For those who opposed the censorship and cancel campaigns during the pandemic, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya became an iconic figure of resistance. Unfortunately, the same can be said of the anti-free speech movement and pandemic hawks. Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies, has been nominated as the next head of the National Institutes of Health. As I wrote this weekend in my column, the nomination was heralded by many as a turning point for the NIH. It is also a rallying cry for those who supported the earlier measures, as shown by a hit piece in Scientific American, accusing him of being a danger to the very lives of American citizens.
Bhattacharya was censored, blacklisted, and vilified for the last four years due to his opposing views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses. He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters.
Before the pandemic, Bhattacharya was one of the most respected scientists in the world and served as the director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.
That all changed when he dared to question the science behind pandemic policies, including suggesting that natural immunity would be as good if not better protection for young healthy individuals.
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, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but 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.
Now, those who supported these policies are gathering to oppose Bhattacharya.
It is hardly surprising that one of the first hit pieces came from Scientific American. The magazine not only helped lead the mob response to the pandemic but has also been criticized for abandoning neutrality in recent elections.
Only a few weeks ago, editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth posted a raving, profanity-laden meltdown on social media in which she effectively called over 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump both “fascists” and bigots.
Now the magazine has published an article by Dr. Steven Albert, a professor and the Hallen Chair of Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health.
Two specific attacks stand out in the piece.
The “Personal Pique” of Censorship
First, Dr. Albert suggests that Dr. Bhattacharya was never actually censored. He insists that what Bhattacharya calls censorship was merely the fact that “social media venues … dropped his messaging.” It is curious wording and it is not quite clear what Dr. Albert is trying to say.
When Albert’s article appeared, various other outlets advanced the same claim. For example, MSNBC (which also was a leading outlet in the attacks on skeptics and dissenters during the pandemic) mocked the claim that Bhattacharya was censored.
“The problem is there’s basically zero evidence to support Bhattacharya and his supporters’ claims of censorship. It is true that some internet sites appeared to remove or limit access to the document. But, as with medical professionals not being sure how best to handle Covid, the same was true of social media companies, which struggled with how best to handle the spread of potentially dangerous information that could have resulted in harm to users.
Many companies chose, of their own free will and as they were allowed as private actors, to downplay certain information that they felt might do more harm than good. That is their own First Amendment-protected right as private entities in the United States.”
The article goes on to suggest that there is no proof of censorship without government direction or control.
As the ACLU has long maintained, censorship occurs in both private and governmental forums. The same figures insist that, if there is no violation of the First Amendment (which only applies to the government), there is no free speech violation. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies.
There is also ample evidence of government officials pushing social media companies to censor pandemic critics. MSNBC simply excuses the censorship by saying that these companies “struggled with how best to handle the spread of potentially dangerous information that could have resulted in harm to users.” In reality, the censorship itself cost the nation greatly. We never had the type of debate that we need on the efficacy of natural immunities, masks, or other precautions. We never explored the science supporting the six-foot rule. We suffered immense costs in education and the economy rather than allowing scientists on both sides to be heard equally on such forums.
Instead, Bhattacharya became a persona non grata in academia and was subjected to cancel campaigns. 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.”
Critics of Bhattacharya have also cited the fact that he retained his position, unlike some who were dropped by their institutions or associations. Survival is hardly the test of whether someone was censored or canceled. Bhattacharya holds a position with academic protections, as do some of us fortunate to have tenure in this age of rage. The fact that he persisted and the American people rejected the establishment in this election is not proof that he was not targeted or blocked from academic settings or social media sites.
Dr. Albert dismisses the censorship debate as a “personal pique” and “a distraction” that “should not obscure the central focus of U.S. public health policy during the pandemic.” Obviously, for many of us who value free speech and a diversity of viewpoints, it is a bit more than a “personal pique.”
The “Vanity” of Personal Autonomy
The second point that stood out in the Scientific American article was the warning that Bhattacharya is too focused on individual rights and personal autonomy to be the head of NIH. Dr. Albert declares:
“Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency.”
It is a chilling observation from a leading public health figure. NIH leadership suggests policies impacting a nation and must balance the costs and benefits of any given course. The NIH states that it is focused not just on “scientific integrity” but “public accountability and social responsibility in the conduct of science.” Isn’t individual rights part of that responsibility?
I would hope that the head of NIH (indeed every NIH official) would place individual rights and personal autonomy as one of the most prominent considerations in setting policies.policy-making Indeed, the NIH routinely discusses and publishes papers on the importance of personal autonomy when discussing subjects like abortion.
These two points are linked on some level. The nation was divided on many COVID policies, and doubts only grew with the censorship and intolerance that was evident during the pandemic. The NIH contributed to that mistrust with its heavy-handed tactics and viewpoint intolerance. One of the victims of that period will now head the NIH. That experience could be invaluable as Dr. Bhattacharya steers his agency toward a more transparent and tolerant path.
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.”
His CV is appalling given his doom and gloom incantations:
Steven M Albert
PhD, MA, MS, FGSA, FAAN
Professor, Hallen Chair of Community Health and Social Justice
Faculty in Behavioral and Community Health Sciences
Education
1974-78 Cornell University, NY
…BA College Scholar
1978-87 Unversity of Chicago, IL
….MA, 1981 Social Thought
….MA, 1983 Anthropology
….PhD, 1987 Anthropology
1994-96 Columbia University, NY
…MS Epidemiology
TL;DR: he is a blowhard
Per Univ of Chicago PHD Program Guide Anthropology
The following are the only courses specifically required in the Anthropology doctoral program:
Development of Social/Cultural Theory 1 & 2 (two-quarter double-course) (required of all students)
Proposal Preparation (required of all students)
Modes of Inquiry-1 and 2 (“1” required of Sociocultural/Linguistic anthropology students; “2” strongly recommended)
Archaeological Theory & Method (double-course) (required of Archaeology students; part I required, parts 2 strongly recommended)
Archaeological Data Sets or another approved statistics course (required of Archaeology students)
https://anthropology.uchicago.edu/graduate-study/phd-program-guide
Cushy curriculum for someone who seeks to be called Dr.
Steven Albert is a social justice warrior who could not get into medical school. Anthropology was his best chance of being recognized by non-scientists and wannabe doctors, kinda like Doktur Jill Biden EdD. Who would aspire to write for SciAmer other than real nobodies. The previous editor, Laura Helmuth, who humiliated herself with her social justice primal screams and was forced to resign, had earned a PhD in
Cognitive neurosciencePsychology. That’s what SciAmer attracts.Can any of these brainiacs describe the basic molecular mechanisms of inflammation, give a lecture on apoptosis, define a woman?
That Dr Bhattacharya is being attacked by Scientific American ROFLMAO is all we need to know in why he needs to clean house at NIH yesterday. Defund > 95% of universities and govt researchers receiving NIH funds and let them find angel investors. If the latter think the research is worth funding, the former should have no concerns. Most of the research being done is for authors to justify their salaries and increase their impact score. Not surprisingly Steven Albert is worried Dr Bhattacharya will cut NIH funding. Albert coulddig graves to excavate bones of Trans/Non-binary folks. Surely he would get funded!
/s
Defund NIH!
HEY ESTOVIR, JESUS ISN’T COMING . NOTHING HERE HE WANTS, HUH?
someone got a new batch of crytal meth
There needs to be an Operation Desert Storm in eastern Ukraine to dislodge the Russians from their positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation Desert Storm
Prof Turley, I would add to your excellent two points about Dr Albert’s opinion piece another two points.
1) Dr. Albert states, “The best way to “depoliticize science,” if that is your concern, is to get out of the way and let scientific inquiry drive investigation and peer review determine priority for funding. ” I am dismayed at this attitude that only scientists directly involved possess the values adequate to set national priorities. In fact, I would say that because science is valueless, it is all the more important for the NIH priorities to reflect the values of the American people – not merely that tiny subset that have a professional and financial stake. From the bits and pieces that I have read, I get the impression that there is a significant incestuous relationships between pharmaceutical company staff and government bureaucrats at all levels in the NIH. Such an issue will only skew the priorities away from broad national interests.
2) Dr. Albert does not mention the fact that during the pandemic the most timely and useful information came, not from the lavishly funded American medical institutions, but from outside the US such as Israel, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, etc. In fact certain governmental data (such as statistics on risks with natural immunity) were not released to the US public for fear that it would make people vaccine hesitant. Know the truth and the truth will set you free. Furthermore, data that would help local policy makers (such as COVID’s largely statistically negligible impact to school aged children) were not used to drive much need clarity in pubic health advice. Thus we had the bizarre governmental announcements encouraging adolescents and younger to get vaccinated as well as the above mentioned 6 foot separation rule that did not consider any cost/benefits consequences to school configurations and the fundamental ineffectiveness of masking.
I find it most astonishing that Dr. Albert, who seems to be well connected with the NIH, has not identified anything that the NIH did wrong during the pandemic and thus is in need for new leadership. The American governmental medical establishment has a lot for which to answer. The likes of Dr. Albert seem to want us to blithely continue on without any accounting or course correction.
Once confirmed, Dr. Battacharya will need all of his skills and a lot of help to make the NIH cost effective because he would be threatening the “rice bowls” of dead weights such as Dr Albert.
* I’d like to add: we all know not to pee in the shower. It does nothing for athlete’s feet and that includes motels an hotel showers and tubs, right?
We all know the public showers at public swimming pools are for showering BEFORE entering pool? Please scrub well. Right?
Do you want the cafeteria plan of what you want the government to protect you from and what you do not want it to?
Is the National Football League a governmental agency or department?
The NFL appears to operate very well indeed.
The operations of the NIH and HHS must exist and function in the free markets of the private sector.
There is no legal basis for the establishment or perpetuation of the NIH and HHS.
The NIH and HHS must have been struck down by the judicial branch upon inception.
Anthony Fauci and those who undertook gain of function research in collaboration with the PRC should stand trial for crimes against humanity.
The short term dictatorships of some governors and public officials should be brought under the microscope and investigated. Their inflexible policies hurt many people in the short and intermediate future.
It is well within the rights of an informed citizen, physician or medical researcher to question “the science.”
How else do we learn.?
And China shall be found and held solely, absolutely, totally, and immutably responsible for “China Flu, 2019,” through deliberate or negligent and derelict acts.
China shall be found guilty and liable for “China Flu, 2019,” and must compensate all nations $200 trillion (to be amended and increased).
* maybe it came out of sewage in Bangladesh. Your clothes did.
We are at a critical point in our country’s history and if nothing else, the trials (both literal and emotional) that Trump faced over these many years, has proven to me (not a Trump supporter) that he cares a great deal about our country; his strength is his ego and his love of this country. Why not wish him well and give him a chance? He certainly deserves it and we need him now!
Biden has proven himself to be a man of greed, deceit and dishonesty and his legacy is entirely ruined by his dementia and the coverups by his wife, staff and people who have more hate in them than love of country. Trump’s election shows that – We the People — see what the left is doing. Let’s see what Trump can do for this county and give all his nominees a chance to perform. Those who want to impeach Trump — even before he starts this presidency — are agitators and certainly not people who put country first — to their shame.
