Lack of debates/ smearing scientists who disagreed
COVID killed 1.2 million Americans and injured millions more. It’s not over yet. It was going to be bad no matter what, but according one study estimated:
That at least 232,000 deaths could have been prevented among unvaccinated adults during the 15 months had they been vaccinated with at least a primary series.
None of this bothered pro-infection doctors. In his article Public Health Should Lose Your Trust, Dr. Vinay Prasad excoriated public health officials not because they failed to blunt COVID’s impact, but rather because they tried to hard to do so. He wrote:
Trust is justified based on how an organization or system performs. And the truth is, the entire public health apparatus, failed. In addition to that, leaders at FDA and NIH and CDC engaged in lies and propaganda. As such, they should lose your trust, and without serious reforms you should not return the trust of these organizations.
Those are harsh words. Dr. Prasad listed several reasons why not to trust public heath and none of them had to do with those 1.2 million deaths. His reasons were: natural immunity counts for nothing, masking efficacy, vaccine-myocarditis, Paxlovid, and one size fits all booster recs. All of these measures were intended to limit COVID’s damage, and whatever their flaws, none of them are as bad as dying of COVID. Yet these are the only things that concerned Dr. Prasad.
Lack of debates/ smearing scientists who disagreed
Indeed, Dr. Prasad’s top reason not to trust public health was this:
Lack of debates/ smearing scientists who disagreed
We were making unprecedented massive decisions and we had ~zero debates. Worse, any dissent was punished. Francis Collins, NIH director, famously emailed Anthony Fauci calling for a “quick and devastating” take down of the “fringe” epidemiologists who opposed lockdowns. This was unfortunate, but par for the course. During the pandemic major universities held ~0 debates on lockdowns, prolonged school closure, masking toddlers, visitor restrictions, and perpetual hospital masking.
It’s one thing to act in times of uncertainty. It is another thing to stifle dissent and dialog. In many ways talking with the “fringe” epidemiologists could have helped us. We might have reached a compromise, with schools opening sooner than they otherwise would.
Elsewhere, Dr. Prasad, who extolled the virtues of civil debate at the start of the pandemic, was even more emotional, calling Dr. Collins the “dumbest general on the planet.” He said:
You were the NIH Director. You could have had a series of Town Halls where you invited people like Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff and had an open discussion of the pros and cons. You could have put them on YouTube. You have the powers of the federal government. You held zero debates. You just went on TV and you said proclamation after proclamation…You never tried to minimize uncertainty. You never brought anyone to the table who might disagree with you. If you were a general in war, you would be the dumbest general on the planet. Because even a general in war wants someone at the table who says, ‘Hey, you think maybe we shouldn’t invade someone?..Let’s hear that argument.’
There needs to be a quick and devastating take down of its premises.
The incident that so enraged Dr. Prasad was an email written in October 2020 by Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, to three other people. Dr. Collins was reacting to the publication of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). In an email he intended for three people to see, he said:
As a reminder, the GBD advocated for the mass infection of unvaccinated youth, claiming this would end the pandemic in 3-6 months. I wrote recently about how pro-infection doctors are actively trying to make us forget this. For example, in Dr. Prasad’s telling, the authors of the GBD were only interested in “lockdowns, prolonged school closure, masking toddlers, visitor restrictions, and perpetual hospital masking.” He purposefully neglected to mention their affinity in 2020 for “natural infection.”
If I got together with a couple of my buddies and wrote a 1-page Declaration, I would not feel this action alone entitled me to an audience with our nation’s public health leaders to have them enact my policies. However, Dr. Prasad believes that our nation’s public health leaders were obligated to meet with and “compromise” with advocates of herd immunity through mass infection. After all, they wrote a Declaration under the watchful eye of a a pro-tobacco, child-labor advocate. Dr. Prasad feels that alone means the Declaration’s calls for “natural infection” had to be taken seriously and acted upon. He was upset that the authors of the GBD were called fringe.
