Fraudsters. Liars. Perjurers. Felons. Grifters. Stooges. Imbeciles. Murderers.
In a previous article, BOMBSHELL NEWS!!! The Virus I Told You Not to Worry About and Worked to Infect You With… CAME FROM A LAB!!!, I satirized Dr. Jay Bhattacharya whose sole concern about SARS-CoV-2 was where it came from, not what it did to people.
Of course, where SARS-CoV-2 came from says nothing about how we should have handled it, and it reveals nothing about the damage it did. This is obviously what matters the most. We should not forget that SARS-CoV-2 killed 1.2 million Americans, injured many more, and is not done with us yet. Much of this was preventable. One study estimated that from May 30, 2021 to September 3, 2022:
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
If video emerged of Fauci himself, blowing SARS-CoV-2 out from a lab in Wuhan, that doesn’t mean it was OK to spread the virus once it arrived here. Irrefutable evidence that the virus leaked from a lab wouldn’t affect a single word I’ve written about it. Only someone who never treated COVID patients would say the origin of the virus was its most important feature. To me, passionate debates about how the virus emerged were often used to distract from its impact and protect doctors who openly cheered its spread. Every moment spent discussing where the virus came from, was a moment not spent discussing how the virus hurt people.
Of course, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 matters. It’s important to know the truth. However, it seems wise to act like it came from both a lab and an animal market. Its absurd to only worry about a new virus emerging from one of these sources. Normal people don’t want a deadly virus to emerge period, and ideally people handling viruses in labs and animals in the wild will all be very careful. Achieving this vital but challenging goal requires cooperation and good-faith engagement from multiple stakeholders, not performative vitriol and enmity.
I also lack expertise on this topic, and as such, I listen to scientists I’ve learned to trust. I give credence to people who have proven themselves credible in other areas, such as vaccines, and who let the evidence speak for itself, rather than resorting to juvenile, content-free taunts and accusations. I’ve received plenty of those myself, and I am sure more are headed my way.
Indeed, I am well aware that some scientists who believe SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab have launched a deluge of juvenile, content-free taunts and accusations against those who question their rectitude in any way. According to an article titled: ‘Lab-leak’ Proponents at Rutgers Accused of Defaming and Intimidating COVID-19 Origin Researchers:
Fraudsters. Liars. Perjurers. Felons. Grifters. Stooges. Imbeciles. Murderers. When it comes to describing scientists whose peer-reviewed studies suggest the COVID-19 virus made a natural jump from animals to humans, molecular biologist Richard Ebright and microbiologist Bryce Nickels have used some very harsh language. On X (formerly Twitter), where the two scientists from Rutgers University are a constant presence, they have even compared fellow researchers to Nazi war criminals and the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot.
A dozen scientists filed a formal complaint with Rutgers, noting that “several of the people Drs. Ebright and Nickels interact with have made direct threats of death and sexual violence.” Even though public health officials have needed bodyguards, Professor Ebright responded to their pleas to protect their personal safety by saying:
The first, second, third, and fifth signers of the letter provably are fraudsters; the first and third signers provably are perjurers; and all signers provably are coauthors of fraudsters and perjurers.
Charming stuff.
Non-natural potential pandemic pathogens poses existential risks to humanity
Professors Nickels and Ebright also founded an organization called Biosafety Now, which describes itself by saying:
Biosafety Now is a US-based NGO working for a future where scientific research on pathogens supports human life without also threatening it & public trust in science is restored. Biosafety Now believes that research that creates new, non-natural potential pandemic pathogens poses existential risks to humanity and provides few, if any, benefits for science, medicine, public health, or national security. We are convinced that public health and safety require that all such research be subject to independent external controls, rather than be trusted to the oversight of the scientists performing or the organizations funding the research.
They say elsewhere:
The rapidly increasing power and rapidly decreasing cost of advanced biotechnology has made lab-generated pandemics a threat to the survival of the human species.
Biosafety Now feels the threat is real and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Fair enough. While no one would object to biosafety, it’s not clear this organization can point to any real-world example where they actually improved biosafety and made the world a safer place. They do however, solicit donations and sell merch.
One of their products is called the Innocent Wildlife collection. According to Biosafety Now:
The Innocent Wildlife collection highlight animals implicated by scientists as the “intermediate host animal” from which SARS-CoV-2 may have entered humans. It also includes some animals that have not yet been accused but are concerned they may be blamed in the future. Although it is theoretically possible that one of these “innocent” animals served as the intermediate host, the evidence provided so far to support these claims is not convincing.
Members of the Innocent Wildlife collection include, Pete the Pangolin, Sid the Sloth, Alastair the Raccoon Dog, Adeline the Raccoon Dog, Cindy the Civet, and Axel the Raccoon Dog.
