The classic example of chutzpah is the parable of a boy who murdered his parents, only to then beg for mercy because he is now an orphan. I was reminded of this after reading an article in the Washington Post Dr. Jay Bhattacharya titled Why the NIH is Pivoting Away From mRNA Vaccines. It said, “As a vaccine for broad public use, mRNA technology has failed to earn the public’s trust.”
Who could possibly be blamed for that?
While other doctors worked in hospitals, Dr. Bhattacharya made videos that treated rare, mild vaccine side effects as a fate worse than death. Today, he using his own efforts to demolish trust as justification for destroying an entire field of lifesaving, Nobel Prize winning research.
While Dr. Bhattacharya’s article is not worth reading, his rare venture outside his safe space unintentionally revealed something very interesting. What’s been obvious us to us for years at SBM is now obvious to everyone- Dr. Bhattacharya has failed to earn the public’s trust. His article had 2,500 comments, and though I didn’t read them all, I literally saw only a couple people support him. Everyone knows he’s a naked emperor.
- Trust??? What is the objective data for Trust? How about efficacy and saving lives? Is that not what vaccines are supposed to do? Save lives. This is what happens when we have an NIH director that has never cared for a patient in his life. He has appeared on Fox News…the primary criteria to have a seat in Trump’s leadership circle.
- NIH scientists — the very people tasked with carrying forward the agency’s mission — already regard Bhattacharya as incompetent. That internal view is not mere gossip; it aligns with the available data on his public statements, policy priorities, and evident lack of focus on actual research excellence. His tenure so far has been marked by political maneuvering rather than the cultivation of robust, independent scientific inquiry.
- This is like a pyromaniac blaming the fire brigade for failing to have public trust in it’s capacity to prevent conflagration.
- Dr. Bhattacharya (who did not pursue residency training and does not clinically see patients) is off base. He is not referencing any of the data from when these vaccines rolled out late 2020/early 2021 in which there was drastic reduction in hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID. In reviewing his history, he has been on the wrong side of this issue from the beginning and his article reflects his own opinions, which are not founded on an evidence based approach. As a practicing internist/hospitalist, I am thankful for these vaccines, continue to recommend them to my high risk patients, continue to receive them for myself and family annually and am hopeful for mRNA technology during future pandemics. This article needs to be better fact checked and he should attempt to publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
- The core problem with Bhattacharya’s argument is that it mistakes public opinion for a legitimate scientific compass. The NIH Director’s responsibility is — and must remain — to prioritize the advancement of science for the benefit of society, not to bend to the shifting winds of popular sentiment. If public opinion diverges from the scientific evidence, the Director’s role is to educate, to correct misinformation, and to build understanding — not to abandon promising technologies simply because they have become politically unpopular.
- Pure politics, zero science. What a poor excuse for a scientific opinion.
- This author is naive to think that the public’s distrust of mRNA vaccines is with these specifically- those who are anti-vax do not care to know the difference, this is just a stepping stone for them to attack vaccine research and progress in general. The pulling of mRNA vaccines are a great first step to start eroding scientific progress indefinitely.
- An anti-vaccination apologist says what? It’s not as if anyone thinks he has an original, intelligent thought process or valid information to disseminate. It’s an apologist piece attempting to explain the incomprehensible.
- As an infectious disease physician, I cannot believe what I am reading. Dr. Bhattacharya asserts that the vaccine “lost credibility,” which is a completely non-scientific assertion. The reason it lost credibility is not due to the actual performance of the vaccine itself, which in my observation was exemplary, but primarily due to a virulent attack campaign by rabid anti-vaxxers and political extremists with an agenda. This is a revolutionary technology, and in my opinion the rapid rollout of the COVID vaccine was about the only worthy thing to come out of the Trump administration. The best way I can illustrate my point is the fact that I could predict with a great degree of accuracy whether my COVID patients would live or die based on their voting history, and consequently whether they took the vaccine.
- So now the public, not doctors or scientists are the arbiters of which vaccines and what therapeutic drugs are available? I was, and remain, so very grateful for the mRNA covid vaccine, and I blame the lack of trust on the far right, of which this so-called scientist is a representative
- “the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust” Gee, I WONDER WHY!!!!!?????
- Science isn’t humility, it’s science. It’s facts, it’s objective and no, science isn’t a popularity contest. The public ambivalence that appeared was brought on by those who favored personal interests over the public good. I’m a physician and know full well that this op-ed does not in any way represent the thinking of the scientific community.
- The core problem with Bhattacharya’s argument is that it mistakes public opinion for a legitimate scientific compass. The NIH Director’s responsibility is — and must remain — to prioritize the advancement of science for the benefit of society, not to bend to the shifting winds of popular sentiment. If public opinion diverges from the scientific evidence, the Director’s role is to educate, to correct misinformation, and to build understanding — not to abandon promising technologies simply because they have become politically unpopular.