BTW — March 2020, Jesse Waters had a video of Biden (after getting the nomination by the Dems), staring blankly at the camera — forgetting where he was. And, his enabler — Jill Biden — runs to his side. There is also great shame on those people who never saw these last four years as a cover up on his health and an entry for Obama and his team to run the presidency. It is time for them all to leave DC. Those who covered up for Biden have a great deal of guilt to atone for — perhaps time to visit the Dali Lama and reconstruct a life of usefulness!
Thank you Jonathan Turley for your insights and detailed explanations in each of your articles.
Happy New Year to everyone and hopefully, the New Year will push USA back to and forward to, a country that respects all people regardless of their political ideologies!
Would a constitutional scholar please provide a citation from the Constitution that mandates or justifies the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services and the regulation of any aspect or facet of healthcare?
Article 1, Section 8, establishes no power of Congress to tax for, fund, or regulate healthcare or create the NIH or HHS.
The thesis in America is maximal freedom of individuals with severely limited and restricted government.
How is it that free individuals do not make their own treatment choices and the healthcare industry does not provide for the public and regulate itself, all in the free markets of the private sector?
Would a constitutional scholar please provide a citation from the Constitution
George in reality is about as concerned about the Constitution as Estovir, John Say, and Floyd are concerned that they may begin menstruating as members of Biden’s ‘birthing Identity Politics class of Americans.
How is it that free individuals do not make their own treatment choices…
George, you’ve had almost FOUR YEARS to ask Joe Biden and his administration that question about orders for mandatory vaccination and the firing of soldiers, border patrol, etc who said that as free individuals their decision is they did not want to be subjected to an experimental vaccine. You aren’t questioning them now with this trolling sophomoric deflection that you’re attempting.
You are bankrupt of credibility, rationality, character, and any shred of earned trust. So instead, let’s start with YOU answering a couple of questions to prove you have at least some tiny amount of any of those qualities.
1. As a self-identifying qualified constitutional scholar yourself, why do you defend the obviously unconstitutional police state fascism we have seen the last four years from Biden and his administration?
2. Given that you are rejected, despised, laughed at, mocked, and generally considered the weakest weasel of The Three Democrat Marxist Stooges by the audience here, what gratification do you get from the daily fraudulent performative political slapstick vaudeville comedy that you perform here?
George, the Soviet Defector Yuri Bezmenov warned us about fraudulent “constitutional” commie self-appointed intelligensia like you decades ago. Fraudulent, self appointed intelligentsia and ‘constitutional scholars’ – attempting to tear down the walls of the civil society from within.
Pretty much what Obama and now Obama’s Third Term have been actively doing.
George claims he still doesn’t see a single constitutional problem with their police state fascism directed at those who stand in their way.
Old Airborne Dog
Our Fascist government, including its Ministry of Propaganda, is putrid-rotten to the core; unfixable.
Bhattacharya is a hero of the people.
TEXIT NOW
John Underwood
Tyler, TX
No public health figure has ever taken responsibility for the long-term impacts of keeping schools closed that could have been allowed to operate. I will be watching Dr. Bhattacharya’s confirmation hearing with great anticipation of a reckoning for the poor public-policy decisionmaking that occurred during Covid.
In my mind, journalists did a horrible job during Covid, essentially indifferent to helping uncover sound policy and advice and refining it over time, while basking in short-term conflict theatrics to get clicks. Disgusting.
Wow…well having an MD AND a PhD in economics means he is more than just a pill pusher. The man understands the intersect between good medicine, good health, and economics. AND unlike the rest, he wasn’t afraid to speak up at the risk of loss. Wow…he’s better qualified than we thought. Thank you for letting us know how great a candidate he is!
Glee
He is not a physician.
He has never practiced medicine.
He has never held a license to practice medicine.
He graduated from medical school in 1997.
You do not become a physician until you undertake a postgraduate training residency program sanctioned by ACGME and obtain a license to practice medicine.
His medical knowledge is that of a medical student in 1997.
But he studied Social Thought(sic!) in ’80s…
Education
1974-78 Cornell University, NY BA College Scholar
1978-87 University of Chicago, IL
MA, 1981
MA, 1983
PhD, 1987
Social Thought
Anthropology
Anthropology
1994-96 Columbia University, NY MS Epidemiology
Quit arguing. You’re a partisan. That’s all you are.
A Real Physician-Scientist says: December 29, 2024 at 1:51 PM
He is not a physician.
And you are – at the very best – a snake oil selling medical quack. Just like Dr. Fauci that you have not posted a single negative word about, while that fraud enabled the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and emotionally damaging American children. We’re supposed to believe that Dr. Fauci is the avatar for physicians in practice, treating patients – but Bhattacharya doesn’t meet your standard like Fauci does
A REAL physician and/or Scientist would have a teeny weeny set of gonads, at least one inch of spine, and a couple of feet of guts to post consistently under a username. Like several here already do.
The most likely truth we have here is that you are Dennis McIntyre crawling out to post your Bull Schiff with that temporary “username”.
You. Are. Pathetic.
Old Airborne Dog
And
And yet another super self-important troll, this time monikered “A Real Physician-Scientist” infests the Turley comments. Your credentialism is duly noted. Be transparent: please give us your real name, actual credentials, and how much Big Pharma is paying you to show up here. Betting Dr. Bhattacharya is infinitely more qualified to head the NIH than you will ever be…
Big Pharma doesnt pay Act Blue Media Matters trolls.
His medical knowledge is that of a medical student in 1997.
