Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
speaker
188 appearances
9 recordings
5 series
first heard Nov 2024
last heard 11 May
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 3 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
Maybe that's what's happening. And we'll see. I have to say I never thought that it was possible to scare the population in the way that the population was scared in 2020. I was surprised too. I thought we were more rational people than that, that we would look at data. I confess, I was very naive at the beginning of 2020.
I thought that a data point or two would dispel fear and panic, especially if it's a real data point. And I turned out to be wrong about that. So I don't, I guess I'm a little gun shy about making any confident claims that we are beyond that now. Maybe. Yes, of course.
Well, Vanessa's film that you're about to interview, Vanessa Dillon, her film is fantastic, actually. And it has Redfield, and he's such an interesting figure. I mean, in 2020, I thought he was... I didn't know him. Personally, I would watch him on TV, and he would say things where I just didn't agree with him.
And I heard from Scott Atlas about his opinion of Redfield was not all that positive, I have to say. Then I met him in real life, and then I understood what happened. I think he was a hero, actually. I think he was a hero. I think he was trying to do his level best in a place where he was pushed aside by people like Tony Fauci.
The head of the CDC did not actually design or control the pandemic response, which is a stunning thing to realize, but I think that's exactly what happened. And he did his level best to try to make his way, but it didn't work.
I mean, I think you're right that parts of the intelligence community thought that it might be a bioweapon. Certainly, a lot of the intelligence community thought that it was at least an unintentional leak of something that's quite dangerous. And, of course, you can't tell directly from the sequence of a virus, the genetic sequence of a virus, exactly the physiological effects that will happen.
And so they just assume the worst.
um and they they treated it like a military i mean like a a lockdown of the entire society that's not in normal public health plans normal health plans are it looks like the great barrington declaration it says protect vulnerable people and don't disrupt society don't fear monger maybe if you have a bioweapon attack you would you react that way i just i don't know i don't i don't have classified clearance i don't have any direct visibility but it was a extremely unusual thing if you think about it as just a public health intervention
So that one, I read that. That's Jeffrey Tucker's article. It's interesting. So it's based on a CDC webpage that they put out during the pandemic. It's not my article. It's Jeffrey Tucker's, right? And I think that the plans were about what to do in humanitarian settings. What they mean by that is at the border where you have refugee camps or something like that.
I don't think it was directly envisioned as a population-wide measure. I mean, there were places like in Australia, for instance, where they had camps, quarantine camps, like in, I think, Western Australia or Northern Territory or something. where they had quarantine camps.
And so especially if you had COVID or you exposed someone with COVID, you'd be driven to this camp and it looked like a prison facility where you stay there for two, three, four weeks or whatever it is until you were tested negative sufficient number of times. So it's not that public health in the West didn't do this.
i don't think they were implanted in the united states i i'm not sure it was ambiguous i went back and read that web page after i saw jeffrey tucker's article and it's still unclear to me what the extent to which the plans were uh meant for the population at large rather than just just those uh those like refugee settings um as it is the direction Yeah.
I mean, that is... I did not understand...
just this is a confession like i already mentioned i i confessed i was naive before the pandemic and i just i didn't understand that the history of governments essentially lying to the public manufacturing consent i mean i had read noam chomsky's manufacturing consent uh before and i just until i saw it happen in in before my eyes right during the pandemic on things that i knew for certain and yet the picture being painted was so different um
I just didn't understand the mechanisms or the desire for governments to actually work in that way. And especially with the news media, normally I would have thought of them once upon a time as like a check or a balance on that. But in fact, they served as an amplifier for the powerful rather than a check on the powerful. Their conceit that they...
Yeah, I mean, I think early in a pandemic where there is no treatment at all, you want to have the people who are treating the most COVID patients to give you their wisdom. They may be wrong about it. I mean, certainly everyone has something that was wrong early in the pandemic. That's normal to be expected. But they shouldn't be demonized for sharing their hypotheses.
And that's essentially what happened. Like, hydroxychloroquine is a, I mean, I took it when I was a medical student and when I was working in this, like, rural India to prevent malaria. If given the right dose, it's a safe drug. Why was it demonized early? I don't believe, based on the randomized trials I've eventually seen, that it works, but I didn't know that then.
Yeah. I mean, it's really a shocking inversion of how medicine should be, right? So the vaccine, which we didn't know the full set of side effects, is recommended to six-month-old babies for whom there's almost no benefit from it and a potential harm.
Whereas like relatively safe drugs, you know, people went and overdosed on ivermectin because they took the veterinary form of it because they couldn't go to a doctor, right? They wanted the drug. It was a relatively safe drug. It gave them the right dose. That whole... that whole craziness led patients to overdose on something that should be a safe drug. Because they couldn't get that.
Because it didn't. I actually looked up some of the, there's a paper that was published from like toxicology calls in like Oregon or something. People that they took, it's not that they took the veterinary medicine, dose by itself, they took a vast overdose. Now imagine if they had a physician to guide them, say, look, here's the right dose.
Showing 141–160 of 188 · page 8 of 10
← Previous
Next →