Scientific American, the 179-year-old magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, seems increasingly intent on muddying itself with politics rather than engaging in clean science. is.
Only a few days have passed since Laura Hellmuth resigned as the magazine's editor-in-chief after going on an ugly rant that effectively called the more than 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump “fascists” and “bigots.” Weeks later, Scientific American published an article about the pseudoscientific tales of ideologues, months after the magazine promoted gender. claim He said President Trump's choice of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to run the National Institutes of Health was “the wrong move for science and public health.”
The article's author, Stephen Albert, insinuated that Bhattacharya had not actually been censored during the pandemic, and in addition to arguing that the disruptive approach championed by the scientific community during the pandemic was not authoritarian, Trump His choices have fueled concerns that Americans are prioritizing their personal interests. If confirmed as NIH director, he will have autonomy.
Debate over treatments, health protocols, and the origins of COVID-19 has been suppressed during the pandemic. Mr. Bhattacharya is one of the experts who expressed the following opinion.
suppressed At the urging of Biden health officials, he refused to accept uncritically the conventional wisdom of the medical establishment, which advocates lockdowns and vaccine mandates. masking for kidsand other disastrous COVID-19 policies.
Bhattacharyya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, said that while the elderly and other high-risk groups should take precautions, healthy people should “immediately resume normal life.” He suggested that they should be allowed to return to the country. According to this declaration, it is better for healthy people to become infected with the virus and develop natural immunity.
The scientific establishment, bent on forced medical care and total lockdowns, attacked Mr. Bhattacharya for proposing this alternative approach. Anthony Fauci, former chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden
called A declaration of “complete nonsense.” Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, conspired in the “swift and devastating takedown” of Mr. Bhattacharya's criticism.
In the weeks since President Trump
announced After Mr. Bhattacharyya claimed he would “restore the NIH to the gold standard in medical research,” the establishment renewed its attacks on the nationally and internationally respected epidemiologist. abroad.
“Putting individual autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks.”
Stephen Albert, Hallen Professor of Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, jumped on the bandwagon and complained about Bhattacharya's claims on the Scientific American page.
criticism “Authoritarian tendencies in public health” and his defense For transforming the NIH “from a tool to control society to one dedicated to discovering truth to improve the health of Americans.”
“Authoritarian claims are a sieve to advance a particular agenda that could damage the NIH. Bhattacharya's scientific agenda is political, with personal versus evidence-based public health science.” “This raises concerns about the autonomy of the government,” Albert wrote. “This is unbecoming of a leader of the NIH.”
Albert said that Bhattacharyya's apparent prioritization of Americans' God-given and constitutional rights over health care policy has led to “mandatory vaccinations for children attending public schools.” He expressed concern that he might oppose or even oppose the introduction of fluoride into drinking water. , the National Toxicology Program recently acknowledged that exposure levels found in various parts of the country can cause mental retardation in children.
“Putting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but it's inappropriate for the leadership of the NIH. If he wants to focus on promoting sexuality, he's probably been appointed to the wrong agency,” Albert wrote.
Albert further suggested in the magazine's pages:
made a claim after accelerate vaccine rollout “There is no question that current vaccines are effective and safe,” he said, but at the same time, a sister journal paper found that the new coronavirus likely has zoonotic origins. Echoing the unreliable paper, he said Mr Bhattacharya's critical views were “another unfortunate legacy of vaccines”. It's the new coronavirus pandemic. ”
Albert defended the failed pandemic policies that Bhattacharya had previously criticized, calling school closures, work-from-home policies, and restrictions on public places “effective ways to slow hospital surges and buy time for vaccine development.” “Science supports limiting large gatherings and requiring mask-wearing.” . ”
The “science” that Albert relied on in the case of school closures clearly needed a reconsideration of the kind advocated by Bhattacharya, given the large number of school children killed by the closures.
year behind It is associated with significant increases in achievement in math, reading, science, and general studies. mental illness, suicideand obesity.
After making the grossly ahistorical claim that “using science in policy is not authoritarian” and accusing President Trump of lying, Albert said, “Authoritarianism in science and public health.” Instead, he argued that the problem was “income inequality and access to medical care.” He is responsible for the devastation wreaked on this country during the pandemic.
Albert concluded his hit piece by complaining that Bhattacharya could decentralize agency functions and transfer NIH grants to the states. Prohibit dangerous gain-of-function research and experiments using parts of aborted babies. and the depoliticization of science.
In response to Mr Bhattacharya's appointment last month, Matt Kibe said: Blaze TV The host of “Kibbe on Liberty'' and “The Cover-Up,'' which recently featured the epidemiologist, said, “Jay Bhattacharya was considered a “frontier epidemiologist'' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, and was a top priority for the government. “They demonized him for asking obvious questions about an authoritarian response.” Now, Jay will take command of the NIH and wipe out all those who have destroyed public health and caused great harm to the American people during the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic is abnormal. ”
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here
