The last time I reported on Scientific American, its editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth resigned after a disgraceful social media meltdown decrying President/President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters.
The staff clearly has not done one bit of self-reflection or reassessment of what “science” should mean. The magazine published a critical piece about Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, arguing that his recent nomination as National Institutes of Health (NIH) director could harm science and public health.
The article, authored by Steven Albert, criticizes Bhattacharya’s stance on COVID policies and his deep concerns about authoritarianism in public health (based entirely upon the national nightmare of the destructive and ineffective lockdowns).
Bhattacharya does not see the agency’s successes this way. In his podcast Science from the Fringe, Bhattacharya recently said he is amazed by “the authoritarian tendencies of public health.” He struck a similar theme in a Newsmax interview: “[We need] to turn the NIH from something that’s [used] to control society into something that’s aimed at the discovery of truth to improve the health of Americans.”The scientists who apply for NIH funding, sit on peer review panels and administer grants would be surprised to hear they control society. They do science. The claims of authoritarianism are a screen for pushing a particular agenda that is likely to damage the NIH. Bhattacharya’s science agenda is political: to set concerns for personal autonomy against evidence-based public health science. This is not appropriate for NIH leadership.
The article further defends pandemic policies that Bhattacharya opposed, such as school closures and mask mandates, claiming they were supported by science. I will simply note that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House Corornavirus Advisor, could not specify the science behind many COVID policies, including social distancing and the mask mandates, when pressed for answers on their origins during a congressional hearing.
Furthermore, pretty much every American has likely had COVID-19. Many have had several cases of it already.
Albert laughably argues that Bhattacharya’s views on personal autonomy versus evidence-based public health science are politically motivated. Personally, I am grateful that the new NIH director values personal autonomy and freedom of choice, and his views on the subject align with most Americans.
As a reminder, Bhattacharya and two other epidemiological professionals authored the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which pressed for focused protection. The new NIH Director offered far more effective policy options than were being implemented at the time.
As turnabout is fair play, I assert that Albert’s attack on Bhattacharya is highly political. Albert is the Hallen Chair of Community Health and Social Justice in behavioral and community health sciences at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health.
“Social Justice” reeks of politics, especially the progressive kind that has been detrimental to actual science. I recall that blending social justice with COVID policies particularly harmed science and public health.
Albert’s credentials include a PhD in Anthropology and an MS in epidemiology. This is to contrast this with Battacharya, who has both a medical degree and a PhD in economics, which makes him well position to discern between pseudoscience and real information…then assess the complete set of consequences if policies are implemented.
The Scientific American piece ies this screed into the ongoing bird flu outbreak. Our media is working overtime to create more pandemic mania, such as this article by Newsweek focused on red flags from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC told Newsweek Monday that while bird flu’s current risk to the general public remains low, the agency is carefully monitoring for several red flags that could indicate that the virus could be on the verge of becoming a pandemic.Those red flags include any outbreaks of bird flu that are spread from person-to-person, as well as evidence that the virus has mutated, making it easier for it to spread between humans….Increased cases of humans catching bird flu from animals may also indicate the virus “is adapting to spread more easily from animals to people,” they added.”CDC is searching for genetic changes in circulating viruses that suggest it could better transmit between humans,” the spokesperson said.
Albert concludes his piece by saying, “Bhattacharya is not what the NIH needs.”
I firmly believe Bhattacharya is exactly what the NIH and this country needs, especially given “experts” who want to push social justice policy into the realm of epidemiology and national health policy.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY