New Lead for US National Institute of Health (NIH) Nominated by Trump - Dr. Bhattacharya: What Could This Mean for Fauci, Biden, and Canadian Government Professionals?
Other Nominations (for FDA and CDC) by the U.S. President-Elect with Potential Major Implications for Canadians. Expect more scrutiny over pandemic measures and more open scientific debate!
You may wish to bookmark this article for easier reference. It will be updated with more references and quotes.
LATEST UPDATES:
Added a recent University class lecture “The End of Free Speech is the End of Science” by Dr. Bhattacharya.
Added update from Missouri (Dr. Bhattacharya) v. Biden . “The historic free speech case uncovered that federal officials, all the way up to President Joe Biden, pressured social media companies to remove specific posts and discussion terms”. - More
Added reference on Sweden, the only country in the Western world that followed Bhattacharya-authored Great Barrington Declaration principles and did not impose lockdowns and that now enjoys one of the lowest excess mortality among all highly-vaccinated countries
Provided Appendix with more quotes and references from perplexity.ai on “Implications of Trump’s FDA and CDC Leads nominations for FDA policies and Canadian Government professionals”
As many of you already know (in particular, those concerned about the reasonableness of pandemic measures in Canada), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH) - 1, 2, 3.
Trump stated that Bhattacharya will work with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, "restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America’s biggest Health challenges, including our Crisis of Chronic Illness and Disease".
Bhattacharya posted that he was "humbled" to be picked. "We will reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again and will deploy the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again!" - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg4yxmmg1zo
With the help of www.perplexity.ai, let’s explore who Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is and what his nomination could mean for professionals in the U.S. and Canada—like you and me—and for citizens in both countries.
Bhattacharya is a 56-year-old Medical Doctor and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, known for his criticism of Fauci and Biden introduced pandemic measures: pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates -2, 4.
He is also one of main authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org, Facebook, Twitter/X), signed by almost a million of infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists worldwide.
This Declaration raised “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies [in US, Canada and other countries] ”, and recommended “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, [which ] is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection” - 2, 4.
For a reference:
Dr. Francis Collins, the previous director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was critical of the Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdowns and advocated for a herd immunity approach during the COVID-19 pandemic. Collins referred to the declaration as "dangerous" and "not mainstream science" 7 8 . This indicates that he supported more traditional public health measures, such as lockdowns and mandates, to control the spread of the virus.
Also for a reference: Sweden use case
Sweden, the only country in the Western world to follow the principles of the Jay Bhattacharya-authored Great Barrington Declaration and avoid imposing lockdowns, stands out as having the lowest excess mortality among highly vaccinated nations since Fall 2021. Meanwhile, it’s also notable that nearly all low-vaccination countries have shown virtually no excess mortality since the same period.
Jay Bhattacharya is also one of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court case charging that the Biden administration and other parts of the federal government illegally colluded "with social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content." A decision in that case is imminent, and a victory for Bhattacharya's side would make it impossible for the government to pressure X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and other platforms to ban or squelch legal speech. A professor of medicine at Stanford University and a Ph.D. economist, Bhattacharya talks about his experience being blacklisted online because of his criticisms of lockdowns and other COVID policies.
Read update from Missouri (Dr. Bhattacharya) v. Biden . “The historic free speech case uncovered that federal officials, all the way up to President Joe Biden, pressured social media companies to remove specific posts and discussion terms”. - More
To learn more about Dr. Bhattacharya’s opinions, please watch the interviews below. (Note however that “the latest information from Health Canada” may be different from the opinions of the nominated Lead for the U.S. National Institute of Health).
The first interview includes:
[0:00] How scientific discourse broke down during COVID
[4:09] The Great Barrington Declaration
[9:14] The official stats didn’t match the complete dataset
[19:48] Why were the harms of lockdowns ignored?
[29:43] Government failure and the collective action problem
[38:33] Can the NIH, CDC, or FDA be fixed?
[56:05] What’s the deal with COVID vaccines?
[1:20:49] What about other vaccines?
[1:41:58] Broken incentives in the healthcare system
[1:59:08] What’s the state of the health policy conversation?
[2:06:01] We need honest, independent scientists
The second interview includes:
00:00- Introduction
01:12- Murthy vs. Missouri
17:05- Politicization of the NIH
20:45- Loss of trust in public health
25:45- Biden v Trump on COVID
27:49- What Bhattacharya got wrong
29:35- COVID vaccines mistakes
34:53- RFK Jr. and other vaccine skeptics
39:44- What would Bhattacharya revise?
42:17- How Bhattacharya’s politics changed
44:20- How do we restore trust in public health?
The following lecture “The End of Free Speach is the End of Science” provides additional references and data in support of Dr. Bhattacharya’s opinions:
Implications for Fauci and Biden
Bhattacharya's nomination could lead to increased scrutiny of past pandemic policies:
Potential investigations: As NIH director, Bhattacharya may initiate reviews of previous NIH policies and decision-making processes 5.
Legal questions: Recent investigations have raised concerns about the legal status of some NIH officials, including Dr. Fauci, due to improper reappointments 9.
Additionally, Based on the legal case mentioned above, there could be significant consequences for Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Biden administration:
First Amendment violations: The lawsuit alleges that Fauci and the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social media companies to censor dissenting scientific views 1 4. . If proven, this could lead to legal repercussions and potential policy changes.
Damage to credibility: If the court finds that Fauci and the administration suppressed scientific debate, it could severely damage their credibility and public trust 1 5 .
Policy reversals: A ruling against the government could force changes in how federal agencies interact with social media platforms regarding content moderation 4 .
Precedent setting: The case could set a legal precedent limiting government involvement in online speech regulation 5 .
