Podcasts about great barrington declaration

In October 2020, three contrarian medical professionals published The Great Barrington Declaration to great applause by the pro-business, anti-closure crowd. One of them, Jay Bhattacharya, now runs the NIH. Things are not going well under his watch. Last week, he was grilled in front of Congress about the $18B in proposed cuts to NIH funding. This happened a day after over 300 people under his guard published The Bethesda Declaration, a document filled with issues occurring under Bhattacharya's leadership. Derek discusses this new declaration and listens in on the Congressional hearing. The Bethesda Declaration An Uproar at the NIH The Disappearing Funds for Chronic Diseases Show Notes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After weeks of protests over firings, grant freezes, and budget cuts, more than 300 scientists and staff from Maryland-based National Institutes of Health issue a public letter of protest called the Bethesda Declaration fashioned after the Great Barrington Declaration, which was co-authored in 2020 as an act of dissent from the scientific orthodoxy on Covid by their current Trump-appointed director Jay Bhattacharya. Sunil Dasgupta talks with three signatories to the letter, NIH staffers Mollie Manier and Ian Morgan, and former staffer Anna Culbertson about the public statement and the relationship between science and politics. Bethesda Declaration: https://www.standupforscience.net/bethesda-declaration The Great Barrington Declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/ Music by Silver Spring power pop band, The Airport77s.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrances Lee is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton, and her books include The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Age. Steve Macedo —an old friend from Harvard — is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, and his books include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage. The book they just co-wrote is called In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.For two clips of our convo — on the demonization of dissent during Covid, and where the right went wrong on the pandemic — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Frances raised in the Deep South; Steve from a family of educators in Massachusetts; his Jesuit schooling as a gay Catholic; how both were natural contrarians; the pre-pandemic plans for Covid; their personal reactions to the outbreak; the emergency after 9/11; the Spanish flu; the cost/benefit of lockdowns; the different reactions in red and blue states; the Sweden model; the trillions of dollars in Covid relief; Fauci's appeal to authority; Partygate and Newsom's French Laundry; the remote work enjoyed by elites; how blue-collar workers bore the brunt; the generational injustice suffered by kids; Operation Warp Speed; the early myths of the vaccine; the Ptown vaccinated outbreak; censorship on social media; the moralizing of the MSM; the public-health hypocrisy on BLM protests; the mask mandates after the vaccines; how boosters weren't backed by good evidence; the Great Barrington Declaration; the Ebright testimony; the “Proximal Origin” paper; gain of function and the short-lived moratorium; the illiberal mistakes of Francis Collins; addressing his claims on lab leak; and the alarming current risks of viral escape.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Byron York on Trump 2.0, Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrancis is a physician and geneticist whose work has led to the discovery of the cause of cystic fibrosis, among other diseases. In 1993 he was appointed director of the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced all three billion letters of our DNA. He went on to serve three presidents as the director of the National Institutes of Health. The author of many books, including The Language of God, his latest is The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.Our conversation was entirely agreeable until we talked about trust, and his own handling of the Covid epidemic. I asked him in depth about the lab-leak theory and why he and Tony Fauci passionately dismissed it from the get-go, even as it now appears to be the likeliest source of the terrible virus. Things got intense.For two clips of our convo — intense debate on the “Proximal Origin” paper outright denying a lab leak as the source of Covid-19, and Francis finding God after decades of atheism — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up on a rustic farm in Shenandoah; his parents creating a community theater; homeschooled until 6th grade; his amazing scientific accomplishments as a young adult; his scientism; his terminally ill Christian patients; the AIDS crisis; C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity; the First Mover question; Ross Douthat and “fine-tuning”; the multiverse; the limits to the materialist view; deism; cradle believers vs converts; evolution and sacrificial altruism; Socrates; Jesus dying for our sins; the doubting Thomas; how angels manifest; Francis Bacon; Richard Dawkins; being the NIH director during Covid; trust and mistrust in science; the early confusion in pandemics; tribalism; dismal safety standards at the Wuhan lab; gain-of-function; EcoHealth and Peter Daszak; intel agencies on lab leak; furin cleavage sites; Kristian Andersen; geopolitical fears over Trump and China; the opacity of the CCP; the Great Barrington Declaration; Trump threatening science funding at the Ivies; In Covid's Wake; and if Francis has any regrets after Covid.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Byron York on Trump 2.0, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Jay Bhattacharya, Covid contrarian and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, is now the Director of the NIH. The day before beginning his new job, he gave his first official interview to Bari Weiss on her podcast, Honestly. Derek and Julian discuss. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few years ago Jay Bhattacharya was an obscure Stanford professor—a medical doctor who also had a PhD in economics. Then Covid hit, the lockdowns began, and “Doctor Jay”—as he is known—became a pariah in the medical community. That's because, along with colleagues from Harvard and Oxford, Jay questioned whether the lockdowns were a good idea. They did this in an open letter called the Great Barrington Declaration. And this idea, in the madness of that period, was considered so dangerous by federal health and Big Tech that Jay was not only smeared, but censored. His words—on platforms from Reddit to Twitter to Facebook—were suppressed. But here's the thing: The lockdowns were pretty disastrous. We're still dealing with their effects—the loss of childhood learning, the cancer screenings that were skipped, the inability of those with special needs to see the people who help them, the separation of families—just to name a few consequences. And it's still unclear if those lockdowns were worth it. Many powers tried to silence Jay, but he persisted. And today Jay is the new head of the National Institutes of Health. If you're skeptical of karma, this turn of events may lead you to believe in it. He's leading this massive federal agency, sometimes called “the crown jewel of American science”—it's the largest public funder of medical research in the world—at a moment when public health authorities need to rebuild trust. But here's the wrinkle. Jay has two bosses: President Trump, who initiated Operation Warp Speed to develop a Covid vaccine in his first term. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary, who is also the most famous vaccine skeptic in America. Walking the line here will inevitably be tricky for Dr. Jay. So, how can he do it? How does someone who believes that vaccinating your kids for diseases like polio and measles also confront the idea that large swaths of Americans have fear around vaccinating their kids? And how will he navigate an HHS that's empowering discredited antivax crusaders — a move that, as The Wall Street Journal recently argued, is already vindicating Kennedy's critics. That's among the many, many things Bari asks him in this conversation. Jay has lived a remarkable life. And we get into all of it. His conversion to Christianity as a teenager and how his faith allowed him to stick to his values—and even to pray for Francis Collins, the former NIH director who called his ideas dangerous. The chutzpah it took to fight the entire medical establishment. How he ultimately triumphed against his critics. How he wants to put the National Institutes of Health on the frontline in the war against chronic illness in America. And, most importantly, how can public health authorities make America healthy again? Today on Honestly, he tells us all about how he plans to do it all.  If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageDr. Jay Bhattacharya's recent confirmation as NIH Director marks a stunning reversal of fortune for one of the pandemic's most prominent scientific dissidents. With a Senate vote of 53-47 along party lines on March 25th, 2025, this appointment represents nothing less than vindication for a brilliant Stanford professor who dared challenge the orthodoxy of lockdown policies.Looking back at Scott Atlas's book "A Plague Upon Our House," we're reminded how Bhattacharya stood as one of the few voices of reason during the chaotic early pandemic response. For those who questioned the wisdom and ethics of pandemic policies that caused immeasurable harm to education, mental health, and economic wellbeing, this moment feels like justice.What will Bhattacharya's leadership mean for American public health? After years of politicized health guidance and eroded institutional trust, his evidence-based approach offers hope for meaningful reform. The very scientist once dismissed as a "nobody" now holds the power to reshape how we prepare for and respond to future health emergencies. Subscribe to our podcast for continued analysis as this story unfolds, and share your thoughts on this remarkable turn of events.Key Points from the Episode:• Senate confirmed Dr. J Bhattacharya as NIH director on March 25th, 2025• Scott Atlas's book "A Plague Upon Our House" highlighted Bhattacharya as a hero who got COVID right• The Great Barrington Declaration (Oct 2020) called for focused protection of vulnerable populations• Biden once dismissed these views on 60 Minutes saying "Nobody thinks Atlas makes any sense"• Great Barrington Declaration has gained over 900,000 verified signatures since publication• Trump administration appointments include Kash Patel at FBI and Kevin Hassett at National Economic Council• Bhattacharya's confirmation represents vindication after years of opposition to his pandemic approachOther resources: Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!

