#jay bhattacharya

[pandemic-info]

(via HHS picks, the House subcommittee report, and pandemic revisionism)

Bottom line

We are moving into an era that represents a rejection of the public health establishment. Change is coming, but not all change is good change. We need to have honest discussions about what went right and wrong with a focus on learning how to do better next time, not rewriting what happened.

[alyfoxxxen]

Trump picks NIH critic Jay Bhattacharya to lead the agency - POLITICO

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

President-elect Donald J. Trump late Tuesday nominated Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., if the Senate will confirm him!

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/health/trump-taps-dr-jay-bhattacharya-co-author-of-great-barrington-declaration-to-lead-nih

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Then-President Donald Trump repeatedly favored the Fox News hosts and guests he saw on his television screen over federal health policy experts as he managed the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and it had calamitous consequences. He's going even further as he prepares for his second term, picking familiar faces from the right-wing propaganda network to run the government health bureaucracy. Trump, a Fox obsessive, staffed his first administration with at least 20 former Fox personalities, and he continues to rely on that method as he stocks his second one. But the network’s dominance among Trump’s announced picks to carry out his second-term health policy is nonetheless striking.

Anti-vaccine activist and Fox hero Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will lead the Department of Health and Human Services. He will potentially oversee former Fox contributor Dr. Marty Makary at the Food and Drug Administration, Fox medical contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat as U.S. surgeon general, and frequent Fox guests Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Mehmet Oz at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (Bhattacharya has not been formally announced but is reportedly the top pick for the position.) These picks, to an extent, show Trump aligning his health policy hires with his own Fox-molded views. As president during the pandemic, he clashed with his official advisers when they contradicted what he was hearing from Fox personalities. The result was often chaos in decision-making, implementation, and public messaging.

Makary, Bhattacharya, Oz, and Nesheiwat received regular Fox airtime because on issues like the use of untested drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or nonpharmaceutical interventions like office and school closures, they tended to hew close to the Fox line — which also became the Trump line. If another pandemic hits, it is possible that they will be able to mitigate Trump’s worst impulses; they have real medical credentials, and Trump is likely to have greater confidence in them due to their shared past views. But while Trump’s promotion of COVID-19 vaccines through Operation Warp Speed was an unalloyed triumph in his first term, Kennedy is a crank who was openly hostile to the drugs. And other members of the second-term team regularly went on Fox to warn about the purported health impacts of the vaccines and criticize mandates to ensure their use. That does not bode well for the prospect of a successful response should another pandemic hit during the next four years.

The people tasked to run health departments under a 2nd Trump Administration are a motley crew of TV doctors, anti-vaxx cranks, COVID minimizers, and quack cures promoters.

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

How To Make America a 3rd World Nation

Dear MAGAs, is this how you “Make America Great, Again”? (Article ran in the March 14th Florida Sun-Sentinel. NIH funding cuts are creating a lost generation of scientistsLisa Jarvis, Bloomberg Opinion The Trump administration’s attacks on science and funding at the National Institutes of Health will set research and training for future scientists back a generation. This might sound melodramatic…

[soundgrammar]

The Green Gate (detail), Vidyadhar Bhattacharya [Jai Singh II], Pritam Niwas Chowk, City Palace, Jaipur, India, from 1727–43. From Wiki-uk via www.x-traonline.org.

[bb-strawbebe]

god. seeing that the cdc is actually prepping to do a "large-scale study into the potential connection between vaccines and autism" is so.....

[hayquetenerpatience]

"Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to COVID. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a bitch." - Matt Kibbe

[healthyfitness23]

Trump picks Covid lockdown critic to lead top health agency

Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor known for his criticism of COVID-19 lockdowns and co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, is trending as he has emerged as the leading candidate for the role of Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under President-elect Donald Trump. His nomination aligns with Trump’s vision of reforming federal health agencies, emphasizing innovation and reducing bureaucratic influence​

Read More in Google News

Bhattacharya has gained attention for advocating less restrictive public health measures during the pandemic, favoring “Focused protection” to shield vulnerable populations while allowing others to develop immunity. His proposed approach contrasts with more traditional pandemic responses and has sparked both support and controversy. His critics argue that his policies prioritize business interests over public health, while his supporters praise his push for science-based reforms​

This potential appointment marks a significant shift in U.S. health policy, promising to challenge long-standing norms within the NIH and broader public health sectors.

Read More in Google News Here

[bonnieb23-blog]

Should the Evil Ones Be In Jail?

