Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Well, I think the principle I'm trying to get across, maybe I didn't do a good job explaining it, but the principle I'm trying to get across is that if you say that certain drugs are off limits and they're pretty safe, and people want the thing, It's like a harm reduction idea.

Essentially what you're saying is that you're going to make this forbidden, this drug is forbidden, and they'll find ways to get it, and it'll be unsafe because they're getting a version of it that's bad for you. Instead of that normal harm reduction idea, which is at the center of a lot of public health, they decided they were going to say, no, you can't have this drug at all.

Essentially what you're saying is that you're going to make this forbidden, this drug is forbidden, and they'll find ways to get it, and it'll be unsafe because they're getting a version of it that's bad for you. Instead of that normal harm reduction idea, which is at the center of a lot of public health, they decided they were going to say, no, you can't have this drug at all.

In fact, doctors will lose their license if they get the drug. That was a tremendous mistake. And as a result, I think there, I don't know how many cases, maybe I'm wrong about this, but I do remember seeing a paper, Drew, I'll send it to you if I can find it. But that principle of harm reduction was violated by public health when it came to ivermectin. It absolutely was.

In fact, doctors will lose their license if they get the drug. That was a tremendous mistake. And as a result, I think there, I don't know how many cases, maybe I'm wrong about this, but I do remember seeing a paper, Drew, I'll send it to you if I can find it. But that principle of harm reduction was violated by public health when it came to ivermectin. It absolutely was.

Well, I mean, it was Francis Collins who wrote those words, which shocked me when I saw them. It was about a year after he wrote the email. It led to death threats on me and hit pieces and a whole bunch of slander. But I personally... personally, I couldn't forgive him. I think he, as a human being, made a mistake.

Well, I mean, it was Francis Collins who wrote those words, which shocked me when I saw them. It was about a year after he wrote the email. It led to death threats on me and hit pieces and a whole bunch of slander. But I personally... personally, I couldn't forgive him. I think he, as a human being, made a mistake.

From the point of view of NIH director, though, it was an abuse of power on his part. And it's a poor example for our scientific leaders to set that kind of example. When we disagree with each other, we disagree with each other with data and we change our minds when we are wrong. I mean, those are just normal things in science.

From the point of view of NIH director, though, it was an abuse of power on his part. And it's a poor example for our scientific leaders to set that kind of example. When we disagree with each other, we disagree with each other with data and we change our minds when we are wrong. I mean, those are just normal things in science.

And for someone like him, and then of course it had this huge impact on the policy we picked. He got his way. He got the lockdowns he wanted. Schools closed in fall 2020. And I've seen him now essentially on an apology tour I just feel sad for him now.

And for someone like him, and then of course it had this huge impact on the policy we picked. He got his way. He got the lockdowns he wanted. Schools closed in fall 2020. And I've seen him now essentially on an apology tour I just feel sad for him now.

He goes around, what he says is that, well, I wasn't looking at all of the harm that these COVID lockdowns were doing to the poor, to the vulnerable children, the working class. And that's just, I mean, I don't understand how you, I mean, I like that he's confessing that he wasn't seeing that. That's a good thing for him to confess.

He goes around, what he says is that, well, I wasn't looking at all of the harm that these COVID lockdowns were doing to the poor, to the vulnerable children, the working class. And that's just, I mean, I don't understand how you, I mean, I like that he's confessing that he wasn't seeing that. That's a good thing for him to confess.

but I don't like that he, he's still justifying saying that the Great Barrington Declaration was somehow wrong or, I mean, the whole purpose of the Great Barrington Declaration was to bring- Because they always go to, they always go to, you just wanted to let it rip, just let it rip.

but I don't like that he, he's still justifying saying that the Great Barrington Declaration was somehow wrong or, I mean, the whole purpose of the Great Barrington Declaration was to bring- Because they always go to, they always go to, you just wanted to let it rip, just let it rip.

the solution to it is exactly what Vanessa just said, like have a broad range of viewpoints at the table, right? The idea of one small group of, I mean, he's a geneticist. He's not even an epidemiologist. He's a geneticist. Like why would he have the wisdom or expertise to know exactly how to organize all of society?

the solution to it is exactly what Vanessa just said, like have a broad range of viewpoints at the table, right? The idea of one small group of, I mean, he's a geneticist. He's not even an epidemiologist. He's a geneticist. Like why would he have the wisdom or expertise to know exactly how to organize all of society?

The principle, the basic principle that they used was that we should treat each other as biohazards, that all humans are simply biohazards and nothing else, right? And it was a predictable failure.

The principle, the basic principle that they used was that we should treat each other as biohazards, that all humans are simply biohazards and nothing else, right? And it was a predictable failure.

And I think if they had had the idea of allowing there to be other voices to speak, not devastating takedowns, but just engagement, critical engagement, that would have been, we would have had a much better outcome from the pandemic.