🌊 EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Trump’s Tariff Mastermind

There is SO much evidence out there to support what Bhattacharya is saying, and to support that there was a calculated misinformation campaign supported by the establishment to suppress cures to what is ultimately a very treatable disease. In my hometown, doctors used hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID with a 100% recovery. Not an exaggeration. 100%. My little sister caught COVID and was nearly on her deathbed. We took her to the hospital where she received monoclonal antibodies; she made a full recovery within 24 hours. Bhattacharya is the face of a long-suppressed scientific movement that proved COVID was far less threatening and easy to treat than those in power would have had us believe. Having him in charge hopefully will help prevent another such disaster should we have another pandemic.

Is the only reason Bhattacharya was ostracized by the establishment and subsequently embraced by the Trump crowd because of his views on Covid? If this is the case, then we’ve done both him and our country a huge disservice. Based on the information presented in this article, it seems he’s pushing the health science establishment to think differently but not dangerously so, and I don’t disagree with some of the positions you’ve attributed to him here. If he’s able to work without undue influence - like being pushed to uphold some of the administration’s egregious agendas - he might bring some interesting new ideas and directions to the NIH. 

Yes, people who doubt clear, established evidence are unreliable and dangerous. If they believe they alone know the truth, that the countless scientists and doctors are lying, bribed, or stupid, then they cannot be relief upon to objectively interpret policy or outcomes. Furthermore, agreement with the current administration already undermines their credibility. An administration that unilaterally halts communication from health institutes during major outbreaks of bird flu and measles does not care about promoting scientific solutions to public health. It cares aboit being powerful. Can people change their opinons, can dissenting voices be valuable? Yes, if evidence and analysis are brought in. Do I think that is the case here? Absolutely not. People are already dying for clearly preventable diseases and it’s just going to get worse.

For some context, in graduate school i studied virology in a research setting. I've always had a love for science due to my inate curiosity about everything. 

In my opinion, having a Covid "dissenting voice" leading the NIH is absolutely a good thing. It is clear that even if you assume that a lot of Covid was real, true, and necessary you still have to listen to the broader Healthcare community who have repeatedly pointed out many flaws in government strategies all across the world, which failed to accomplish what they set out to do. 

It's a disgrace to have Healthcare and science experts blackball people who do not share their perspectives, who have examined the data and draw a different conclusion, and to discredit and publicly flog them for their differences in opinions and conclusions. The whole scientific method is based on testing hypothesis and retesting as new information becomes available or as new discoveries/capabilities become possible. What was done to this man and others like him was a public manipulation to silence someone who is not only well informed and capable of examining raw data and reviewing other people's conclusions around Covid, but someone who is a leading expert in the field who simply did not agree with Fauci or the other experts creating policies around the world. More than ever, we need free and open scientific debate. We need discussions, we need experiments, we need research competitions to encourage all scientists to look at their research as a building block rather than a clear destination. To encourage everyone to have discussions about their disagreements, especially when it comes to profoundly impactful events and diseases. 

Historically, if you look at any early scientific discovery and the journey of that science, you can see that scientific discovery isn't a linear path. It's typically a path full of small or large discoveries over time, and most scientific theories require amending repeatedly over time. 

Our science becomes bad science when people are motivated my money and profit to cherry pick data to fit their preferred narrative. There were a number of over the counter medications and readily available treatments that could have (and did in many cases) improve outcomes substantially in covid patients, preventing the disease from progressing to a point of death or permanent damage to the body. Yet, those medications became the target of misinformation campaigns, likely due to the strict requirements for emergency authorization of vaccines. This is deeply concerning. 

I am always glad to see, in every field of study, a variety of views and interpretations of data.  This means that people are examining the data and critically thinking about the implications and drawing their own conclusions rather than going along with what others think. 

I dont wish to see the NIH gutted, but I do want to see NIH money used to fund solid, repeatable research studies that help us better understand diseases and ailments that negatively impacting the US.