24 Comments

It's weird that Trump would nominate both Nesheiwat and Bhattacharya, who are at opposite ends of the Pfizer pfellation spectrum.

Bhattacharya seems like a great guy. I'm as happy about that nomination as I was horrified at Nesheiwat's.

Expand full comment

Janette will drop,out or be dropped out.

Expand full comment

I'd be happy if she did.

Someone forwarded me a screenshot of supposed Tweet from her expressing opposition to injecting children with the death jab, but I think it's a fake because I could not find the original on X.

And it would not make any sense for Trump to nominate her and in the same announcement still claim that the death jabs saved "hundreds of millions of lives" if Nesheiwat were opposed to the jabs.

Expand full comment

I just googled this Nesheiwat lady... OK, let's be honest here, she immediately comes across as a vain person with narcissistic tendencies. Maybe Trump can't resist valuing those qualities because it's like looking in a mirror. But hopefully someone will step in and moderate this particular proclivity of his.

Expand full comment

She helped campaign for Trump.

Expand full comment

Excellent bio-history of Jay and all those who were united together in the battle for sanity. I also signed the GBD. Jay will face an intense battle with the entrenched bureaucrats who led us into this fiasco. Fauci, Birx, and Collin's behavior towards Jay, Martin, and Sunetra is just the tip if the iceberg that is the CDC, NIH, and HHS.

Expand full comment

Well said. Thank you for your courage supporting these guys and standing up to the crowd.

Expand full comment

I have to believe, dr. Joseph Ladapo will pay a role in Dr. Jay Battacharya’s NIH.

Expand full comment

Mike Little's mom here. Thanks for the common sense approach! It's nice to see you turned out so "common sense" smart as well as just plain intelligent and cautious. I sure wish there were more like you out there.

Expand full comment

Thanks Nancy!

Expand full comment

Brilliant in every way! Thank you president Trump, God bless all good people.

Expand full comment

Jay is so brilliant yet so humble.

I've met him twice at events here in London UK, the first in June 2022. You could be a vagrant who walked in off the street and Jay would still shake your hand and listen to whatever you had to say -- that's the vibe I got from him. Just an all-around stellar person full of integrity and goodwill.

Expand full comment

I thought of you right away. There is justice in the world indeed

Expand full comment

This is a plot twist that would have been unimaginable in the darkest days of 2020/21, when Francis Collins was smearing Dr B and singing excruciating covers of “Over the Rainbow”.

Expand full comment

Holy Moley - is this true? If so, wowee!

Expand full comment

Tis true indeed

Expand full comment

All well and good. He's a big improvement. But...

Where was he in March-April 2020? Many of us had done the research, actual medical science research, official public policy, preparedness, testing protocols, mask ineffectiveness, taken in official WHO/CDC guidance - that was widely accepted as fact right up until March-May 2020 until it began to be rewritten.

Hundreds became thousands of hours of research, all of which was available to Jay and most all of the medical freedom movement that eventually people like Jay began to finally recognize was true. To Jay and others, what took them so long? Many of us were voices in the wilderness saying "no, this isn't right" from the very beginning.

My social media posts beginning in March, 2020 attests to this. The research I shared then has held up to time. Because it was solid, credibile, scientific. I'm not some exceptional savant seer. I just took the time to research. And knew in my gut, my lived experience, my freedom instinct informed me it was all wrong and I dove head first into the types of material that all medical professionals had access to. But chose not to take the time to become familiar with.

If more people like Jay had done what I did, if the medical community had done their own research instead of trusting and taking their orders from "experts" then we, the world would've never gotten to where a Great Barrington Declaration was necessary.

Where's the doctors who called BS at the start, knew at the beginning it was all wrong and did their own research March-April, 2020? The professionals who got it right from the start would be the ones that a smart and wise nation would elevate into leadership. Jay, while ahead of most of his colleagues, was still a laggard, he helped give the pandemic its legs it needed to become the catastrophe it became. The critical time for leaders to shine and make the right decisions is early on. Like heart attacks, strokes, time matters, early intervention saves lives. The patient was already in bad straits when he stood up.

I welcome what he's done. But where are the medical professionals who got it right early on? Even Scott Jensen who eventually ran for Governor in Minnesota was on to the fraud of pandemic early 2020? Why isn't he a part of new health policy leadership?

Jay is an improvement. But there's better. Those who got it right at the start. They're out there. It was available to all, like me, average people understood. In a merit-based society those with the best insights would lead policy. He was late. Just not as late as others.

Expand full comment

I will copy this link for you - it was recorded on 27 March 2020

Expand full comment

That 27 March 2020 recording? Link?

Expand full comment

Link?

Expand full comment

I appreciate you sharing that. I watched it intently. I won't call Jay the worst of the time frame. But he showed his limitations as a dedicated medical professional who actually believed and trusted publications like JAMA. Pure BS politicized medical "science." He supported quarantines, lockdowns, even for healthy people. Never in the pre-2020 pandemic plans. He believes in testing, wanted more of it. The pandemic was a pandemic of fake and phony testing. More testing = more pandemic. The tests weren't tests of infection, just presence. Not the same. Medical science knew this pre-2020.

He advocates nonstop surveillance infrastructure as a "New Normal." Population level samples. Calls more CDC public policy setting as a legitimate function of government. Not anything that someone who is a true health freedom fighter would support.

Jay is limited by his "expertise." He's probably about as good as anyone who's committed to the medical training he's had can be expected to be. But he fails to think outside that paradigm. Only the "evidence" of "evidence-based science" enters his mind and comes out of his mouth. EBM isn't the end-all, final say of health. It's so much more complex and richer than the allopathic science medicine can fathom.

As much as this is 20/20 for us, and I have grown exponentially in knowledge since 2020, I could pick apart many other things he says about viruses, how disease really occurs based on what I now know versus what I knew then that is more in line with what he was saying back then. Perhaps he has grown since then. But based on the his Substack pieces I've read he remains a prisoner of the system he's invested all of his education and practice in. That I've learned to not be imprisoned by.

I've tried to limit my critique to just what I knew at the time, versus what I know now. And while this video shows he wasn't as big a maniac paranoid freak about Covid in March, 2020, he wasn't a believer in freedom as a fundamental right. Even at the higher death rate that was complete BS it wouldn't have warranted quarantine/lockdown. Jay supported those measures as a precaution, 'better safe than sorry' type thinking. That infringed in inalienable rights. That's inverted. To even dream of taking away human rights ("nonessential humans don't need to work") requires evidence they pose a risk, not a suspicion, not a guilty-until-proven-innocent of being a threat to others mentality that he and Peter displayed in this video.

A Surgeon General of the United States of America with a Bill of Rights that guarantees our freedoms means adhering to the Constitution in all circumstances. Not tossing it aside when there's a media-hyped flu in the air.

The only people who should be considered to lead our nation's health policy are those who adhered to Constitutional rights and who didn't fall for the JAMA/NEJM/Academia "expert" propaganda. Which is all it always was. A few brave, informed medical professionals didn't. They got it right. They should be in the top positions. Those who came to the correct conclusion later have a role. But not leadership.

Expand full comment

I’m sympathetic to your point. In March 2020, Dr Ioannides used data from the Diamond Princess to set an upper limit of 1% for the CFR, and most likely value of 0.3%, when the WHO was saying 3.4%, either from incompetence or corruption. This data was just as available to Dr B. My guess is he wanted to ensure he was on very firm ground before he said much.

I don’t fault him for being cautious and doubt there could be a better NIH director, but there is a great deal of blame to share in the medical and media professions for this catastrophe.

Expand full comment

Trial by Jury – The Case of the Missing Corona ‘Virus’

[The camera zooms in on the courtroom packed with reporters, their pens poised. The aspiring viroLIEgist sits nervously at the witness stand, fidgeting with a stack of lab notes. Across from him stands the sharp-dressed attorney, Mr. Rigorous, known for his devastating cross-examinations. Behind him, the jury watches intently]

Judge: [Hammering the gavel] Order in the court! Mr. Rigorous, you may proceed with your cross-examination.

Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] Thank you, Your Honor. [He approaches the viroLIEgist.] Dr.

Specimen, you claim to have isolated a novel corona virus, is that correct?

Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Uh, yes, yes. We have a robust methodology –

Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Robust, you say? [He winks at the jury.] Let’s start at the beginning. Did you, at any point, isolate and purify this so-called “virus” directly from the fluids of a sick patient?

Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, not exactly. You see, direct purification from fluids is unnecessary because –

Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in, eyebrows raised] Unnecessary? I see. What you’re telling us is that you skipped the part where you would actually prove there’s a virus in the patient’s mucus?

Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] We used a well-established protocol. Instead, we combined the patient’s mucus with a monkey kidney cell culture, starved it, and –

Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting with mock concern] Oh, so you took a patient’s mucus, mixed it with cells from an entirely different species, starved those cells, poisoned them with toxic chemicals, antibiotics, and, what was it again, fetal bovine serum?

Dr. Specimen: Well, yes, that’s standard –

Mr. Rigorous: [Grinning] “Standard.” So, after this biological disaster, when the cells inevitably broke down and died, you claimed that was evidence of a virus?

Dr. Specimen: [Getting defensive] Yes! The cytopathic effect is what –

Mr. Rigorous: [Smirking] Cytopathic effect! Ah, the mysterious code for “we poisoned cells and watched them die.” Tell me, Dr. Specimen, what proof do you have that the breakdown of these poisoned, malnourished cells was caused by a virus rather than, say… the toxic soup you created?

Dr. Specimen: [Stammering] Well, it’s what the literature says and, um… everyone knows –

Mr. Rigorous: [Cutting in] “Everyone knows?” [He gestures dramatically to the jury.] I believe this court would prefer evidence over gossip, Doctor. Now, let’s talk about the genome you supposedly ‘discovered.’ You took this toxic brew, fed it into a machine, and then used some software to assemble genetic pieces, correct?

Dr. Specimen: Yes, yes, we sequenced the genome –

Mr. Rigorous: [Raising his voice] Ah, sequenced! You mean the software took fragments and tried to fit them together, like a biological jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces?

Dr. Specimen: [Defensively] It’s highly sophisticated software!

Mr. Rigorous: [Sarcastically] Sophisticated? Doctor, if I fed a pile of shredded newspaper into that machine, would it also “reconstruct” War and Peace?

[The jury chuckles. Dr. Specimen looks increasingly uncomfortable]

Dr. Specimen: [Panicking] No, no! It’s different. This is how we create the viral genome.

Mr. Rigorous: [Slyly] Create, you say? So, we’re not finding a virus – we’re creating one?

Interesting choice of words, Doctor. Now, did you ever attempt to prove that this Frankenstein creation could naturally infect a healthy host?

Dr. Specimen: [Squirming] Well, no. We injected lab animals with the toxic cell culture, and when they got sick –

Mr. Rigorous: [Mocking] Sick from your toxic brew? And that, Doctor, is what you call “evidence” of transmission? You didn’t try something simple, like, I don’t know, letting the sick patient sneeze on a healthy person?

Dr. Specimen: [Flustered] Natural transmission doesn’t work well in the lab! It’s much cleaner to inject -

Mr. Rigorous: [Interrupting] Cleaner? Cleaner to torture animals with direct injections of this toxic sludge you call a “virus”? [He lets the words hang in the air.] Doctor, do you have any explanation for why you skipped natural transmission altogether, or is it because – oh, I don’t know – it never works?

[The courtroom erupts with murmurs. Dr. Specimen is visibly sweating]

Mr. Rigorous: [Turning to the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, this man would have you believe that by starving cells, poisoning them, and injecting that toxic concoction into helpless animals, he’s “proving” a virus exists. All without ever isolating or purifying anything! Is this science… or sleight of hand?

[He paces dramatically, letting the tension build]

Mr. Rigorous: One last thing, Doctor. After injecting animals with this ‘viral’ brew, did you ever attempt to purify the “virus” again from those animals to confirm it was there?

Dr. Specimen: [Almost whispering] No…

Mr. Rigorous: [Leaning in] No? You never bothered to re-isolate the virus, because that would expose the fact it wasn’t there in the first place, wouldn’t it?

[Dr. Specimen is completely defeated, sinking lower in his seat]

Mr. Rigorous: [Addressing the jury] Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. We are dealing with scientific fraud on a monumental scale, a fraud that never once demonstrated the existence of a virus through proper isolation or purification. It’s smoke and mirrors! I leave it in your capable hands to deliver justice.

[The jury nods thoughtfully as they leave the room to deliberate. After a brief pause, they return, their verdict ready]

Judge: Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict?

Jury Foreperson: [Standing] We have, Your Honor. We find the defendant… guilty of scientific fraud!

Judge: [Solemnly] Very well. [He turns to Dr. Specimen] For crimes against logic and reason, and for misleading the public in the name of science, I hereby sentence you to… [He smirks] a life term as the head of the National Institute of Infectious Arse-covering and Deception -NIIAD.

[The courtroom erupts in gasps and laughter as the viroLIEgist is dragged out, wailing in ‘protest’]

Expand full comment
Error