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.”
There must be a ‘price’ to pay for these nay-sayers — and with DJT in the White House, maybe there will be.
Of course those who believed in all the restrictions on speech required by the presence of a virus will continue to bolster their opinion. To not do so would be a testament to their madness. They instinctively realize that their mental health is at stake. We can look to the scientist who stuck to their belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Their reaction can be compared to the attempted cancellation of Galileo. To admit that their assertions were incorrect now would further disconnect the charges surging from one synapses to another. One must wonder if just like in the movie A Beautiful Mind will the images always be there. To put it in a more colloquial manner, they’re all just bat —— crazy and just like in The Pinky and The Brain they want to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
Will the American people ever trust the gov’t with anything health related? I for one will not. . .
“[Bhattacharya] 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.”
Yet again, we see the Leftist tactic of dropping the context, in order to deceive and manipulate you.
If the context is getting a yearly physical, those facts are relevant.
However, the context here is health care *policy*. Which makes those facts irrelevant. What is relevant in this context is Bhattacharya’s CV — which proves him an expert on health care policy.
“Pitting personal autonomy against *the application of science to policy* . . .” (emphasis added)
Translated into English:
The Left wishes to use science to terrorize people into submission. Those who object need to be taught that they are nothing; their government is everything.
“best to handle the spread of potentially dangerous information that could have resulted in harm to users.”
It’s not their lane to decide what is and isn’t harmful information and it’s not their job to censor.
Compared to doctors like McCullough and Kory, Dr. B is milque toast. He’s too wishy-washy. Same goes for Nesheiwat for surgeon general. Joseph Labado, Florida’s surgeon general, is much better.
I worked for a University with a medical school for 27 years, science in the US is totally corrupted by federal grant money and the desire on the part of the administration for indirect cost money. Who gets federal grant money is mostly politicaly determined. Eisenhower warned about the corruption of higher ed by federal money.
* it’s all an outrage…
4 years to dismantle that dysfunctional thieving bureaucracy and then what?
Heard some joke about making Canada the 51st State? They were talking about the MILLIONS OF ACRES of United States land Canada bought, right?
Ohhhh excuuuze me, the Americas … god have mercy. To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune…
Without reading the article let me just say for us to restore our country to what used to be (yes, there were injustices and bad actors, but they were not the majority) we need to ignore the left totally. Do not give them credibility by listening to them or reading about them. They will never go away, but they can be made irrelevant.
I was reading a comment by one of the DNC Shill Brigade, where he/she/it did a deep dive into Dr. Bhatt’s qualifications. I found that rather amusing, coming from the party which believes that identity should be favored over merit. I mean, heck, the Democrats gave us Kamala Harris, who qualifications to be President were, uh hmmm errr, she has some degree of black blood, and she is a woman, although the official Democrat Party line is, they are not sure what a woman is.
Sooo, to insure his confirmation, perhaps Dr. Bhatt should put on a dress, and claim to be a woman! And, stress that he is a member of a minority race! Then, qualifications become unnecessary!
What is amusing is that the person pointed out that “Dr.” Bhattacharya is not really a Doctor. He’s not even a practicing doctor and never was.
Then, the usual know-it-alls claimed they knew more than the person who knew what he was talking about. Not one offered an actual rebuttal, only derision and insult. Bhattacharya seems to be the Dinesh D’Souza of the medical field. A fraud who is often proven wrong.
–says georgie, who suffers from “Kruger-Dunning” effect (sic, as per georgie)
Bhattacharya was born in 1968 in Kolkata, India.[11] He later became a naturalized American citizen.[12] At Stanford University, he completed both a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and Master of Arts (M.A.) in economics in 1990, graduating with honors and earning membership in Phi Beta Kappa. He continued his studies at Stanford, simultaneously pursuing a medical degree and a doctorate in economics. He earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) in 1997 and completed his Ph.D. in economics in 2000.[13][14] So, Georgie, what is your degree in? You are the very essence of scum from the bottom of my shower before cleaning.