Dr. Fauci Belongs in Jail Dr Fauci belongs in Jail. Because of him, we were threatened, shamed, sworn at, disparaged,canceled, and spit upon (literally). Because of him hundreds of thousands of people died. Dr Fauci said, “You will never shake hands again.” What an evil man. He knew all the time because he was funding the experiments done in the Wuhan lab. Is iteven remotely possible that he…

[covid-safer-hotties]

Know Thy Enemy: Jayanta Bhattacharya

[beardedmrbean]

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.

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court

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?

Universities shred their ethics to aid Biden’s social-media censorship

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.

[mariacallous]

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is “vindicating his critics” in just his first six weeks in office as he dismisses the severity of Texas’s deadly measles outbreak and empowers vaccine skeptics at the national stage, the Wall Street Journal said in an op-ed published Sunday.

“Our worst fears about Mr. Kennedy are coming true,” the paper’s editorial board wrote.

The outlet cited Kennedy’s passive response to the current measles outbreak in Texas and the related death of a child, which Kennedy dismissed as “not unusual,” despite it being the country’s first lost life due to the preventable disease in a decade.

It also cited reports of Kennedy’s hiring of discredited vaccine skeptic David Geier to head a large-scale federal study to look at the “link” between vaccines and autism. (A 1998 study that suggested a link was retracted and has been widely debunked.)

“If Mr. Kennedy truly wants an independent, impartial review of vaccine data, Mr. Geier is the wrong man for the job. The study’s results look preordained,” the journal wrote.

The op-ed also underscored last week’s resignation of the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, Dr. Peter Mark, who was reportedly forced out. Marks, who had led the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cited Kennedy’s views on vaccines and misinformation in his resignation letter.

“Some Senate Republicans hoped that other Trump HHS appointees—e.g., FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya—would keep Mr. Kennedy in check. It isn’t working out that way,” the journal wrote.

[darkmaga-returns]

In an interview with Newsmax last week, U.S. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina said that one of the reasons she supports President-elect Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HSS) is her concern about the safety of the COVID-19 shots. She confirmed that she suffered injuries following her second COVID mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) shot in the spring of 2021.1 2 3 4

Rep. Mace received the first dose of Moderna/NIAID’s Spikevax COVID mRNA shot on Apr. 13, 2021, followed by the second dose in May-June of that year.5 She said:

I now developed asthma that has never gone away since I had the second shot. I have tremors in my left hand. And I have the occasional heart pain that no doctor can explain, and I’ve had a battery of tests, Mace said. “I thought I was doing my civic duty to get vaccinated by this vaccine that had not been tested. My health has never been the same.1 2 4

Mace, who is a member of the House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee, that the public has not been told the truth about the safety of the COVID shots, and specifically that information about the shots was suppressed during the pandemic by social media platforms such Twitter (now known as X).1 2

Doctors Censored on Social Media for Criticizing Federal COVID Policies

In a House Oversight Committee hearing on Feb. 8, 2023, Mace questioned ex-Twitter official Vijaya Gadde about why renowned medical doctors and epidemiologists like Martin Kulldorff, MD of Harvard Medical School, Jay Bhattacharya, MD of Stanford University, and others were censored on Twitter for views that did not conform to the federal government’s narrative about COVID and the COVID shots.1

“You guys censored Harvard-educated doctors, Stanford-educated doctors, doctors that are educated in the best places in the world, and you silenced those voices. “Apparently, the views of a Stanford doctor are disinformation to you people,” Mace said. “I find it extremely alarming [that] Twitter’s unfettered censorship spread into medical fields and affected many Americans by suppressing expert opinions from doctors and censoring those who disagree with the CDC. ”1 4

“Millions of Americans were lied to and [are] living with the consequences of this decision. Thank God I didn’t vaccinate my children with this thing, but I’m living every day with the consequences of that decision, and I regret it,” Mace said.2

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Emma DelRosso

* * * *

Opposing the president-elect's nominations

December 2, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Dec 02, 2024

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, Trump nominated conspiracy theorist Kash Patel as FBI Director and convicted tax fraudster Charles Kushner (Jared’s father) as Ambassador to France. Trump also nominated his daughter Tiffany’s father-in-law, Massad Boulos, as a senior adviser covering Arab and Middle Eastern affairs.

Last week I wrote that “Few imagined how bad Trump's nominees would be.” That statement was made before the nominations of Patel and Kushner, nominations that ratcheted up the sickening stream of dangerous, unqualified, and insulting choices that are collectively and individually the worst nominations in our nation’s history.

