Trump NIH Pick Wants a COVID Reckoning

The Bulwark ^ | Dec 2024 | Cathy Young

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Donald Trump's announcement last month of Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as his nominee to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health further intensified the controversy—and alarm—about what the second Trump administration will mean for American science and medicine.

Bhattacharya is an actual physician. He also has a Ph.D. in economics, and a track record of reputable scholarship focusing on policy questions related to public health. But there is no question that Bhattacharya owes his nomination to one thing: his emergence early in the COVID pandemic as a vocal critic of the public health consensus that favored social distancing to mitigate the spread of the virus. Bhattacharya was one of the three co-authors of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” an October 2020 statement that called for “focused protection” for the elderly and other vulnerable groups while letting the virus spread through the rest of the population until herd immunity was reached.

At the time, most scientists thought it was a terrible idea. Among them was then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins; a few days after the statement was posted, he emailed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, referring to Bhattacharya and his colleagues as “fringe epidemiologists” and suggesting “a quick and devastating published take down” of the statement. Bhattacharya, who later obtained that email via the Freedom of Information Act, told a congressional subcommittee in March 2023 that he and his colleagues were “targeted for censorship” and “targeted for suppression by federal officials” because their arguments were a threat to the establishment’s “illusion” of scientific consensus.

Is Bhattacharya’s claim of broad censorship true?

[SaveFerris]

[Good]

Yes.

Zey joost vant to reset our vorld...

A hat tip to Disambiguator who noticed where the line for the side of the Earth intersects the letters







Meanwhile, way back in 2020:

[Jonty30]

Because I’m disarming that arguement. Even if, it still means acts of criminality. His intents don’t matter when you consider his actions.

[Robert DeLong]

Because I’m disarming that argument.

So, you do not believe that Covid needs a Reckoning? You do not believe that people should have a voice when it comes to discussing what happened during that farce? You are all for criminal behavior, even though what was done was not helpful at all, as there were existing drugs that could have been repurposed that would fight the virus with effectiveness, and they were aware that they were effective. But none of that matters to you?

Help me understand, because I absolutely do not understand your statement at all. It makes no sense, either on a common sense level nor on a logical reasoned level.

Why are you trying to disarm the argument, and to what purpose?

I obviously disagree with your action & thoughts, as I think it is important to learn the truth, because the truth matters, and the truth changes peoples beliefs when they are exposed to the truth, and they accept it as the truth.

We have been gaslighted on many issues over the last 4 years, and it was done on purpose, and while they have been granted Presidential pardons, states can take up the issues and file state cases to bring justice to where justice needs to be rendered.

[Jonty30]

Of course I do.

You seem to misunderstand my point. My point is that Fauci’s intents are irrelevant because, even if the intent came from Heaven itself, he is still a criminal.

Fauci can say whatever he wants and it doesn’t matter. That’s why any argument he makes has been disarmed.

I’m disarming the arguement so it can’t be used as an excuse to avoid punishment.

You don’t disagree with me, but you disagree with what you are thinking I am saying. You think that I’ve said that it is somehow less bad because Fauci had good reasons. I never said that. I said, even if he had the most pure reasons for what he did, it doesn’t matter.

[Robert DeLong]

Yes, I was not understanding what argument you were trying to disarm, which is exactly why I was trying to get you to be more specific as to what you meant when you said you wanted to disarm the argument. If I wasn't sure what your statement meant, perhaps others also were not clear what you meant to convey either.

Now I agree with you, he still needs to be held accountable, and others also need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, worldwide. Perhaps other nations will hold the people accountable for their actions against their citizens as well.

Because to do nothing will just encourage more of this criminal behavior to keep reoccurring.