Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a leading professor of medicine and vocal critic of harsh Covid-19 lockdown measures, is launching a new medical academy to “restore the norm of free discussion within science” and so counter the “Covid industrial complex.”
Partnering with his fellow Great Barrington Declaration co-author, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Bhattacharya’s new academy is being formed as a direct response to the widespread censorship seen during the height of the Covid lockdowns….
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, has been censored and repudiated by prominent scientific establishments for having published medical research in 2020 that destabilized the widespread consensus that mass-lockdown and mass-vaccination policies would mitigate the spread of Covid-19.
These policies were almost universally adopted by every Western nation.
But by publishing his now famous Great Barrington Declaration, exposing the flaws of these nationwide policies, Dr. Bhattacharya exposed a powerful group of “central funders of science.”
Speaking at length with Sunday Express Health and Social Affairs editor, Lucy Johnston, in an extensive video interview, Dr. Bhattacharya explained that these central funders are “working very hard to take their ideas and exclude any scientists who disagree,” from what they need science to conclude.
Thus, a small group of people are forever changing the practice of Western medicine.
The fallout that ensued from publishing the Great Barrington Declaration showed Dr. Bhattacharya that science had shifted from research, dissent, and inquiry for the sake of truth, to uniformity and enforcement for control of the general public.
“The place of science is never to dictate policy; it’s to inform policy,” Dr. Bhattacharya remarked in his interview with Johnston. The “old plan” of doing science “trusts the public,” Dr. Bhattacharya continued, in contrast to the new plan that succumbs to pressure from central funders.
“We have a public health that distrusts the public. And now the public distrusts public health,” he said. As a result, Dr. Bhattacharya suspects that people will think twice about getting vaccinated, given their new distrust for public health experts.
“The voices at the table during the lockdowns were so limited,” Dr. Bhattacharya opined about the early reactions to the spread of Covid-19.
He noted that only epidemiologists, immunologists, and virologists were consulted, proving “too narrow a basis for which to design policy to affect billions of people.” According to Dr. Bhattacharya, political leaders needed input from economists, artists, philosophers, and “a vast array of expertise” to properly understand how to navigate a society’s response to an unknown disease.
“Central control of science is bad for science,” asserted Dr. Bhattacharya. “You have to allow for dissent, even if it’s uncomfortable.”
In order to allow for healthy scientific inquiry and an accepted diversity of opinion once again, Dr. Bhattacharya has launched the new Academy of Science and Freedom.
Founded alongside Scott Atlas, M.D of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., of the Brownstone Institute, the Academy of Science and Freedom is aimed at promoting the “old plan” of science, working to inform – not impose – public policy with sound scientific research.
“The moral basis for unanimity in messaging is solid science” Dr. Bhattacharya explained. “If public health is not built on solid science, it has no moral basis for unanimity in messaging. On the other hand, the norms in science itself involve dissent. If you remove all dissent, you’ll never get to good science.”
Dr. Bhattacharya pointed to the tragic improper analysis of ideological science in New York’s “scarce resources,” as seen in the fatal decision to place Covid patients in nursing homes. Dr. Bhattacharya said that “the scarce resource was not hospital beds; it was the elderly.”
But leadership had opted for unanimous assent to an expedient solution rather than thorough scientific inquiry, and very few scientists dared challenge New York’s leaders’ unfounded fixation on pairing Covid patients with the elderly, he added. The impact was catastrophic.
“Fear blocked our ability to have a public discussion about what to do” Dr. Bhattacharya concluded, reflecting upon the nursing home deaths seen throughout the pandemic lockdowns. Instead, scientists should have been “very honest about what’s known and not known” even when answers were being demanded.
This same moral imperative was again imposed with school lockdowns. However, in this case, Covid testing had transformed into something new, becoming “essentially a way to implement lockdown by stealth,” said Dr. Bhattacharya.
However, he again noted that school lockdowns were not grounded in good science. “By October 2020, we knew that school lockdowns were not working, thanks to papers published by the Swedish Public Health Agency.” Leaders had demanded action, prompting scientific experts to eschew critical peer reviews in place for firm conclusions – even if those conclusions were vacuous or wrong.
Dr. Bhattacharya surmised the total percentage efficacy of the school lockdowns with a sobering admission. “If I had to put a number, I’d say zero [percent].”
The above comes from an August 19 story on LifeSite News.
I can hardly wait!
Fauci will go to jail after his crimes are exposed by the next Republican-controlled Congress that will investigate his funding of Wuhan Labs and the engineering of the Covid virus and the incompetent, criminal policy decisions he imposed on America. I can hardly wait.
No jail for Fauci. Nobel peace prize maybe.
Even if Fauci did something criminal, which I highly doubt, by saying he will go to jail when republicans take over, you demonstrate your belief that criminal Justice should be a political affair.
About Wuhan, if you’d kept up, you’d realize that evidence is mounting that there was no lab leak. You’d also realize he imposed no policy decisions on the country. He advised President Trump, who shut the country down. HE might go to jail, but not for that. The CDC made some policy decisions. Fauci is NIH not CDC.
You can thank Fauci that HIV no longer seriously threatens the country, and Zika, Ebola, and other diseases never took hold here.
Kind of hilarious…the same pearl clutching sycophants that (ignorantly) criticize the 21st century Catholic Church for 16th century decisions about Galileo are the same knuckle dragging mouth breathers that are going to burn this guy at the stake….it’s a wonder we don’t have public witch drownings sponsored by progressive physician groups and televised on CNN…
If you got jabbed, you will live — or, more likely, die — to regret it. It was a bioweapon. The COVID virus was engineered to coerce billions of people into getting the “vaccine”.
That is such a weird thing to say. Besides being wholy detached from reality, it insults the memory of millions who died of COVID.
Bhattacharya and his two GBD colleagues were the subject of a secret takedown effort by Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins. In an email to Fauci, Collins said:
“Hi Tony and Cliff
See https://gbdeclaration.org/ This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. I don’t see anything like that on the line yet – Is it underway?
Another reason to eliminate NIH.
Eliminate NIH? Wow some on here are crazier than I thought.
Bhattacharya’s studies back in 2009 showed that H1N1 was nowhere near as deadly as the World Health Organization said: 0.01% versus 4-5% mortality.
His March 2020 studies likewise indicated that Covid had a 0.2% morbidity instead of the WHO’s 3% claim.
Hmie, his 0.2% fatality rate (I think you didn’t mean to sam morbidity, btw), has been widely discredited. Just by way of logic, I know 3 people close to me who died, one of whom was younger than me. If those rates were anywhere close to reality, I’d have to have thousands of close friends and family.
We know from press reports that entire families in China and Italy were wiped out. Maybe one child survived. If it has a fatality rate of 0.2%, that would be impossible.
There have been lots of studies in 2020 in which people look at antibodies resulting from infection, so we have a pretty good idea the number of people who were infected before the vaccines, since antibodies can be detected many many months after infection. We know with some accuracy what percentage died. It works out to about 1%,in the United States, maybe a little higher. The 3% number works out to about the fatality rate of people who showed symptoms and includes people who died in countries without modern medicine to take care of them. It’s not a bad-faith number. It just didn’t take into account the number of asymptomatic people and the poor state of healthcare in some countries.
Correction: 0.2% mortality (not morbidity).
PS: In addition to an MD, Bhattacharya also has a PhD in Economics, both from Stanford.