In their most urgent and emotionally charged episode yet, Dr. Jonathan Howard and science journalist Wendy Orent confront the accelerating unraveling of public health institutions in the United States under the RFK Jr. administration. They open with a flood of disturbing headlines: Peter Marks, the nation's top vaccine expert, has been ousted. Measles is surging in Texas, and children are arriving at hospitals with liver failure after being treated with toxic vitamin A overdoses—recommended by RFK-aligned influencers. The CDC and NIH are being gutted: funding pulled, scientists fired, and research into vaccine hesitancy and mRNA technology halted. David Geier, a disgraced figure with a history of chemically castrating autistic children, has been tapped to lead a new federal vaccine safety study. Howard and Orent don't hold back. They rip into this dystopian reversal of public health, where disinformation peddlers are now calling the shots. They highlight the sheer absurdity and danger of putting figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas, and Geier in positions of power—people who have spent years sowing distrust in vaccines, downplaying COVID, and demonizing public health measures. The episode draws a brutal contrast between the lived reality of frontline doctors and essential workers—many of whom died in early pandemic waves—and the self-styled martyrs of the anti-lockdown movement, who now paint themselves as victims. One particularly enraging example: Bhattacharya's claim that he felt “unsafe” on Stanford's campus after a flyer was posted with his own quote alongside Florida's Delta wave death tolls. This, while over 20,000 Floridians died in that wave, many unvaccinated due to the policies he championed. A major target of their critique is the book In COVID's Wake, which they say rewrites history by glorifying the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring the real human toll of their misinformation. Orent and Howard dismantle the book's central claim—that these anti-lockdown figures were treated unfairly—pointing out that many of them became media darlings, got promoted, or were appointed to powerful roles. Meanwhile, real scientists and doctors who fought on the frontlines were ignored, censured, or worse. They also expose the cynical “woke-washing” by these same figures—claiming to champion the poor and marginalized while promoting policies that left essential workers unprotected. Their concern for “equity,” Howard and Orent argue, was nothing more than rhetorical cover for libertarian, laissez-faire ideology. As the episode barrels toward its conclusion, one message becomes chillingly clear: We are watching the active dismantling of public health—science silenced, disinformation rewarded, and truth replaced by ideology. And as Dr. Howard puts it: “If we had predicted these headlines six months ago, we would've sounded insane. But now, they're reality.” This episode is a searing call to action. For scientists. For journalists. For anyone who still believes in truth, public health, and protecting the vulnerable. Because as Orent warns: “The wild horses of the plague apocalypse are descending... and the party's just beginning.”   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