Political fallout: A decision against the administration could have political consequences, potentially affecting public opinion and future elections.
Personal liability: While not explicitly stated, there's a possibility of personal liability for officials involved if misconduct is proven.
Restoration of censored content: A favorable ruling for the plaintiffs could lead to the reinstatement of previously censored content and accounts 5 .
Broader implications: The case could impact how public health information is communicated during future crises.
It's important to note that the outcome of the case is still uncertain, and these potential consequences depend on the court's decision and its interpretation of the evidence presented.
Implications for Canadian Government professionals and all Canadians
While the NIH doesn't directly influence Canadian health policy, Bhattacharya's appointment could:
Spark debates: His views may encourage reassessment of pandemic measures in Canada.
Influence research priorities: Changes in NIH funding could affect global health research directions.
Cross-border policy discussions: Canadian health officials may need to navigate potential differences in approach with their U.S. counterparts.
Allow more open debate and discussion on Canadian policies and measures
As this story develops, it's crucial for Canadians to stay informed about potential shifts in health policy on both sides of the border. YouTube and Health Canada currently provide differing perspectives compared to those expressed by Dr. Bhattacharya. This may soon change however as the pandemic policies and their long-term impacts may be reevaluated under the new NIH leadership.
Other nominations from the US President-elect that will also likely have major implications on Government of Canada professionals and other Canadians.
Dr. Marty Makary, nominated for the post of FDA Commissioner, once called the United States government, “the greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the COVID pandemic.” Seems like Dr. Makary is the right choice to clean up the mess in the FDA.
Former seven-term congressman Dr. David Weldon has been chosen by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Weldon introduced The Vaccine Safety Bill in 2007 to establish an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services to handle the nation's vaccine safety. His reasoning at the time was that the CDC had an inherent conflict of interest being responsible for both vaccine safety and promotion—an issue unchanged to this day. The Washington Post described Dr. Weldon as “…a strong critic of the CDC, especially its vaccine program.” The reporting meant the sentence to be a negative, however, it’s probably now a breath of fresh air for most Americans post-COVID. Dr. Weldon will have veto power over the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). - Read more about the implications of this nomination in this substack.
President-elect Trump nominated Pete Hegseth to serve as Secretary of Defense. Trump said he intends to start rooting out what he called divisive policies in the U.S. military on day one of his new administration. Hegseth said, “Any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI” must be removed.
Appendix: Response from perprexity.ai
The perprexity.ai is an AI tool that provides references for its all generated statements and quotes. I found it very useful for finding information from reliable sources on any subject of interest.
Question: What the implications of these two nominations could be on the equivalents of FDA and CDC in Canada and their leads, taking into account that Canadian equivalents have very different views on mentioned above issues ?
Answer
The nominations of Dr. Marty Makary as FDA Commissioner and Dr. David Weldon as CDC Director in the United States could have significant implications for their Canadian counterparts, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), respectively. These implications may include:
Diverging policies: The Canadian agencies might maintain their current stances on vaccine safety and COVID-19 measures, potentially leading to policy differences between the two countries.
Increased scrutiny: Health Canada and PHAC may face pressure to re-evaluate their own policies and decision-making processes, particularly regarding vaccine safety and pandemic response.
Cross-border challenges: Differing approaches to public health issues could complicate cross-border health initiatives and collaborations between the U.S. and Canada.
Public trust: Canadian health authorities might need to reinforce their commitment to evidence-based practices to maintain public confidence, especially if U.S. agencies shift their messaging.
Vaccine programs: Canada may need to strengthen its own vaccine safety monitoring and communication strategies to address any potential increase in vaccine hesitancy influenced by U.S. policy changes.
Research priorities: There could be a shift in research focus and funding in Canada to address emerging concerns or to counter potential misinformation from U.S. sources.
International standing: Canadian health agencies might find themselves in a position to take a more prominent role in global health discussions if U.S. agencies change their traditional stances.
Regulatory harmonization: Efforts to align regulatory processes between the two countries in areas such as drug approvals and clinical trials may become more challenging.
Professional exchanges: The flow of health professionals and researchers between the two countries could be affected if there are significant ideological differences in approach to public health.
Public health messaging: Canadian health officials may need to develop strategies to address potential conflicting information coming from U.S. health agencies under new leadership.
These potential implications highlight the interconnected nature of public health between neighboring countries and the importance of maintaining clear, science-based communication in the face of changing leadership and potentially diverging health policies.
Question: How might Dr. Makary's views on misinformation impact the FDA's future policies
Answer: Dr. Marty Makary's views on misinformation could significantly impact the FDA's future policies if he is confirmed as FDA Commissioner:
Increased scrutiny of drug approvals: Makary may implement stricter review processes for new drugs and medical devices, potentially slowing down approvals1 3.
Reevaluation of past decisions: He might initiate reviews of previously approved products, especially those related to the COVID-19 pandemic response 1.
Changes in communication strategies: The FDA may adopt new approaches to public health messaging, potentially emphasizing transparency and acknowledging uncertainties in scientific evidence 2.
Shift in vaccine policies: Makary's stance on vaccine mandates and natural immunity could lead to changes in vaccine recommendations and approval processes 3.
Focus on pharmaceutical industry influence: He may implement policies to reduce the impact of industry funding on FDA operations and decision-making
Emphasis on cost-effectiveness: Makary's background in healthcare affordability could lead to greater consideration of cost-effectiveness in drug approvals 3.
Potential conflicts with other agencies: His views may create tension with other health agencies if they differ on public health strategies 3 5.
These potential changes could significantly alter the FDA's approach to drug regulation, public health communication, and overall mission, potentially aligning the agency more closely with Makary's views on misinformation and healthcare reform.