REALLY???? A REAL “Physician-Scientist” should be outraged at all of his articles and research that have been published in refereed medical and science journals. “Medical student”, eh? Stanford School Of Medicine has a different opinion of Dr. Bhattacharya (you may have heard of Stanford’s medical school as a REAL physician):
Dr. Bhattacharya has published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, epidemiology, health policy, and public health among other fields.
BTW… do you have a similar record of accomplishment? I.e. similar numbers of articles on your research and work published in those same journals? Medicine OR science?
Or are you some failed inept nobody, hoping Dr. Fauci will continue filling your grifter’s begger bowl?
Dr. Bhattacharya’s recent research focuses on the epidemiology of COVID-19 as well as an evaluation of policy responses to the epidemic.
Oooohhhh… the last thing we need is a medical expert looking at The Sacred Dr. Fauci’s policy responses to the epidemic! Or Biden’s!!!!
I think a doctor with one of their greatest strengths being in epidemiology and public health might be a whole lot more useful during an epidemic than some anonymous pill pushing “Physician-Scientist” from Dr. Fauci’s little cabal of liars and deniers.
His broader research interests encompass the implications of population aging for future population health and medical spending in developed countries, the measurement of physician performance tied to physician payment by insurers, and the role played by biomedical innovation on health.
Given the abject failure of Obamacare to deliver on ANY of it’s promises, the failure of Obamacare to deliver dependable health care to our aging senior population, and the fact that the vilified health insurers are delivering coverage that meets the required specifications that Obamacare regulations has saddled them with, it is clear that a researcher/expert on medical services for senior citizens, medical spending and physician performance in comparison to what they are paid needs researchers like Dr. Bhattacharya.
Not one more Anonymous rando “Physician-Scientist” who’s now on the unemployment line since Dr. Fauci’s decades long scam has been shut down and he/it lost its place at the taxpayer trough.
This is where you should go hide where your twin Dennis McIntyre hides after posting. Your twin whose rhetoric mimics what you have posted here so well one might think you’re the same person.
Old Airborne Dog
What these “pundits” are saying, essentia;lly, is don’t rock the boat – we’re all making money on this and we don’t want it to stop. Plain as that.
That’s very reductive and tendentious, isn’t it? Prof. Turley’s article takes into account the difficulties of making public policy in a public health panic, the competing issues in any consideration of freedom of speech, and the harm produced by brute force decisions. How should that all be reduced to money? A good many physicians are mission-driven, accepting moderate income in return for extensive training and exceptional aptitude, and yet many of these, to my knowledge, took the government’s side during the pandemic. I agree with Bhattacharya’s position. However, his proposal for shielding only the most vulnerable would not have withstood the news of the death of the first child from Covid-19.
Freedom of speech et al. are constitutional.
“Brute force decisions” are antithetical and unconstitutional.
The mental infection coursing through the Democrat Party and its disassociated values to the United States unity under an agreed too Constitution, its laws and the given grace of God to form a most perfect union is most astounding when viewed through-out history. They wish to usurp natural rights/law and surrender them to what I’m not certain, or in other words, those that monitor (AKA: Tyrant). Most highways are multi directional except the Road to Perdition which leads to utter ruin, and today’s example speaks volumes where disagreement of science has become accusatory of non-relevant issues to squash scientific conclusion, opinions or theories.
Turley please also don’t forget the censorship, blacklisting and lethal tactics used against perfectly innocent Americans after 9/11.
Some were placed on these lists for exercising their legal First Amendment rights – not blacklisted for any legitimate terrorism nor any legitimate criminal threat.
These are defenseless Americans, not elitist doctors! Please don’t “Memory Hole” Ashcroft’s blacklisting program after 9/11 continuing into 2025.
I thought you may be interested in the lack of qualifications of Jay Bhattacharya, who has been nominated for Director of the NIH.
Bhattacharya holds himself out as a physician. This self-characterization is a gross exaggeration. Here is some historical information about his career.
1990: Bhattacharya received undergraduate degree in Economics
1997: Bhattacharya received MD from Stanford
2000: Bhattacharya received PhD in Economics from Stanford
2001: Faculty appointment at Stanford as an economist
He went directly from medical school to a PhD program in Economics.
He never did an internship.
He never did a residency.
He has no postgraduate clinical training in any branch of medicine, which is a requirement in all states for medical licensure.
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 any 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.
He is on the faculty at Stanford in the Dept. of Health Policy, which is a basic science department affiliated with the medical school. This department is not a clinical department. It has the same status as other basic science departments such as Biochemistry, Microbiology, Pharmacology and so on. These departments are affiliated with the medical school and teach basic sciences to the first and second year medical students, but they are not clinical departments.
He is not a Professor of Medicine. This title is for those in the Dept of Medicine, which he is not.
He hedges when describing his Stanford appointment. He refers to himself in his CV as a “Professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine”, which is technically correct, but for those who know, this is clearly an attempt at obfuscation to make it seem as if he has a clinical appointment. He is not a clinician, and does not have a clinical appointment.
Bhattacharya’s knowledge of medicine is abysmal as was apparent by his views expressed in the Great Barrington Declaration regarding COVID. He proposed that the answer to the pandemic was “herd immunity”, whereby we should have let the virus run without vaccinating. He proposed that this would allow large numbers of people to become infected and develop immunity, thus limiting the spread of the virus. This is a bizarre interpretation of the well documented and utilized concept of herd immunity. This concept was developed as a vaccination strategy to protect vulnerable individuals who for medical reasons could not safely receive a vaccine. The idea is to vaccinate as many individuals in the population as possible so that these vulnerable individuals are unlikely to ever come in contact with an infected person, thus providing indirect protection. This is why we vaccinate most children against polio, measles and so on. Some children are unable to receive these vaccines for medical reasons, but they are protected indirectly by the vast number of vaccinated children with whom they come in contact.
