor” Anonymous… the readers and commenters here are not the same gullible people you find at a Biden/Harris rally.
“a rate that would have been higher without extra precautions.”
lolol. You know nothing, just move along and stop embarrassing yourself. I cannot believe people fall for that crap – confirmation bias is a helluva drug.
Estovir-
You are a bright light today. I had seen the quote also. Also USA Today is offering no endorsement for president this year and limiting their branches to only local races.
Also Mr. Obama has now abandoned the Professor mold and become the scold of the nation. My mother never scolded me like that.
The vice at the heart of the blunders Jay Bhattacharya tried to prevent is attacking the messenger. In the business culture of the 1900s going back to Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, a sign of adult maturity and well-adjustedness was quelling the innate human impulse to spread criticism from the idea to the person.
The key word being innate. Ad-hominem attack does not need to be taught. What needs to be learned is the impulse control of diplomacy. As Carnegie argues persuasively, collaborative problem-solving requires trust and confidence in collaborators. Once disagreement descends into accusatory name-calling (impugning of sinister motives), the possibility of negotiating a mutually-acceptable outcome fizzles out. Creative thought then shifts to how best to make the opponent look bad (demonization) — and fantasizing a dominance-submission outcome.
These are primitive conflict-handling modes found throughout the animal world. Human civilization was only possible by “socializing” youth to replace inborn instincts toward dominance-submission with learned skills of mutual trust and negotiation in the face of conflict. Weaken this process, and a society regresses backwards to primitivism.
The “age of rage” JT describes is such a regression to childish, adolescent problem-solving culture. It shouldn’t be surprising then that public decisionmaking become bungling and dysfunctional. A pandemic arriving at the start of a Presidential election year is a perfect storm when Dale Carnegie’s mature wisdom has faded into obscurity.
“We can blame Pres. Trump for each and every Covid death” — this was a Dem tactic adopted early on, an absurd accusation from a scientific mindset. But as a political cudgel to better demonize, effective — never mind what effect such an infantile outburst would have on ability to cope smartly with the virus!
The distinction between critiquing an idea and dissing the person voicing it — is it even taught anywhere? In law school? In AP Gov class? You don’t have to look far to find Turley slip in today’s piece:
JT: “The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised.” “Condemn all those who…” — rather than “condemn the silencing of a fellow scientist”. Sometimes I find myself slipping.
I’m wondering if anyone even recognizes the profound difference in wording? Words convey thoughts. And thoughts matter.
“Once disagreement descends into accusatory name-calling (impugning of sinister motives), the possibility of negotiating a mutually-acceptable outcome fizzles out.”
Pbinca, look at how your TDS made you precisely promote what you now caution people not to do. You accused but did not provide your charges. You continued to accuse and refused to defend your position. You demeaned Trump in every way possible without concern for the truth.
Your post lectures others for attacking the messenger when you are one of the worst offenders of Dale Carnegie’s advice.
Are you seriously saying you don’t hear Trump constantly name calling and demeaning people every time he opens his mouth?
Trump does many things that different people, including myself, are unhappy with. I commented on Pbinca doing the same, yet blaming others.
And its hilarious.
Now what about Kamala lately? Seriously?
By calling people “deplorables,” “bitter clingers” and Nazis? Like that, you mean?
“Are you seriously saying you don’t hear Trump constantly name calling and demeaning people every time he opens his mouth?”
Ah yes, the cabal of “Trump said neo-Nazis were very fine people!” And bpinca’s “Trump’s Big Lie”.
Are you seriously hoping to have some credibility here when you pretend that nobody has been calling Trump a Nazi, anti-Semitic, a racist, a Russia Dossier traitor, etc from the first day he announced his run for the presidency? And regularly putting out bald faced lies to support that name calling and demeaning of Trump?
How many times a week is Border Czar Harris and her campaign calling Trump a Nazi after saying after the failed assassination attempts “turn down the rhetoric”?
The last two days the Madison Square Garden Rally was for all of New York’s Nazis to gather together to listen to Fuhrer Trump, according to Border Czar Harris, Bolshevik Barack and Moochelle, et al.
That isn’t whataboutism: that’s pointing to the viewers that you Anonymous Democrat apparatchiks don’t even attempt to justify the verbal and printed attacks and lies you’ve launched at Trump from day one.
Instead, you just pretend that none of them exist, and Trump is attacking people for no reason whatever.
Could Trump respond far more politically effectively in choosing his words to hit back? Oh yeah, he sure could. And damn… I repeatedly wish that he would to maximize the chances of both winning elections and getting Republican policies through Congress.
One of the reasons some here would have preferred a Cruz or DeSantis rather than Trump is simply that they never endanger their political campaigns and policies in office by blindly swinging back when attacked, giving Democrat media and online hacks here fodder to misrepresent and lie about for their BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP! attacks.
You seriously think you’re going to have any credibility whatsoever in coming here and pretending that the attacks being made against Trump have never existed, when they’re at a level well beyond anything Trump has ever said in response?
So when it comes to ad hominem attacks you’re fine with calling people you disagree with “evil.”
* There is evil. Make no mistake about that.
* AI is flawed. It is evil. It’s purpose is to produce anxiety, dread and fear by presenting unending lies. It uses lies. The great liar.
The panic response to covid speaks of the incompetence of government systems while capitalists saw covid as a great boon for investment.
pbinca posted: I’m wondering if anyone even recognizes the profound difference in wording? Words convey thoughts. And thoughts matter.
Words like “Trump’s Big Lie is saying the 2020 election was rigged – while Democrats assure us it was the most transparent and fair election in history”?
When you regularly say “Trump’s Big Lie”, pbinca, what kind of thoughts are going through your mind behind those words?
Facta, Non Verba. It’s the actions of the speaker/poster that matter pbinca, not words.
Too often the words can be the expression of the thoughts of political liars and demagogues promoting their political ideology by demonizing the opponent rather than promoting their policies as being far much better.
Science isn’t democratic. It’s not fair. Get over it!
This column is a perfect followup to the column of yesterday and what unanimity of thought and view really means and how it can squeeze out meaningful alternate views that have equal validity but not the support of the “prevailing view”. That this happened in medicine is also extremely dangerous.
Medicine by its very nature is the scientific method or is supposed to be. Periodically it falls to convenience, money, empire building, charlatans, and the power hungry. I hate to admit it but it is true. The covid pandemic exposed a lot of the worst of medicine and it was primarily because the “leaders” out of Washington decided they had the knowledge to manage it all and seemed oblivious if not downright hostile to any other view. That is in itself a repudiation of the scientific method. Also Medicine in general is multipolar in this country and the world and there is as much, if not more knowledge outside Washington D.C. than in it.
Th leadership in Washington at NIH and others had been there told long. And it seemed to have strayed from knowledge seeking to hoarding of power and thought and we suffered for it. The arrogance had grown to Olympian levels and the blindness to other paths also. A truly excellent leader would have harnessed the disparate voices into teams seeking alternative treatment modalities and let them compete to find the best way forward. It would have been far more efficacious and truthful to welcome different views and sometimes just say “we don’t know” because often they did not know but then follow with “but we will find out”.
A true leadership team would look and supervise their competing teams and cross pollinate from team to team and try to drag forth real knowledge and truth but you have to have full and honest communication to accomplish it.
I spent 46 years in medicine and there is always another view and another path. If you don’t see it, then it’s usually because you have not looked.
A truism of Medicine that is still valid every day is “The best way to miss a diagnosis is to already have a diagnosis”.
GEB
As a fellow physician, I think you would agree with me that Medicine is something that is practiced. It is not something that one reads about, and theorizes about.
Did you know that Bhattacharya never did an internship, never did a residency, and has never held a license to practice medicine? He went directly from medical school to a PhD program in Economics. He has worked as an economist ever since. He holds himself out as an expert in medical economics.
If you needed treatment plan advice for one of your patients, would you turn to such a medical economist?
“If you needed treatment plan advice for one of your patients, would you turn to such a medical economist?”
No.
Just as I wouldn’t ask my GP for epidemiology advice. But I would listen to Bhattacharya.
You’re skilled at switching the context — all in a revolting attempt to smear Bhattacharya (and his fellow authors).
Bhattacharya is not an epidemiologist.
He has never claimed to be an epidemiologist.
He claims to be an expert in health economics and policy.