The organization that worries non-natural potential pandemic pathogens might obliterate humanity feels very differently about natural potential pandemic pathogens. One is the gravest threat imaginable, while the other is a opportunity to make jokes and push products.
I don’t know anyone who sells cutesy merch mocking the lab leak theory. I shudder to think of furious reaction that a Sarah the Scientist DIDN’T CAUSE THE PANDEMIC T-shirt would generate from Biosafety Now.
Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff are not merely wrong. They are charlatans and quacks who are dispensing deadly advice, and who need to be held accountable for their role in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.
As Dr. Allison Neitzel wrote here at SBM, Biosafety Now, which believes non-natural potential pandemic pathogens poses existential risks to humanity, recently partnered with none other than Dr. Bhattacharya, an anti-vaccine, pro-virus doctor who teamed up with crank RFK Jr. and spread a deluge of misinformation about an actual pandemic pathogen while other doctors were busy treating patients with it. Professor Nickels has been vigorously promoting and defending Dr. Bhattacharya on social media, launching juvenile, content-free taunts and accusations against myself and Dr. David Gorksi. We sinned by discussing the many flaws in Dr. Bhattacharya’s “plan” for herd immunity via natural immunity.
Professor Ebright had strong feelings when Dr. Bhattacharya’s announced his plan to get rid of the virus by spreading the virus in October 2020. Professor Ebright said at the time:
Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff are not merely wrong. They are charlatans and quacks who are dispensing deadly advice, and who need to be held accountable for their role in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.
I’ve never produced such pugnacious prose. Professor Ebright also laid out his preferred approach at the time, and it could not have been more diametrically opposed to Dr. Bhattacharya’s plan. Professor Ebright said:
Testing, tracing, quarantine of contacts, isolation of cases, partial lockdown and distancing at all times, full lockdown when tranmission is high, masks, and, decisively, when available, vaccines.
However, Professor Ebright explained his willingness to abandon his principles and partner with a “charlatan and quack” by telling me:
My views on the @gbdeclaration have not changed, but my views on Bhattacharya have changed.
Professor Ebright believes that Dr. Bhattacharya is utterly separate from the pro-virus Declaration he authored and continues to vigorously defend. Professor Ebright feels that I am unable to read and reason because I insist on linking Dr. Bhattacharya with the words and ideas of Dr. Bhattacharya.
Speaking as if COVID were a distant historical event, Professor Ebright continued:
His advice was wrong. Dead wrong. But it now is 2024 (not 2020), and the discussion at hand is how to prevent a next lab-generated pandemic (not how to respond to the last one). I will work with any person from any party and any background to prevent a next lab-generated pandemic. The importance and urgency of the objective over-ride partisan differences and ideological differences (as should be clear to any rational person).
Despite the promise to work with any person from any party and any background, no one from Biosafety Now ever reached out to me. I did my part to limit COVID’s harms, both in and out of the hospital, and Professors Nickels and Ebright treated me with scorn and contempt. Perhaps if I had made YouTube videos and tried to spread a virus during an actual pandemic, I too could have been placed on the Board of Directors of Biosafety Now, which to remind you, believes non-natural potential pandemic pathogens poses existential risks to humanity.
The Central Problem Right Now I Think Is The Fear That People Still Feel About COVID.
Of course, Dr. Bhattacharya’s critics don’t have “partisan differences and ideological differences” with him (as should be clear to any rational person). Rather, we object to his pandemic-long campaign to numb Americans to the threat of COVID. We felt COVID was the “central problem” while Dr. Bhattacharya felt the central problem was “the fear that people still feel about COVID.” We thought “natural immunity” was dangerous and something to be avoided, while Dr. Bhattacharya thought it should be venerated and widely embraced, claiming it would lead to herd immunity in 3-6 months. We don’t feel rare, usually mild vaccine side-effects are a fate worse than death, and we don’t feel COVID was mild for people under 70.
We believe Dr. Bhattacharya’s repeated factual errors and farcical forecasts led to unnecessary suffering. Future historians will be able to perfectly track the course of the pandemic by reading Dr. Bhattacharya’s preposterous predictions and knowing the exact opposite happened. To pick one example amongst many, Dr. Bhattacharya assured Floridians “We have protected the vulnerable by vaccinating the older population” immediately before the Delta wave ripped through the state leaving carnage in its wake.
Mostly, Dr. Bhattacharya’s critics feel his plan of herd immunity through mass infection of unvaccinated “not vulnerable” people was both a moral abomination and a total failure, as Professor Ebright wisely recognized it would be in his unflinching statement from 2020.