- Science has never progressed by surrendering to what is fashionable or publicly palatable. If it had, we might still be bloodletting for fevers and rejecting germ theory because it was once met with skepticism. mRNA technology, like any scientific innovation, should be evaluated on rigorous data about safety, efficacy, and potential, not polling numbers or media narratives.
- That is exactly why Bhattacharya is the wrong person to lead the NIH. By his own framing, he is allowing distrust to dictate scientific priorities rather than confronting the distrust with facts, transparency, and educational outreach. His emphasis on “public acceptance” as a deciding factor in whether to advance a technology reveals a willingness to subordinate evidence-based decision-making to political optics. That is not leadership; it is acquiescence.
- Science should be driven by what is true, not what is trending.
- People don’t trust mRNA vaccines because the people in your adminstration spent every waking minute of the last 5 years telling the public they weren’t safe! The nonsense in this op-ed is no different than Trump undermining federal agencies and then saying govenrment doesn’t work. You have no shame.
- So Jay B believes scientific progress should be a popularity contest. Rather than technology being judged by the scientific merits, we should simply rely on opinion polling. That’s bold policy. Let’s see how it works out for America.
- This is what happens when we have an NIH director that has never cared for a patient in his life. He has appeared on Fox News…the primary criteria to have a seat in Trump’s leadership circle.
- This is like a pyromaniac blaming the fire brigade for failing to have public trust in it’s capacity to prevent conflagrations
- Pure politics, zero science. What a poor excuse for a scientific opinion.
- This is the standard for scientific research?
- Anyone else smell that? I don’t think its mRNA.
- I cannot help but think that this is utter nonsense, and I question why the Post would even bother publishing it.
- My God, WaPo might as well platform flat earthers next.
- This is completely false. No reputable newspaper would print this. Why? Why? Why?
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is investing in new vaccine technologies — based on whole-virus inactivated vaccines.
- New vaccine technologies? This sentence alone tells you the writer does not have the most basic understanding of vaccines. I guess Jay doesn’t know how the polio vaccine is made?
- Who cares? The public trust was eroded by the maga base
- I can think of someone who definitely has not earned the public trust.
- Giving MAGA medicine frontpage – the vaccine deniers easily killed 500K of their own kind now they want to kill the rest of us. WAPO what are you thinking.
- For a man who says he “is not here to litigate the past”, he spends a lot of time bashing the Biden Administration. I guess that’s what you have to do to stay in the good graces of the Trump Administration.
- Wait MAGA anti vaccine fundraiser demonize vaccines with tons of disinformation and your solution is to do away with vaccines.
- How about you make sure the correct vaccine information is out there and do what we did before. Run public health campaigns to promote vaccination
- This is entirely druid thinking about vaccines and the public. Especially the bottom feeders who mistrust everything they don’t understand.
- This author is naive to think that the public’s distrust of mRNA vaccines is with these specifically- those who are anti-vax do not care to know the difference, this is just a stepping stone for them to attack vaccine research and progress in general. The pulling of mRNA vaccines are a great first step to start eroding scientific progress indefinitely.
- I hope the author has no desire to join debate club, because they would have almost no chance at winning any arguments if using such poor and flawed logic as in this article.
- Science has never progressed by surrendering to what is fashionable or publicly palatable. If it had, we might still be bloodletting for fevers and rejecting germ theory because it was once met with skepticism. mRNA technology, like any scientific innovation, should be evaluated on rigorous data about safety, efficacy, and potential, not polling numbers or media narratives.
- That is exactly why Bhattacharya is the wrong person to lead the NIH. By his own framing, he is allowing distrust to dictate scientific priorities rather than confronting the distrust with facts, transparency, and educational outreach. His emphasis on “public acceptance” as a deciding factor in whether to advance a technology reveals a willingness to subordinate evidence-based decision-making to political optics. That is not leadership; it is acquiescence.
- People don’t trust mRNA vaccines because the people in your adminstration spent every waking minute of the last 5 years telling the public they weren’t safe! The nonsense in this op-ed is no different than Trump undermining federal agencies and then saying govenrment doesn’t work. You have no shame.
- So Jay B believes scientific progress should be a popularity contest. Rather than technology being judged by the scientific merits, we should simply rely on opinion polling. That’s bold policy. Let’s see how it works out for America.
- What about the millions of people who DO trust the vaccines over horse dewormer and raw milk?
Of course, my personal favorite comment was by Eddy Edd.
Dr. Bhattacharya ended his article by saying:
We are entering a new era of public health, grounded not in wishful thinking or performative consensus, but in open inquiry and respect for the American people’s intelligence. The only way to rebuild trust is to earn it — one honest conversation at a time.
That last sentence may be right, but rebuilding trust and honest conversations will all have to wait until Dr. Bhattacharya and the rest of our medical establishment are out of office.