It is utterly absurd to think that herd immunity can be a strategy based on wide spread infection, which would actually increase the risk for vulnerable individuals unable to receive a vaccine.
The Director of the NIH has traditionally been a physician-scientist, such as Francis Collins who has an MD as well as a PhD. Collins led the NIH Human Genome Project to do a complete sequencing of the human genome. Bhattacharya is neither a physician nor a scientist. He is an economist who just happens to have graduated from medical school 27 years ago. He has never practiced medicine. He has never been involved in any scientific investigation related to the practice of medicine.
Bhattacharya is as much a physician as Jim Jordan is an attorney. Jordan fancies himself as an attorney, but he has never passed the bar exam, never held a license to practice law, and never practiced law. He is a wrestling coach who just happens to have graduated from law school 23 years ago.
Bhattacharya is simply not qualified for the job.
“He works as an economist who just happens to have attended medical school.”
Only a stupid person can present such ignorant views.
S. Meyer.
That is not a “view”.
It is a factual statement that correctly describes his career.
He has never practiced medicine.
You portrayed a view; a stupid one at that.
His study of medicine taught him more than you will ever know. Treating hundreds of cases of tonsillitis doesn’t improve a physician’s aptitude in research, but studying them in detail with a high degree of statistical knowledge makes a good researcher.
Your type of grievance against intelligent people makes you a small person easily recognizable as a lightweight.
Completely agree with S. Meyer… narrow minded views should stay silent. Having studied and graduated with medicine degree, even practicing as physician does not make a person expert in medical policy making. Doctors making that claim are the ones that should just keep their &%^$ mouths shut.
So you, a person with no medical training and no research training, feel you are qualified to opine on the qualifications that define a good medical researcher.
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?
“So you, a person with no medical training and no research training”
You are ignorant of these things and don’t even know if what you say above is true.
“feel you are qualified to opine on the qualifications that define a good medical researcher.”
I am. When you first heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect were you looking in a mirror?
S. Meyer shows he’s too stupid to understand.
Well said my friend.
I had similar thoughts but unlike S. Meyer, I prefer not to engage in ad hominem attacks and juvenile name calling.
“I had similar thoughts”
When you act ignorant and make assumptions you show what you are. That is all that happened.
HA! After I earlier brought up little George and his mistaken psuedo-authoritative reference to “Kruger Dunning,” —–suddenly Georgie and “A Real Physician-Scientist” are immediately following and complimenting each other??????
At least Georgie now knows (after it was pointed out to him) that it’s Dunning-Kruger, ha ha ha.
You two should be doing vaudeville.
“You two should be doing vaudeville.”
You are correct and ventriloquism would be their act. The only remaining question is who plays the dummy? The puppet or the ventriloquist?
Understand what, George Svelaz. Dr. Bhattacharya is brilliant and understands the situation. But I must compliment you in that aside from the insult you didn’t make your usual score of errors.
So you, a person with no medical training and no research training, feel you are qualified to opine on the qualifications that define a good medical researcher.
While you presume that anyone who disagrees with you has neither medical training and no research training. We must accept that you are actually a REAL physician-scientist who is too terrified to list their own CV – while demanding that their attempt at an Appeal To Authority be accepted.
Do these people meet whatever special criteria you have for “a good medical researcher”? Which, BTW, is NOT what Dr. Bhattacharya has been nominated to do – its more of ensuring good policies and no more “qualified doctors” like Fauxi using taxpayer dollars to fund illegal research in Communist China.
Other unqualified medical people who co-signed the Great Barrington Declaration with Dr. Bhattacharya:
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School
Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University
Can’t list them all, but right now there are another 47,827 signatories who signed as current medical practitioners.
Another 16,171 who signed as medical scientists – scientists like YOU claim to be.
Want to claim they also have no medical training and no research training?
Your ignorance is astounding. But not as astounding as your belief you could get away with this Bull Schiff you posted.
Old Airborne Dog
S. Meyer.
You say that Bhattacharya’s “study of medicine” has taught him more than you will ever know.
You need to understand that Bhattacharya’s “study of medicine” consists of 66 weeks of clinical clerkships as a 3rd and 4th year medical student with no responsibilities for direct patient care.
That’s it.
In contrast, I have retired after more than 40 years as a physician-scientist.
You may say that he has read about medicine to stay current. However medicine is something that one practices, not reads about.
One can read every book ever written about cardiac artery bypass surgery, but that does not qualify you to actually perform the surgery.
In contrast, I have retired after more than 40 years as a physician-scientist.
So you demand that we be willing to believe?
Hoping to claim a superior opinion by way of an Appeal To Authority never works with REAL scientists. It is considered to be a dishonest tactic attempted by losers in a debate.
No REAL scientist would attempt that dishonest gambit in a scientific setting. Or while hoping to get published in a refereed journal.
Kind of suggests you’re lying at least about the “scientist” angle of your Appeal To Authority.
And Appeals To Authority are even more corrupt and unsuccessful when you will not list your own CV, your accomplishments, etc – you demand that everyone who doesn’t agree with you believe your claim that you’re a REAL physician-scientist.
And even if you WERE A REAL physician-scientist, that doesn’t mean you aren’t even less qualified than Dr. Fauxi to comment on who best to head the policies and programs of that agency.
No REAL physician-scientist would be completely silent on the carnage and corruption Dr. Fauxi has corrupted that agency and harmed this country with.
Old Airborne Dog
“In contrast, I have retired after more than 40 years as a physician-scientist.”
Based on your rhetoric that is not to be believed.
“One can read every book ever written about cardiac artery bypass surgery, but that does not qualify you to actually perform the surgery.”
That example requires at least two different skill sets; one is physical and needs to be coordinated with a team. Using that example further informs us that your talents lie elsewhere.
Lay people in emergency situations can do a lot of life-saving they may never have done before. Trepanation was done in ancient times.
“consists of 66 weeks of clinical clerkships as a 3rd and 4th year medical student with no responsibilities for direct patient care.”
Really? What do you think he did during that time? Do you think he practiced the violin? He had direct patient care (though it doesn’t matter one way or the other for his qualifications) with supervision.
You need to enhance your story-telling abilities.
I know EXACTLY what he did in his 66 weeks of clinical clerkships.
He OBSERVED patient care by interns and residents.
He did scut work for the residents such as starting IV’s, drawing bloods, running specimens to the lab, retrieving lab results, transporting patients for tests, changing dressings, and other endless menial tasks that always fall to the students.
He had no clinical responsibilities whatsoever.
He had no direct patient care responsibilities.
He made no clinical decisions.
He made no decisions regarding diagnosis.
He made no decisions about treatment.
He simply observed treatment and had the opportunity to ask why and how such decisions are made.
“I know EXACTLY what he did”
You know very little. Were you an assistant phlebotomist in a doctor’s office?
Why do you always resort to insults when you know you are wrong?
What do you think medical students do?
Did you read the demeaning and insulting comments you made about Jay Bhattacharya? That is why I insult you. You acted like a pig and continue to sound like one. You guys who do not care about insulting others who are not here to defend themselves need to be insulted the same way as you do others. I do not intentionally insult civil people.
You do not have the intellectual ability to understand the knowledge Jay Bhattacharya has. Act civil, and I will treat you civilly.
Indeed, in recent years, medical students and even interns and residents have not had the same autonomy as they did in earlier years, but your characterization was wrong.
” . . . with no responsibilities for direct patient care.”
Thank you for saving me from a disastrous choice. I was just about to call his office for an appointment.
May I, though, listen to him on health care *policy*?
A “Physician-Scientist” who posts suspiciously like Dennis McIntyre tried to get this to stick to the wall:
<iThat is not a “view”. It is a factual statement that correctly describes his career.
Yet another lie; you can’t help yourself by doing anything else. That statement you made was one massive lie of omission. The omission of any mention of the majority of this doctor’s academic and professional career. You hope people will believe you were unaware of what you left out after doing your diligent research. Lies of omission don’t work much better than lies of commission.
Imagine that! A REAL! physician first says that Dr. Fauxi’s history over the last 40 years means he’s also a REAL physician, just as the REAL ‘Physician-Scientist’ is! They’re peas in the same medical pod, those two.
He/it also wants us to believe that with the knowledge of a mere medical student from 30 years ago, that Dr. Bhattacharya (who he will not include ‘Dr.’ while mentioning him), managed to get published in refereed medical and other relevant refereed journals well over 100 times!
Educated enough that this mere ‘medical student’ has managed to survive peer review and have his articles published in refereed journals. Pretty impressive unqualified ‘medical student’!
But still, we clearly need another Dr. Fauxi to screw up as he did first with the AIDS epidemic, followed by the swine flu – and finally Wuhan Flu!
Because Dr. Fauxi is also a REAL doctor! Nobody remembers if he’s actually treated a single patient in the last 40+ years he’s been lining his pockets with taxpayer and private money in that position while failing abjectly along the way. But that’s what a REAL physician looks like!
Let’s have a look at what the REAL Physician-Scientist/Dennis McIntyre hoped nobody would discover he left out of his description of Dr. Bhattacharya’s professional history:
Dr. Bhattacharya has published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, epidemiology, health policy, and public health among other fields.
BTW… do you have a similar record of accomplishment as a REAL “Physician-Scientist”? I.e. similar numbers of articles on your research and work published in those same journals? Medicine OR science?
Or are you some failed inept nobody, hoping Dr. Faucxi will continue filling your grifter’s begger bowl?
Dr. Bhattacharya’s recent research focuses on the epidemiology of COVID-19 as well as an evaluation of policy responses to the epidemic.
Oooohhhh… the last thing we need is a medical expert in those fields looking at the hero REAL Physician, The Sacred Dr. Fauci’s, policy responses to the epidemic! Or Biden’s!!!!
I think a doctor with one of their greatest strengths being in epidemiology and public health might be a whole lot more useful during an epidemic than some anonymous pill pushing “Physician-Scientist” from Dr. Fauci’s little cabal of liars and deniers.
His broader research interests encompass the implications of population aging for future population health and medical spending in developed countries, the measurement of physician performance tied to physician payment by insurers, and the role played by biomedical innovation on health.
Given the abject failure of Obamacare that Obama and Biden shoved down our throats to deliver on ANY of it’s promises, the failure of Obamacare to deliver dependable health care to our aging senior population, and the fact that the vilified health insurers are delivering coverage that meets the required specifications that Obamacare regulations has saddled them with, it is clear that a researcher/expert on medical services for senior citizens, medical spending and physician performance in comparison to what they are paid needs researchers like Dr. Bhattacharya.
Not another rando REAL “Physician-Scientist” who’s now on the unemployment line since Dr. Fauci’s decades long scam has been shut down and he/it lost its place at the taxpayer trough.
This is where you should go hide where your twin Dennis McIntyre hides after posting. Your twin whose rhetoric mimics what you have posted here so well one might think you’re the same person.
Old Airborne Dog
Only a stupid person can present such ignorant views.
Or possibly Dennis, masquerading as a REAL physician.