Imagine waving this all away as “partisan differences and ideological differences”.
“Partisan differences and ideological differences”
Strongly disagreeing with someone’s policy positions doesn’t make them a mass murderer- unless, of course, they also played a role in reckless research that triggered the COVID-19 pandemic.
But let’s be clear what’s happening now in 2024. According to to Professors Nickels and Ebright, those who allegedly released the virus are fraudsters, liars, perjurers, felons, grifters, stooges, imbeciles, and murderers, comparable to Nazi war criminals and the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot.
In contrast, doctors who repeatedly minimized the virus in order to spread the virus to 250 million unvaccinated Americans aren’t so bad after all. Sure, they were wrong, but their errors were pardonable, mere “partisan differences and ideological differences”. Even though these doctors still glorify “natural immunity” in the middle of yet another COVID surge, their sins are ancient and worth overlooking. A future pandemic pathogen might kill us all, yet doctors who spread a deluge of misinformation about an actual pandemic pathogen are worth defending and promoting. They were charlatans and quacks who dispensed deadly advice. They needed to be held accountable for their role in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. However, that was in 2020, forever ago. Today, they need a safe space to shield their feelings from these exact words.
Releasing SARS-CoV-2 was “mass murder”. Purposefully spreading it to millions of unvaccinated people was just a “policy position”.
As with doctors who treat theoretical harms from the vaccine with more seriousness than actual harms from COVID, Professors Nickels and Ebright make a grand public display of being very concerned(!) about a hypothetical non-natural pandemic pathogen, while simultaneously encouraging placidity about a hypothetical natural pandemic pathogen and apathy about a current pandemic pathogen. Indeed it’s not 2020 anymore, but according to BNO News, COVID killed 1,000 American for the 3rd week in a row, though Professors Nickels’ and Ebright’s partnership with Dr. Bhattacharya reveals these actual deaths don’t concern them. They’ve moved on and are only bothered by anyone who still cares about COVID’s current impact.
Of course, if a new pandemic pathogen were to arrive, Dr. Bhattacharya would undoubtedly undermine efforts to contain it no matter where it came from. And having poisoned the public against mitigation measures by portraying them as one of the worst catastrophes to befall mankind, Dr. Bhattacharya will face much less resistance opposing them than he did with COVID. Dr. Bhattacharya also benefits from his partnership with Biosafety Now. It allows him to absurdly portray himself as someone who is also very concerned(!) about protecting humanity from dangerous viruses.
In reality, thanks to his ceaseless efforts, we are significantly less prepared to handle a pandemic than we were in 2020. If a devastating pandemic pathogen were to escape from a lab, which is a real and immediate danger according to Biosafety Now, public health officials would need drastic measures and buy-in from the public to contain it. Yet, anyone who seeks to enact the mitigation measures Dr. Ebright championed in 2020, will have a much harder time doing so thanks to Dr. Bhattacharya and his ilk.
Perhaps if this new pandemic pathogen arrives and Dr. Bhattacharya again suggests infecting unvaccinated people with it, Dr. Ebright would revert to calling him:
Not merely wrong, but a charlatan and quack who is dispensing deadly advice, and who needs to be held accountable for his role in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.
But today, Professors Nickels and Ebright don’t care about this at all. An organization that believes “non-natural potential pandemic pathogens pose existential risks to humanity” is eager to elevate and legitimize a man who tried to spread an actual potential pandemic pathogen and would happily do so again. They are not at all upset that anyone minimized an actual pandemic pathogen. They save their scorn and childish mockery for anyone who remembers the tragic, real-world consequences of doctors’ pro-virus advocacy. Since memory was sinful, amnesia was portrayed as a virtue:
But it now is 2024 (not 2020), and the discussion at hand is how to prevent a next lab-generated pandemic (not how to respond to the last one).
Obviously, there’s no reason why anyone should care about the origins of a virus if they’re indifferent to the consequences of that virus and those who helped it along the way.
I suppose it’s my turn to be called a fraudster, liar, perjurer, felon, grifter, stooge, imbecile, and maybe even murderer. This essay will generate a temper tantrum for sure. What I won’t get is a reasonable explanation as to why supposedly releasing a deadly virus was mass murder, but intentionally spreading it was a forgivable “policy position”. This is because these juvenile professors, totally sheltered from the consequences of their words, are entirely unserious about limiting dangerous viral infections. Rather they’re narcissistic, histrionic performers who treated the pandemic as a spectacle and picked fights to draw attention to themselves and showcase their malignant contrarianism.
And I know that’s harsh. But at least I’ve never compared anyone to Nazi war criminals and the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot.