Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad challenged the public health orthodoxy in our pages. Now, they have the power to fix things. Will they pull it off?
An honorable mention must be given to Bari’s pitch-perfect September 2021 interview with Vinay on the Common Sense podcast (“Vaccine Hesitant? A Doctor Responds”). This was my first introduction to him and I’ve been following his work ever since. YUGE fan!
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has a medical degree, but as far as I can tell, he has never completed a residency nor practiced medicine. He also does not appear to have an active medical license in California. He has never run a biomedical research lab. He is not a research scientist. In reality, he is an economist. The question is whether an economist has the experience and background to run the NIH. Compare his credentials to a earlier director of the NIH, Dr. Harold Varmus. Dr. Varmus and Dr. Michael Bishop received the Nobel Prize for their research at UCSF which led to the discovering of the proto-oncogenes that cause cancer. After successfully leading the NIH for a number of years, Dr. Varmus went on to lead the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
The NIH plans to cut its funding budget by 40%. Let me make this clear: the NIH and the researchers that it funds are not evil. They have dedicated their lives to research. Biomedical research in this country is in crisis, and many of the established research labs in this country which have been successful in producing results that have significantly contributed to the advancement of medical science will close. Many researchers who already have NIH funding approved have had that funding withheld, which is a violation of agreements made by the NIH and which might be illegal. What Dr. Bhattacharya fails to mention that for every $1 spent by the NIH, $2.56 is returned to our economy. Research by NIH funded labs help to discover disease causes and cures. Forty years ago, the survival rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia was just 10%. Today it is 90%. Forty years ago, the survival rate for sarcoma was 5%. Today it is 65%. Advances such as these will no longer happen as a direct result of the defunding of the NIH under the leadership of Dr. Bhattacharya and the Trump administration.
I also wish to point out that statements made about the Sweden's success during the height of the COVID pandemic are made using cherry-picked data. Sweden is compared to other EU countries such as Germany, but not to its immediate neighbors such as Denmark. According to the WHO, Sweden had an excess death rate per 100,00 of 56, whereas Denmark's was 32. There were many factors contributing to the excess death rate statistics, such as population density, and the percentage of people who live alone. Sweden's own Corona Commission found that Sweden failed its elderly, with almost 90% of the deaths from COVID in Sweden occurring in people over 70 and over. There was a lot to learn from the COVID pandemic, but not every approach was 100% correct or 100% wrong. It was a 100-year pandemic that was thrust upon us with no previous experience to help guide us.
Since they have the science knowledge; we who do not have a science degree. We need to hold our opinions in a little lower status.
If they act biggly I would rather trust their knowledge more than get super critical of it. They can see more fully the crazy things that have been happening year over year ..... for years ...... we had moved away from straight scientific data gathering into political/financial influenced data gather to make the influence look better than it is.
Please be careful with the sky in falling reporting....... ugh!!
I would be interested in hearing someday (soon, if possible) from sociologists on how a country based on individual freedom became so unglued by hearing the truth. It's like the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Unreal.
I listen to audible books by the hundreds. One of my favorite authors is Michael Connelly (Harry Bosch, Micky Haller, Rene Ballard). I just finished "The Dark Hours" in which Connelly -- in the voice of Rene Ballard --frames the entire novel in the accepted disinformation surrounding COVID. Masks and shaming for not wearing them. Vaccines and urgency to get them.
The government, in order to protect us all, shut down my career of 43 years.
I hope we never forget just how purposefully duped we were.
I am confused is TFP complimenting (must be painful)or criticizing the Trump administration. Trump is right he could cure cancer and still not be given credit. Of course Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for…..ahhh what?
It would be interesting to interview senior physicians, Deans of medical schools and successful researchers. I guess you all would call them “the establishment”. This would balance your coverage of the medical profession and healthcare. I would love to hear the perspective of the head of one of the major ER’s in NYC who could offer a the front line point of view on COVID, the contagion and the care from 2020-2022. I imagine hearing from the leadership of a major medical institution might offer a slightly different perspective on what works and what needs fixing in the medical field. Sharing both sides of complicated issues gives your readers the opportunity to consider and nuance multiple factors in a complicated issue. Featuring only 3 anti-institution doctors is not balanced journalism and is not consistent with the mission of TFP.
I absolutely agree with you. Unlike Dr. Bhattacharya, who does not have an active medical license and does not treat patients, I am a physician and was involved with patient care during the pandemic. What is happening now with a 40% cut in NIH funding is a disaster for research that we will all pay the price for.
Our gal Casey—the ear nose and throat resident turned nutrition phenom and now SG candidate—posted something on her substack that should be disqualifying. She posted the first page of a letter from Pfizer to the FDA concerning their submission for review of their vaccine. On the bottom of the page the letter indicates that Pfizer deposited about $2 million in the US Treasury. She described that as a BRIBE. Another MD, Pharm D pointed out to her that since 1992 the FDA has charged fees to companies that submit petitions for approval of a product. That money deposited in the US Treasury is no bribe. That statement was defamation and she ought to be advised and withdraw her statement and maybe her candidacy. She’s a stupid loose cannon.
TFP deserves this victory lap for giving voice to dissent during an unprecedented event. Many of us thought the lockdowns were silly and ineffective, and these three risked their reputations to say so. As many of the comments here attest, many of us think the federal spending and debt are even greater threats to our long-term freedom. Are Bari and her team amplifying the voices calling out this crisis?