“Bhattacharya is not an epidemiologist.”
From Stanford’s website: “He has published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, economics, health policy, *epidemiology* . . .” (Emphasis added)
Care to try a different smear?
What about if you needed public-health guidance to direct economic policy? Does it make your brain hurt to think about things like that up there in your ivory tower?
Lawn Boy, stop pretending that you are a physician.
You were already outed and had that silliness shoved up your ass by Tommy.
“He has worked as an economist ever since.”
Another LIE. He is a Professor of MEDICINE at Stanford.
The day Elvis Bug is a physician is the day I’m a goddam astronaut—-Lt Dan
Bhattacharya is not a Professor of MEDICINE.
He is a professor in the Department of Health Policy.
This is a basic sciences department, not a clinical department.
He has no clinical expertise or responsibilities.
Check the Stanford faculty directory.
Jay Bhattacharya | FSI – Stanford Health Policy
Stanford Health Policy
http://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu › people › jay_bhatt…
bhattacharya from healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research.
I did not mention Bhattacharya. Most of my note was about blocking viewpoints and the better way to deal with disparate views. I would have referred to an ID specialist I personally knew and how they approached my patients and the disease process being evaluated. Not someone on either coast far away.
A “Doctor” Anonymous posted: If you needed treatment plan advice for one of your patients, would you turn to such a medical economist?Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
For epidemic policy advice, I certainly wouldn’t turn to a “Doctor” Anonymous, who claims to be a doctor, attempting to demonize Bhattacharya while insinuating that Bhattacharya is unqualified as far as epidemics and policy to deal with them is concerned.
Particularly a “Doctor” Anonymous who eagerly trusted and pimped for Dr. Fauci, who hasn’t diagnosed or treated a patient in over 50 years, and who confessed to Congress that pretty much all of his Wuhan Flu policies had no scientific basis.
You frauds are all out of the same mould.
Time for you to pull a Dennis McIntyre and run away and pop up somewhere else in a bit.
GEB,
Great comment!!
* Emperors New Clothes
Cultural stories
GEB summarized with this A truism of Medicine that is still valid every day is “The best way to miss a diagnosis is to already have a diagnosis”
Thanks for that comment that is the kind that make it worthwhile coming to the comments section after reading professor Turley’s column. That is also true in the ditch doc & ski patrol biz.
The observations in your post (that I enjoyed reading and considering) aside, you remind me of my former GP (he and his brothers graduates of Harvard Medical School as their father apparently was) as well as my flyfishing/skiing buddy who dropped a couple on me over the years at streamside or on the chairlift that I’m sure most doctors have heard before:
“We doctors bury our mistakes”
“What do you call the guy that graduated at the bottom of his class at Harvard Medical school?
Doctor.”
“Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education.”
From the top down, Biden and his henchmen, along with Democrat legislators, governors, and school administrations, while arrogantly lusting for power and hoping to feed their egos, destroyed the lives of many children without concern.
I congratulate those monsters for destroying so many lives without remorse. I also give the same congrats to the bottom feeder, anonomi, on the blog for being stupid and trying to feed their egos as well.
And they’re not done yet. The worst is yet to come if Kamala is elected.
S. Meyer, Diogenes,
Well said and I agree.
During this period of food insecurity, scarcity of goods and dearth of hope, there is one silver lining:
the >16,055+ comments in the WaPo article authored by WaPo owner, Jeff Bezos
Opinion The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media. A note from our owner.
By Jeff Bezos
October 28, 2024 at 7:26 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust
No pay wall! (aka They are desperate)
If you need a good laugh, read the comments by the Leftist subscribers who have loose bowel movements followed by slinging them at Bezos. 🥳
This from the party of Joy, Love and tolerance
🤣💪🏾🔥🤡
Bezos’ column may have touched closer to the truth than many of us suspected him capable of, but it was still full of hand-waving and deflection. His implication that the problems of the WP and MSM in general are entirely rooted in public perception of bias, in contrast to rooted in bias itself, is just so much steaming, sticking horseshit. That perception is 100% based on reality. I also am as skeptical as it is possible to be that his motive isn’t primarily personal – the bottom line of his businesses, not limited to the Post.
“stinking”, not “sticking”