Although Dr. Prasad accused Dr. Collins of calling for a “quick and devastating” take down of the “fringe” epidemiologists, this is not true. Rather Dr. Collins called for a “quick and devastating” take down of their premises. He disagreed with their ideas. He felt their approach to the pandemic was wrong and he thought a strongly-worded written rebuttal of these premises might be of value. That’s totally appropriate. Scientists strongly disagree with each other’s premises in writing all the time. There’s nothing wrong with that. The premises of the GBD are not sacrosanct and above criticism as Dr. Prasad implied. It’s not clear anything came of Dr. Collins’ email, but he was right- a written refutation of the premises of the GBD would have been useful.
Although Dr. Prasad said “we had ~ 0 debates” about pandemic policy, in reality you can listen to the following debates with authors of the GBD:
- Herd Immunity as a Coronavirus Pandemic Strategy
- Seeking Common Ground in ‘Herd Immunity’ Debate
- Be It Resolved, COVID-19 Is Everywhere, It’s Time To Lift All Restrictions For Good. Guests Jay Bhattacharya And Jeremy Faust Debate
- Social Media Censorship: Jay Bhattacharya vs. Kate Klonick,
- Were COVID Lockdowns a Deadly Mistake? Jay Bhattacharya vs. Sten Vermund.
- COVID Debate: Martin Kulldorff and Eric Topol
While other doctors were treating COVID patients, the authors of the GBD did little but debate. Of course, such debates are more about spectacle than finding scientific truth. The “winner” is usually the best performer. Yet, Dr. Prasad claims that if only Dr. Collins had arranged a debate with the authors of the GBD, a show for public entertainment, then millions of unvaccinated people would have been suddenly willing to embrace COVID infections in October 2020. Some of them might have. The authors of the GBD falsely claimed at the time that COVID wasn’t a threat to people under 65 or 70 years-old. COVID would become a leader killer of this age group immediately after that.
Contrary to Dr. Prasad’s telling, there was a great discussion and debate about the GBD that started in October 2020 and it’s never stopped. Though they now pretend they never said such things, pro-infection doctors claimed at that time that the best way to get rid of the virus was to spread the virus. This didn’t turn out very well.
In contrast, the devastating take-downs of the GBD from 2020 aged very well. It’s flaws were obvious. Critics of the GBD right knew infections in the young would invariably spread to the old, and that COVID wasn’t always mild for people under 70, as the authors of the GBD claimed. All of the criticism of the GBD from 2020 were spot on. Read the articles 5 Failings of the Great Barrington Declaration, The Great Barrington Declaration is an Ethical Nightmare, and The Great Barrington Declaration is Dangerous to see for yourself.
The article Focused Protection, Herd Immunity, and Other Deadly Delusions written in October 2020 by Gregg Gonsalves said:
And that vaunted herd immunity? Even in Sweden, the proportion of the population exposed to the virus has been relatively low. Swiss epidemiologist Christian Althaus put it succinctly in an interview last month when he said the idea that Sweden would reach herd immunity was “always sort of ridiculous.… This idea that, basically 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent of people get infected and then the problem is solved, that was never really based on scientific foundation…. It’s very unlikely that something like that can be achieved, and even if it could be achieved, it would come—at least in countries with a population demography like European countries or the US—with a huge cost.”
Again, this aged well. The premises of the pro-infection movement should have been rebutted more often in 2020. Fringe was a extremely benign description of their idea for herd immunity through mass infection.
Of course, the authors of the GBD were pandemic celebrities, despite never treating patients with COVID. They met with former President Trump and HHS Secretary Alex Azar. Dr. Scott Atlas admitted he brought their policies to the White House, and Trump gave them credit as well. They advised Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and were celebrated by Elon Musk. The authors of the GBD were loud, famous, and influential. Their views were no secret.
Yet, Dr. Prasad describes their fate by saying “any dissent was punished.” Dr. Prasad feels that the authors of the GBD didn’t get enough attention, and he considers this one of the worst events of the pandemic. Dr. Prasad expects us to fell sorry for the author GBD. They were wronged.
At a Time When the U.S. Needed Covid-19 Dialogue Between Scientists, Francis Collins Moved to Shut it Down.