Or (a third option) one of Dr. Fauxi’s minor functionaries, a lab tech who lost their gravy train when Fauxi’s gain of function programs in Communist China had to be cancelled.
Here is where “A Real Physician” buys his supplies.
file:///Users/A/Downloads/B00009XNSY.html
He will be confirmed by the Senate.
You cooked and pasted this from an earlier post, didn’t you, lazy ass?
*copied
As head of the National Institutes of Health he won’t actually be treating patients. I just thought you might like to know that.
Maybe he won’t be personally treating patients, but he would be in a position to dictate how REAL physicians treat patients, and be able to control the development of research by REAL scientists.
This would be a disastrous situation.
Please cite the Constitution for that power to dictate over free individuals in a free country.
Of course, you cannot.
The American thesis is freedom and self reliance.
In once-free America, doctors and scientists practice their crafts; free individuals choose their doctors and science-derived treatments.
Nobody is forcing you to go to any doctor or submit to any treatment for your illnesses.
You are perfectly free to choose whatever treatment you desire, delivered by whoever you choose.
The NIH is not imposing any requirements on how you personally make healthcare decisions.
The NIH is simply an advisory body.
You can choose to go to whatever snake oil salesman you choose.
You failed to cite the Constitution or provide a legal basis for the NIH.
It cannot exist and must have been struck down upon inception by the judicial branch.
to know-it-all physiciab-sciengist:
Please note Bhattacharya’s prior involvement/intersecting with NIH, going back several years, and by invitation from NIH
https://cap.stanford.edu/profiles/viewCV?facultyId=4000&name=Jayanta_Bhattacharya
His past involvement with NIH has been with the “Social Sciences and Population Studies” study sections.
These sections focus on social, behavioral and economic policies.
This fits with his expertise as an ECONOMIST.
The SSPS study sections have no role in the investigation of disease processes or the clinical treatment of any disease.
^^^^sounds like a green-with-envy little man. WHAT, did Biden not pick you??????????????????
You’ve lost your mind. Being a practicing physician has NO bearing on the ability or appropriateness of an individual to run NIH or FDA or any other health-related government bureaucracy.
Rants like yours only reinforce the total loss of respect the medical profession has suffered in my eyes because of its blind round heels in the face of what was clearly un-scientific COVID “guidelines” from NIH. I could go on with other current medical practices that fly in the face of what science tells us and what it doesn’t about when and in what ways various widely prescribed pharmaceuticals are warranted. And don’t get me started with the DEI insanity that has infected the medical community.
Many docs work hard and thoughtfully to support the health of their patients, but the “profession” has lost all credibility with me beyond the few docs I work with, who are the result of me having to assess and reject too many others for the failings of their profession.
This is a classic example of an ill-informed individual who believes the misinformation presented about the medical profession.
It is a common attitude.
“Most physicians are scoundrels, EXCEPT of course my physicians.”
Please provide us with specific, factual examples of the physicians you have “assessed and rejected”, with factual reasons for their rejection.
Please provide us with specific, factual statements of your qualifications to so opine on this matter. I betcha you are NOT a practicing physician. You might even be ole “Georgie,”– who lifted information from Wikipedia and tried to impress before someone corrected him after he authoritatively referred to the “Kruger-Dunning” effect. Is that you?
A REAL Phsician-Scientist saidPlease provide us with specific, factual examples of the physicians you have “assessed and rejected”, with factual reasons for their rejection.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html
This type of fallacy is often used to present an argument as being beyond debate by claiming authoritative status or referring to an authoritative source, when in fact there may be valid counter-arguments or evidence which could refute the argument. The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy occurs when an individual attempts to validate an argument or claim by citing an authoritative source or claiming status as an authoritative source.
In many cases, the individual attempting to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy may not have any actual knowledge or expertise on the subject they are citing, but are simply relying on the alleged authority of the source they are citing.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy is based on the assumption that the cited authority is correct and that the argument is valid simply because it is being made by an authority. This can be a dangerous assumption to make, as authorities can be wrong, and their opinions may not be based on fact. Additionally, it is important to note that an authority does not always have the final say on a subject, as there may be other experts with different opinions who may have greater knowledge of the subject.
@ REAL: Please provide us with what YOUR professional accreditations are, the name of the practices you worked at, and the facilities where you were engaged working as a scientist. Bonus points for links to your research and papers that were published in refereed medical and/or scientific journals.
If you’re going to go big with your Appeal To Authority i.e. yourself, you need to present more evidence of your authoritative status other than claiming you have that.
Seems a fair question in a world where the governments’ REAL leading medical authorities are assuring us men can menstruate and get pregnant.
Oh: and Dr. Fauxi assuring the government and Americans that cheap, floppy procedures masks that do not even provide a seal between the mask and the face will protect us from an aerosol virus. And if you’re vaccinated, you can’t get Wuhan Flu nor transmit the virus to others.
Amateurish Appeals To Authority as the only thing you have (other than lies of omission) are the mark of a fraud who has never had to defend anything in the medical/scientific world.
Old Airborne Dog
I find his lack of entanglement with the medical industry to be just what is needed to cleanse this particular part of the swamp. He’s not tied to specific groups, organizations, or pharmaceutical lobbyists – sound great to me but terrifying to the grifters who work the government/medical/big pharma cabal.
The role of the NIH is to foster research into the nature of disease processes and to develop strategies to improve the health of our people.
It has absolutely no role in regulating or otherwise interacting with the “big pharma cabal” .
Oh, please…you think that entire rats nest doesn’t work in collusion? Like the common joke that states that 99% of all scientists agree with who is funding them, there is NO FAITH at this point in anything that supports the existing system. Even if some were honest, the labor under the umbrella of the corrupt swamp and will not be trusted.
