The start of the COVID-19 pandemic is now more than a half decade in the rearview mirror, but trust in public health institutions remains at a historic low. By nominating Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a top skeptic of lockdown policies and mask mandates, to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH), President Trump is taking an important step toward restoring transparency and accountability in public health policy and the field of medical science more broadly.
Bhattacharya had his first hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions this week, where he acknowledged the challenge of restoring public trust in science. “American biomedical sciences are at a crossroads,” he said. “A November 2024 Pew study reported that only 26 percent of the American public had a great deal of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest, while 23 percent had not much or no confidence at all.”
Trust in science and in the NIH in particular collapsed in 2020 and 2021 amid lockdowns and mask guidance that appeared based more on politics than actual data about COVID-19. The agency was also mired in scandal following revelations that it provided funding to the lab in Wuhan, China from which the virus may have escaped – a theory that was initially discredited by top NIH officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci but later confirmed by the FBI as the most likely source of the virus.
Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor with an MD and a PhD, was an early critic of COVID-19 lockdowns, arguing that the virus was far less dangerous to healthy individuals than the public health establishment was suggesting. He was mercilessly criticized, mocked, and even threatened for his view that lockdowns were doing more harm than good.
On March 24, 2020, at the height of the early COVID-19 panic, Bhattacharya published an op-ed along with fellow Stanford professor Eran Bendavid in The Wall Street Journal where he stated his belief that “current estimates about the COVID-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude.” Later research would prove him exactly correct.
“A universal quarantine may not be worth the costs it imposes on the economy, community, and individual mental and physical health,” Bhattacharya wrote. “We should undertake immediate steps to understand the empirical basis of the current lockdowns.”
History shows this warning was prescient – out of fear of COVID-19, patients canceled medical appointments and procedures that could have saved their lives. Suicide and opioid abuse skyrocketed, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths of despair.
Bhattacharya was also a co-author along with Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published in October 2020 which challenged the wisdom of blanket COVID-19 lockdowns.
The declaration advocated for an approach called “focused protection,” warning that lockdowns would cause “irreparable damage” to public health, particularly for the working class and children. The authors emphasized that “keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable harm, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
Instead, they argued that younger, lower-risk individuals should “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection,” while society took targeted steps to protect high-risk populations like the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. Their goal was to balance public health priorities, minimizing overall harm while allowing societies to function.
This was the approach that the first Trump administration had adopted by that time. But Democrat politicians and many in the public health establishment continued to insist on strict lockdowns despite emerging evidence that healthy individuals were at very low risk of hospitalization or death from the virus.
Bhattacharya penned another op-ed in July 2021 along with colleague Neeraj Sood opposing mandatory masking of children in schools. “The benefits of masks in preventing serious illness or death from COVID-19 among children are infinitesimally small,” he wrote. “At the same time they are disruptive to learning and communicating in classrooms.”
At any point during the pandemic, it would have been far easier for Bhattacharya to keep his reservations to himself and go along with the health establishment. He would have avoided conflict with his peers at Stanford, the World Health Organization, and political leaders. But instead, he boldly chose to challenge establishment thinking because he believed that science should be driven by data, not politics.
That is why Trump’s nomination of Bhattacharya to lead the NIH is so encouraging. Just as Trump appointed a critic of military wokeness to lead the Pentagon, an anti-Deep State crusader to be Director of National Intelligence, and a Big Pharma skeptic to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, he has nominated a top critic of NIH policy during the pandemic to reform the agency from the inside.
But as Bhattacharya said during his committee hearing, he still “loves” the NIH. To that end, outlined five specific steps he would take as director to “help the NIH better achieve its mission,” including focusing “on research that solves the American chronic disease crisis,” prioritizing research that is “replicable, reproducible, and generalizable,” establishing “a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent,” recommitting to the agency’s “mission to fund the most innovative biomedical research agenda possible,” and “embracing and vigorously regulating risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.”
Bhattacharya’s confirmation process won’t get nearly the same media fanfare as the high-profile battles over Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. But as the case of Dr. Fauci shows, under-the-radar government officials can sometimes have a dramatic effect on the direction of the country.
Shane Harris is the Editor in Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.
I am convinced that Trump will get much, much more accomplished in two split terms than he would have in an 8-straight year presidency.
Another good personnel selection for the Trump administration.
YES!! I listened intently to Bhattacharya early on. He makes sense. Prayers his confirmation will go smoothly.
Another good selection.
hooray! a REAL doctor!
Since we know for certain that C-19 was a man-made, weaponized virus-of which “Fraudci” was a large part-we can react to the next “planned-demic” with increased skepticism. I’m glad President Trump is making it possible for this to not happen again. He was deceived in 2020 by Fraudci, et al. He won’t be fooled twice, and he has much better people around him now, including RFK, Jr.
HMMMM….I guess “trust the Science” wasn’t the answer after all! I cannot bring myself or my husband to get any vaccinations at all after the health problems we both face because of the VAX
When COVID first showed up, people were terrified. Media quacked about getting a VAX, any VAX. Suddenly, there was a new VAX! Yippie. We’re saved!
Well, there had been no human trials. HHHmmm, I thought. Then I learned there was a vax trial on ferrets. Why ferrets? Apparently, they have immune systems that work similarlily like ours! Wow, who knew that? Bad news was all the ferrets died from the shiny new vax.No more trials on living creatures.
Terrified citizens of the world were the “Human Trials” for this new miracle VAX. I would say the trials did not go well.This shiny new VAX that changed our DNA became known as the Death JAB.
I also learned the VAX rushed to market changed our DNA. I am not a scientist or a doctor, but I paid attention in high school biology enough to know changing our DNA with an injection might not be a good idea.
My husband and I refused the VAX. I got COVID. I have serious and complicated respiratory issues from being a welder and working in refineries and metal shops. I didn’t die and all they did at our local small town hospital was give me a big shot of prednisone and some prednisone pills. I was fine in a couple days. I didn’t die from COVID!.
I do not trust Big Pharma not to murder us for profit.
That is going to be an uphill battle for me. Science is nothing but politics. When they bought on to the global warming climate change hoax and censured anyone that did not agree, that was the death of science. I will never trust anything from a quote unquote scientist again. There is no such thing as honest science. That’s like saying Democrat intelligence. It doesn’t exist
This man seems to have a measured, reasonable approach to restoring science-based research and public comments instead of relying on political fanfare or questionable,secretive tactics. Thank you for a chance to respond to this AMAC selected article.
I have not had a vaccination since Shingrix was first available. I refused to wear a mask unless I had to in order to see a doctor. I never had COVID. I will never ever have another vaccine or jab again. I am old and never even get a cold.
President Trump is kind of like President Eisenhower. He has chosen the best people he could find to help run these agencies and delegated the authority to them to do it. It’s called leadership, not political cronyism.
If he was deplatformed by the liberal social media platforms for opposing the jab and exposing the CHINA VIRUS lies, he should make a good candidate.
Great decision. Now let’s do part two – lock up Saint Fauci for crimes against humanity. If you think that is a bridge too far, may I recommend The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK Jr.
I don’t think it’s science we don’t trust but hacks and opportunists who high jacked it to their own interests and purposes and use it as a shield to hide behind, who would dare question science?
It is “we” that have to “get things done” if there is a next scamdemic. closing small businesses and just handing over their customers to big box stores was ridiculous! People were not thinking logically. that is what fear , fear, does.