Yet, Dr. Collins’ simple request for a “quick and devastating” take down of the premises of the GBD became a highly significant moment of the pandemic for pro-infection doctors. Dr. Bhattacharya recorded a long video because he was called fringe in an e-mail, and talked about it endlessly on social media. He even posed with a t-shirt about it. Watch the video below to how seriously he discusses being called fringe in an email that was wouldn’t have come to light but for his own efforts to publicize it widely. He even mentioned it in his testimony before Congress.
Being called fringe was the touchstone moment of the pandemic for him, the same way watching a 23-year-old die of COVID in April 2020 was something I’ll never forget. Dr. Bhattacharya, who is alive and well fortunately, feels that he’s been treated very unfairly and that we should feel very sorry for him. He centers his feelings, and wants others to be angry on his behalf. After all, if he can be called fringe in an email, then anyone could be called fringe in any email.
Now watch the video below to see the casual way Dr. Bhattacharya discussed teachers dying of COVID. These videos make quite the pairing, don’t they? Being called fringe was serious. Dying of COVID was not, just 1 in 500 teachers! I encourage you to read the article Over 1,000 Educators Died From COVID. Here’s the Story of One to get a sense of someone who suffered a fate worse than being called fringe. Unfortunately, the notion that indecorous statements against COVID minimizers were more consequential than death from COVID was not uncommon this pandemic, something I discussed in my article Might “Vitriolic Attacks” Against Emily Oster Rival COVID’s Carnage?
Certainly Dr. Prasad also showed much more concern over the word “fringe” than any of COVID’s young victims, whose deaths he causally dismissed.
Stanford University To Welcome Vaccine Skepticism, Epoch Times At Upcoming Health Policy Conference
This hypersensitivity of sheltered laptop class doctors like Dr. Bhattacharya may be comical, but it is not benign. First, it served as a distraction technique. Every moment discussing the word “fringe” is a moment not spent discussing the tragic real-world consequences of the GBD’s pro-infection policies.
Second, it sent a clear message to potential critics of pro-infection doctors.
Be very careful. If you’re not courteous and circumspect at every moment, even in emails, we’ll accuse you of stifling “dissent and dialogue.” If you slip and call someone “fringe”, that will be treated as public health failing #1.
Indeed, Dr. Prasad said that indecorous critics of the GBD were censors. He had previously written a long article about the “fringe” incident titled At a Time When the U.S. Needed Covid-19 Dialogue Between Scientists, Francis Collins Moved to Shut it Down. This is how Dr. Prasad described an email that called for a strongly-worded refutation of the premises of the GBD. That is a DARVO, and it shuts down dialogue between scientists.
Notably, Drs. Prasad and Bhattacharya do not extend to others the courtesy they demand from others. Dr. Prasad routinely called people “idiots” “STUPID“, a “bunch of fools” and “total morons“ when he disagreed with him. This juvenile banter was normal and commonplace for him. Dr. Bhattacharya meanwhile, wrote a long, fake “review” of my book, only to later admit he didn’t read it. He called Dr. Fauci silly names like America’s #1 anti-vaxxer. These doctors never engaged with their critics in good faith. They won’t invite their critics to speak at one of their conferences, even as they castigate Dr. Collins for not meeting with them. They feel they were owed meetings, but they don’t feel they owe anything to anyone. T
Their upcoming conference at Stanford features only doctors who felt too much was done to limit natural infection. It also features cranks like Jan Jekielek, a senior editor at The Epoch Times, and Alex Berenson, who is known as “pandemic’s wrongest man”. If I were to speak, I’d do nothing but play videos of these doctors from 2020 and 2021. Yet, that would never be allowed. So much for “discussion and debate.” Talk about stifling dissent and dialogue.
Doctors said many meany-pants things about me during the pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya launched a volley of childish insults against me- “inane… unhinged”, “objectively anti vax, and “a man broken by an extended encounter between deeply held (but false) ideas about the way the world works and the way the world actually works“. Guess what! His slurs aren’t nearly as bad as dying of COVID.
COVID killed 1.2 million Americans and injured millions more. When I write about what went wrong this pandemic, I always focus on that. Others care about their feelings and the word “fringe.”