I absolutely agree.
The entire medical system is corrupt.
I never go to a “doctor” for medical care or advice.
I rely on Alex Jones.
I use all his supplements and vitamin preparations.
He knows more about medical care than any crooked doctor.
^^^phony post intended to inspire others toward alex jones
I rely on Alex Jones.
And you do that because you know Alex Jones, no matter what else, isn’t some federal government bleeding edge doctor who will tell you some voodoo shit like: “men can menstruate and give birth”!
Bhattacharya is more a medical doctor/physician than you are a non-envious, underqualified commenter on this blog.
This just takes you to 2015:
https://cap.stanford.edu/profiles/viewCV?facultyId=4000&name=Jayanta_Bhattacharya
Does freedom of speech mean that you don’t have to speak the truth, if that is what floats your boat?
He’s (Dr. Jay Bhattacharya) just as good as any other candidates for the Office.
IMO, Medical Doctorates are just the same across their field as any other ‘Professional fields’.
There are good Doctors and there are bad Doctors, so there’s a 50/50 chance that this candidate will pan out to be a good Doctor.
Across all Professional fields, Individuals that attain the credentials are pampered along their path. A degree of privilege has been given them at the expense of others (the voluntary and involuntary sacrifices by Others).
That so, the fact that they arrive at a position (the top) dose not necessarily make them qualified to perform and administer the duties of the position. Dr. Anthony Fauci was a prime example. He clearly demonstrated that a ‘privileged person’ at the top, rely heavily on Others to support a declarative position (The prescribed narrative).
Hence when the ‘Tail wags the Dog’ (Pfizer/Viatris (a.k..a.: Mylan-Upjohn Labs), Moderna, Novavax, …*) the head of the Dog dances to the directed narrative.
Insurance Companies also played a roll in the mandate of Vaccinations, as the ‘pandemic’ medical claims would certainly and seriously create an erosion of profits. So it is evident that the decisions made were not inclusive of other ‘remedies’ and the submarining (censorship) of Other proscribe remedies demonstrates the Unfair-Practices employed (e.g. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. (FTC Act) (15 USC 45) by the Large Pharma and Insurance companies. The motivation is evident in the Awarded Vaccine Contracts & Authorizations that the Government dispensed, the rewarding profits attained by the Players*.
* COVID-19 Vaccines providers:
Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted.
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Spikevax (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)
Just an FYI:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
So you do want a nanny state or don’t you?
“we never really had a national debate on many of these issues” it’s noticeable that we rarely have national debates on the important decisions that govern our lives. When have we debated EV subsidies, or CAFE standards, or the support of forever-wars in the mid-East? Our lives are controlled for us by murky figures.
What’s unsaid is that this campaign of suppression, censorship, and cancelling is just about 100% Democrat. Many of the main players not only being Professor Turley’s fellow Democrats, but also his fellow Democrat lawyers who also work in politics.
With that in mind, the reality of American (then adopted almost universally) Wuhan Flu policy was pure Democrat: “Villify And Demagogue To Stop Trump!”. Dr. Bhattacharya was just one more casualty among those who became collateral damage. He may well have even been a registered Democrat; it didn’t matter – he was off the party’s messaging. And hey – it worked; Trump lost the election 11 months later!
What should have been an easy Trump reelection on his record was handcuffed by not just Wuhan Flu, but the obsessive lying and propaganda about him and his policies from the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex.
His accomplishments over the previous three years were put out of sight by the Propaganda Complex going all out to elect The Oval Office House Plant Formerly Known As Vice President Biden.
The Get Trump Wuhan Flu policies killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions around the globe in countries who put Democrat American Wuhan Flu policy in place as their own.
You shouldn’t have needed any kind of experience with any level of medicine to know that floppy procedural masks that don’t even provide a seal between the mask and the skin weren’t going to filter aerosol virus on either inhalation or exhalation. Nor to know that six magical feet of separation from fellow human beings would NOT protect you from an aerosol virus in the air.
How many people throughout the world were killed by their governments and those governments’ doctors assuring them a floppy face mask and six feet of separation would protect them from the virus if they were around infected people?
These are the same medical professionals – as a reminder – who were telling us boys can menstruate and give birth as ‘birthing persons’.
Once Democrats made this about how dangerous Trump and his policies regarding Wuhan Flu were, ANYONE who said or did anything contrary to the lies and policies being promoted by the Soviet Democrats and the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex was marked for destruction by firing, removal of their right to free speech, etc, wherever there was an avenue of attack available.
It didn’t matter if you were Bhattacharya or a nameless nurse’s aid in the local hospital or a Border Patrol agent being ordered to allow unvaccinated Illegal Aliens into the USA contrary to existing immigration law.
Say anything contrary to the Biden Get Trump Wuhan Flu policy, refuse a mandated experimental vaccine because you’d already had the disease and/or were in the prime of your life – and they were going to try to take you out.
Trump (nor the GOP) is certainly not the answer to all of America’s problems. But Professor Turley’s fellow Democrats in government, universities, medicine, entertainment are the cause of pretty much ALL of America’s problems today. Whether the issue is the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the invited 20+ million Illegal Aliens, etc.
There’s always a Democrat and/or Democrat policies, regulations, and law that are the root cause of the problem. Whether you as an individual on the receiving end are Republican, Democrat, or neither.
Almost all here know that very well. Perhaps in 2025 Professor Turley will figure it out as well, as far his fellow Democrats the greatest threat to the 1st Amendment he loves so well – but he’ll take an even greater beating from those fellow Democrats if he acknowledges that in any of his columns.
Old Airborne Dog