Not being a know-it-all on this particular instance, and having taken Health, in High School, from a non-medical doctor, (actually, the teacher was an ex-offensive tackle from the Houston Oilers), I decided to look up what the NIH does, besides make up stuff like the 6-foot-rule. Here is what I found –
“NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.
The goals of the agency are:
to foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health;
to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will ensure the Nation’s capability to prevent disease;
to expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation’s economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and
to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
In realizing these goals, the NIH provides leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of the Nation by conducting and supporting research:
in the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases;
in the processes of human growth and development;
in the biological effects of environmental contaminants;
in the understanding of mental, addictive and physical disorders; and
in directing programs for the collection, dissemination, and exchange of information in medicine and health, including the development and support of medical libraries and the training of medical librarians and other health information specialists.”
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/mission-goals
Sooo, while draining abscesses, holding down tongues and requesting aaahhhhhs, and setting broken fingers is fun, and profitable, I am not at all sure those skills are required to address the above goals.
After all, we do not require Commanders-In-Chief to be able to field strip an AR15, crawl on their bellies under barbwire, or hit a target at 500 yards. Heck, they ain’t even got to have no military experience at all.
DEMS would appoint a man in a DRESS!!!!
He’s a public policy wonk.
@George: What is amusing is that the person pointed out that “Dr.” Bhattacharya is not really a Doctor. He’s not even a practicing doctor and never was.
Here’s what actually amusing looks like as we watch defenders of “Dr.” Fauxi attempt this childish fraudulent gambit:
COVID ‘6-feet’ social distancing ‘sort of just appeared,’ likely lacked scientific basis, Dr. Fauci confesses under oath to Congress
https://nypost.com/2024/01/10/news/fauci-admits-to-congress-that-certain-covid-social-distancing-guidelines-lacked-scientific-basis-sort-of-just-appeared/
Now that you’ve dropped the “REAL Physician-Doctor” persona to get back behind the wheel of the Democrat Clown Car, George, here’s one problem staring you identical twins right square in the face: You’ve never had a bad word to say about Dr. Fauxi nor a single one of his failed Wuhan Flu policies.
DESPITE THE FACT Dr. Fauxi has NEVER had a medical practice. Went straight from completing his residency right into 55 years as a ladder climbing federal bureaucrat.
55 years ago – were you even alive back then?
Dr. Fauxi hasn’t touched a patient as a physician since he became a government bureaucrat in 1968. What’s that term you use??? Oh yeah – the medical knowledge of a 1966 med school student
Now you (or your alter-ego REAL Physician-Surgeon) can tell us all how successful Drl Fauxi was as the physician who assured the government and Americans that procedural masks would work as effective filters, that if you were vaccinated you wouldn’t get Wuhan Flu nor pass it on to others.
Or his most magnificent medical/scientific finding: Ensuring Americans stayed six feet apart would stop the spread of an aerosol virus…
What a completely inept and transparent Democrat fraud you are, George/REAL Physician-Scientist.
Old Airborne Dog
Bhattacharya has two doctorates — an MD and a PhD. In a German-speaking country, he would be referred to as Dr. Dr. Bhattacharya.
You are a complete idiot. He is an expert in public health and economics. The MD certainly gives him the scientific credibility to run NIH. Just because he did not deliver babies does not make him a fraud. I wonder if you could obtain a MD and PhD in a thousand years! If you are ignorant about the subject it is better not to advertise in public.
Battacharia is a perfect pick for NIH because he understands the very real corruption that has crept into science over the last 25 years. John Ioannidis has two excellent essays in Tablet Magazine over the last couple of years on how the pandemic and the dogma and panic storm associated with it had a very negative impact on science generally and has led to a climate of fear that has had a very negative on the quality of science being done. The whole research establishment is focused on soft money instead of fundamental research and Battacharia understands this problem like few do.