An honorable mention must be given to Bari’s pitch-perfect September 2021 interview with Vinay on the Common Sense podcast (“Vaccine Hesitant? A Doctor Responds”). This was my first introduction to him and I’ve been following his work ever since. YUGE fan!
https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=1570872415&i=1000536259516
You don't need a scalpel or a hacksaw you need a chainsaw. Ask Javier.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has a medical degree, but as far as I can tell, he has never completed a residency nor practiced medicine. He also does not appear to have an active medical license in California. He has never run a biomedical research lab. He is not a research scientist. In reality, he is an economist. The question is whether an economist has the experience and background to run the NIH. Compare his credentials to a earlier director of the NIH, Dr. Harold Varmus. Dr. Varmus and Dr. Michael Bishop received the Nobel Prize for their research at UCSF which led to the discovering of the proto-oncogenes that cause cancer. After successfully leading the NIH for a number of years, Dr. Varmus went on to lead the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
The NIH plans to cut its funding budget by 40%. Let me make this clear: the NIH and the researchers that it funds are not evil. They have dedicated their lives to research. Biomedical research in this country is in crisis, and many of the established research labs in this country which have been successful in producing results that have significantly contributed to the advancement of medical science will close. Many researchers who already have NIH funding approved have had that funding withheld, which is a violation of agreements made by the NIH and which might be illegal. What Dr. Bhattacharya fails to mention that for every $1 spent by the NIH, $2.56 is returned to our economy. Research by NIH funded labs help to discover disease causes and cures. Forty years ago, the survival rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia was just 10%. Today it is 90%. Forty years ago, the survival rate for sarcoma was 5%. Today it is 65%. Advances such as these will no longer happen as a direct result of the defunding of the NIH under the leadership of Dr. Bhattacharya and the Trump administration.
I also wish to point out that statements made about the Sweden's success during the height of the COVID pandemic are made using cherry-picked data. Sweden is compared to other EU countries such as Germany, but not to its immediate neighbors such as Denmark. According to the WHO, Sweden had an excess death rate per 100,00 of 56, whereas Denmark's was 32. There were many factors contributing to the excess death rate statistics, such as population density, and the percentage of people who live alone. Sweden's own Corona Commission found that Sweden failed its elderly, with almost 90% of the deaths from COVID in Sweden occurring in people over 70 and over. There was a lot to learn from the COVID pandemic, but not every approach was 100% correct or 100% wrong. It was a 100-year pandemic that was thrust upon us with no previous experience to help guide us.
Thank you for the archive.
Since they have the science knowledge; we who do not have a science degree. We need to hold our opinions in a little lower status.
If they act biggly I would rather trust their knowledge more than get super critical of it. They can see more fully the crazy things that have been happening year over year ..... for years ...... we had moved away from straight scientific data gathering into political/financial influenced data gather to make the influence look better than it is.
Please be careful with the sky in falling reporting....... ugh!!
I would be interested in hearing someday (soon, if possible) from sociologists on how a country based on individual freedom became so unglued by hearing the truth. It's like the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Unreal.
So the nominal managers of giant federal bureaucracies have "the power to fix things."
Please tell us more about how the world works.
People who think for themselves. What bravery to confront “group think”. Bravo.
I listen to audible books by the hundreds. One of my favorite authors is Michael Connelly (Harry Bosch, Micky Haller, Rene Ballard). I just finished "The Dark Hours" in which Connelly -- in the voice of Rene Ballard --frames the entire novel in the accepted disinformation surrounding COVID. Masks and shaming for not wearing them. Vaccines and urgency to get them.
The government, in order to protect us all, shut down my career of 43 years.
I hope we never forget just how purposefully duped we were.
So which ‘Editor’ made the snarky ‘deep concerns’ comment?
I am confused is TFP complimenting (must be painful)or criticizing the Trump administration. Trump is right he could cure cancer and still not be given credit. Of course Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for…..ahhh what?
It would be interesting to interview senior physicians, Deans of medical schools and successful researchers. I guess you all would call them “the establishment”. This would balance your coverage of the medical profession and healthcare. I would love to hear the perspective of the head of one of the major ER’s in NYC who could offer a the front line point of view on COVID, the contagion and the care from 2020-2022. I imagine hearing from the leadership of a major medical institution might offer a slightly different perspective on what works and what needs fixing in the medical field. Sharing both sides of complicated issues gives your readers the opportunity to consider and nuance multiple factors in a complicated issue. Featuring only 3 anti-institution doctors is not balanced journalism and is not consistent with the mission of TFP.
I absolutely agree with you. Unlike Dr. Bhattacharya, who does not have an active medical license and does not treat patients, I am a physician and was involved with patient care during the pandemic. What is happening now with a 40% cut in NIH funding is a disaster for research that we will all pay the price for.
"Featuring only 3 anti-institution doctors is not balanced journalism and is not consistent with the mission of TFP."
I disagree. It IS the balance to the previous 5 years of disinformation. You want balance? Read EVERYTHING else.
Absolutely correct
Jay, Marty and Vinny ARE the hacksaw! Do something special, fellas!
Our gal Casey—the ear nose and throat resident turned nutrition phenom and now SG candidate—posted something on her substack that should be disqualifying. She posted the first page of a letter from Pfizer to the FDA concerning their submission for review of their vaccine. On the bottom of the page the letter indicates that Pfizer deposited about $2 million in the US Treasury. She described that as a BRIBE. Another MD, Pharm D pointed out to her that since 1992 the FDA has charged fees to companies that submit petitions for approval of a product. That money deposited in the US Treasury is no bribe. That statement was defamation and she ought to be advised and withdraw her statement and maybe her candidacy. She’s a stupid loose cannon.
She also does not have an active medical license, which is a requirement for the position of surgeon general.
Nature is healing.
TFP deserves this victory lap for giving voice to dissent during an unprecedented event. Many of us thought the lockdowns were silly and ineffective, and these three risked their reputations to say so. As many of the comments here attest, many of us think the federal spending and debt are even greater threats to our long-term freedom. Are Bari and her team amplifying the voices calling out this crisis?