It is important to understand how disastrous these nominations will be for the US. However, it is not enough to bemoan and condemn Trump's nominations. This newsletter isn’t intended to be a pity party. It is a call to action.

We must flood our representatives in Congress with feedback from constituents demanding that they place the interests of the United States above the revenge agenda of the Republican leader. In the short term, that is what we can do—so we must do it. In the mid range, we can set about defeating Trump's enablers at the ballot box. There must be a political price to pay for supporting party above country and for being cowards when our nation needed courageous leaders.

Before turning to individual nominees, let’s examine the stakes. For once, Trump has been consistent in his actions and has stayed “on message”—in a bad way. His nominations can be grouped into three broad categories:

He seeks to weaken, if not destroy, the US intelligence community and federal law enforcement agencies—in retribution for their temerity in seeking to hold him to account for his crimes. Matt Gaetz (DOJ), Pam Bondi (DOJ), Tulsi Gabbard (NDI), Kash Patel (FBI), Stephen Miller (Depty. Chief of Staff), Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Sebastian Gorka (Depty. Ass’t to President), John Ratcliffe (CIA), Pete Hegseth (DOD), and Matthew Whittaker (NATO).

He seeks to weaken, if not destroy, the federal government’s healthcare and science expertise—in retribution for their temerity in challenging his lunatic ideas about COVID. Robert Kennedy (HHS), Dr. Oz (Medicare), Jay Bhattacharya (NIH), Dave Weldon (CDC), and Martin A. Makary (FDA commissioner).

Finally, he seeks to destroy the administrative state—a “quid pro quo” to the business community for supporting a candidacy that was designed solely to evade his criminal liabilities. Elon Musk (Government Efficiency), Vivek Ramaswamy (Government Efficiency), Linda McMahon (Education), Russell T. Vought (OMB), Chris Wright (Energy), Brendan Carr (F.C.C. Chair).

Let’s take a look at Trump's most recent nominations

Kash Patel is the sworn enemy of the FBI—so Trump intends to nominate him as FBI Director

Kash Patel is in a love-hate relationship with the FBI. Patel wants to destroy the FBI while converting it into a weapon of political vengeance.

Patel has promised to “shut down” the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. on his first day as director of the FBI and re-open the FBI Headquarters the next day as a “museum to the deep state.” He said,

I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopen the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I'd take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals.

But he has also threatened to use the FBI to harass journalists and politicians who sought to hold Trump accountable for his crimes. Patel said,

[W]e’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections — we’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.

Note that the man who is supposed to “pursue justice” has said that retribution comes first—and “we’ll figure out” why the FBI is harassing US citizens later.

Patel’s twin aims for the FBI should be immediately disqualifying. But prominent Republicans flocked to the TV talk shows on Sunday to defend Kash Patel as a “reformer” who will “root out” the partisanship in an FBI that is dominated by right-wing MAGA leadership as it is.

Bill Barr famously said that that Kash Patel would be appointed Deputy Director of the FBI “over my dead body.” See Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse on Substack, The New Matt Gaetz.

Likewise, former acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, said on CNN,

The fact that Kash Patel is profoundly unqualified for this job is not even like a matter for debate. . . . The installation . . . of Kash Patel as FBI director, can only possibly be a plan to disrupt, to dismantle, to distract the FBI and to possibly use it as a tool for the president’s political agenda.

McCabe was virulently anti-Hillary Clinton, leaking damaging information to the WSJ during the 2016 campaign. (McCabe lied to then Director James Comey about the leak and was later fired for his conduct). The fact that a rogue ex-FBI Director is alarmed by Kash Patel speaks volumes.

The nomination of Kash Patel should be viewed as an assault on the US intelligence community. Although people frequently think of the FBI as chasing bank robbers and kidnappers, it plays a critical role in counterterrorism and intelligence gathering.

The FBI is a member of the US Intelligence Community and has a dual report to the Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard). It is charged with US counterterrorism investigations and maintains 60 offices overseas (primarily to coordinate with foreign intelligence agencies).

Indeed, Kash Patel has said that he wants to extricate the FBI from intelligence activities—a move that will make all Americans less safe in a dangerous world. See AP, Trump says he'll nominate Kash Patel as FBI director to remake the agency. Here's what happens next. Per AP,

Patel has also talked about disentangling the FBI’s intelligence-gathering activities — now a core function of the bureau’s mandate — from the rest of its law enforcement operations. It’s unclear whether he intends to carry through on that pledge or how it would be greeted at a time when the U.S. is facing what officials say is a heightened threat of terrorism.

As background for the upcoming fight over Kash Patel, I recommend several sources.

First, Joyce Vance’s excellent analysis in Civil Discourse, The New Matt Gaetz.

Next, The Guardian takes a deep dive into Kash Patel’s conspiracy theory past: Conspiracy theorist Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to lead FBI, faces Senate blowback | FBI | The Guardian

Finally, see the NYTimes, Kash Patel Would Bring Bravado and Baggage to F.B.I. Role. (Accessible to all.) The Times article is long on detail but short on self-awareness or political insight. For example, whatever Kash Patel's nomination means, it is not about “bravado” or “baggage.”

Patel’s threat to pursue journalists appears more than two dozen paragraphs into the Times’ story. In a democracy that is still hoping and pleading with legacy media to raise the alarm about Trump's intentions, twenty-four paragraphs into a story is not the right emphasis for an article about an FBI enforcement policy that would convert the FBI into a partisan police force directed at the media.

The Senate should reject Patel’s nomination. But Trump may attempt to place Patel in an “acting Director” role by manipulating the Federal Vacancy Reform Act. See Congressional Research Service, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview.

Trump's nomination of Charles Kushner as Ambassador to France is insulting to France and the US

Jared Kushner’s father—Charles Kushner—is a convicted tax fraudster who engaged in witness tampering while he was under investigation. Donald Trump pardoned Charles Kushner during Trump's first term. Trump has now nominated Charles Kushner as Ambassador to France.

It is difficult to imagine a less fitting Ambassador to France the Charles Kushner.

While Kushner was under investigation for tax fraud, his brother-in-law was a cooperating witness. Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law and filmed the sexual encounter in a hotel room between his brother-in-law and the prostitute.

Kushner then sent the video of the sexual encounter to his sister to induce her to dissuade her husband from testifying against Kushner. See ABC News, Trump wants pardoned real estate developer Charles Kushner to become US ambassador to France.

The nomination of Charles Kushner as US Ambassador to France is the diplomatic equivalent of flipping the middle finger to a foreign nation. France would be well within its rights to refuse to receive Kushner as the Ambassador and tell the US to recall Kushner to the states.

In the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a nation has the unilateral authority to expel an ambassador:

The receiving state may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending state that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending state shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission.

See Foreign Policy, So, How Do You Expel an Ambassador, Anyway? – Foreign Policy

Concluding Thoughts

President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden on Sunday. Against the orgy of Trump pardons of family, friends, and advisers, Biden’s pardon of his son on minor charges pursued for political purposes seems quaint and unremarkable. Biden’s reasons for pardoning his son are understandable—and probably meritorious. But Biden’s decision will become precedent for future pardons—by presidents with flimsy or corrupt reasons for pardoning family members. What is done can’t be undone, but the decision to grant a pardon to Hunter Biden was unwise and will further undermine the presidential pardon power.

And yes, I do understand the differences between Biden’s decision and the pardons issued by Trump. But examining the Hunter Biden pardon through the lens of the interests of the American people, it was unwise.

After I wrote last week that the nomination process has been more difficult than expected, I received several comments from readers (and my Managing Editor), saying, “Thanks for acknowledging that the nomination process has been worse than expected.”

It feels like we are living in a world turned upside down. Sexual abusers and convicted criminals are being nominated to positions of trust and honor. Demagogues who want to destroy the federal government are being granted leading roles in agencies they will seek to destroy. Unqualified, ignorant conspiracy mongers are being entrusted with the health and safety of our children and elderly. Disgruntled and aggrieved “ne’er do-wells” are being placed in charge of the US counterterrorism agencies.

If you feel like the subject in Edvard Munsch’s painting, The Scream, there is nothing wrong with your radar. You should feel that way—and more. I add the “and more” modifier because much of the press is still reporting on the nominations as if they are the player line-up being announced at Yankee Stadium on a Sunday afternoon.

The nominees represent a threat to the safety and stability to our society as a whole. Discussing the nominees’ “bravado” and “baggage” and “lack of experience” is misleading. The “lack of experience” is a feature, not a bug. What better way to destroy a federal agency than nominating someone who has no idea what the agency does? See, e.g., The Independent, Trump taps GOP megadonor with no military experience to head up US Navy.

We must attempt to derail as many of these nominations as possible—but especially Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert Kennedy. Call or write your Senators and make your voice heard: U.S. Senate: Contacting The Senate. Even unsuccessful efforts to stop some nominations will lay the groundwork for opposition to future actions. No effort is wasted, even if the fruits of that effort are not immediately visible.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]