This episode critically examines In COVID's Wake by Princeton professors Steven M. and Francis Lee, focusing on their defense of the Great Barrington Declaration. Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent argue that the authors downplay the catastrophic errors of the GBD architects, who pushed for herd immunity through mass infection while opposing vaccines, masks, and lockdowns.  The discussion highlights the disconnection between political science theorizing and real-world public health outcomes. Using Florida as a case study, they showcase the tragic failures of the GBD's approach, debunking the revisionist portrayal of its policies as reasonable or compassionate. The episode underscores the importance of accurately remembering the pandemic's scientific realities and human costs. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

On this episode of the podcast, Yale University School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Dr. Harvey Risch discusses the critical lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. He breaks down the inaccuracies in early information, the suppression of dissenting scientific voices, and the failures of policies like lockdowns and mask mandates. Dr. Risch highlights the effectiveness of early treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine, which showed a 75% reduction in mortality in early studies and explained the rationale behind the Great Barrington Declaration's approach to protecting high-risk individuals while allowing society to function normally.Furthermore, Dr. Risch shares his skepticism about the potential for bird flu to become the next pandemic and underscores the need for objective evidence in restoring public trust in health authorities.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Therapy Time with Jonathan and Wendy, hosts Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent dive into the growing measles outbreak in the U.S. and how it exposes the deadly consequences of RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine agenda. With 259 cases in Texas alone, including 34 hospitalizations and two deaths, the hosts discuss how this outbreak was entirely preventable—yet fueled by years of misinformation from figures like RFK Jr. and his allies. Dr. Howard reflects on an invitation he received to speak with a filmmaker producing a documentary on the Great Barrington Declaration, questioning whether it will present the truth or further rewrite pandemic history. Meanwhile, Wendy highlights RFK Jr.'s bizarre response to the measles crisis—suggesting vitamin A, cod liver oil, and steroidsover vaccines. The discussion expands to doctors and public figures who once defended RFK Jr., including Vinay Prasad, Jay Bhattacharya, and Marty Makary, all of whom promoted his nomination as a supposed reformer of public health. Now, with RFK Jr. dismantling vaccine initiatives, canceling flu shot studies, and pushing for a new "study" on vaccines and autism, Jonathan and Wendy ask: Where are the apologies? Other key topics include: Jay Bhattacharya's refusal to acknowledge that vaccines don't cause autism during Senate questioning The Democrats' failure to challenge Bhattacharya and Makary on their COVID-era misinformation The ongoing attack on vaccine safety monitoring systems and the potential removal of mRNA vaccines The absurdity of calls for a "randomized controlled trial" of childhood vaccine schedules As the anti-vaccine movement gains more power, Jonathan and Wendy underscore a terrifying reality: We are watching public health be systematically dismantled—and children are paying the price.   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Public health shake ups continue in the wake of RFK Jr's confirmation as Secretary of HHS. The FDA vaccine advisor's most recent meeting was canceled unexpectedly, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, of Great Barrington Declaration fame, gets one step closer to confirmation as head of NIH, and Marty Makary is making waves as Trump's pick for FDA lead.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

Send us a textShort Summary: Insider's look at the COVID-19 pandemic response from a seasoned epidemiologist, unraveling myths and lessons with straightforward science.About the guest: Martin Kulldorff, PhD is an epidemiologist and biostatistician with decades of experience in infectious disease monitoring and vaccine safety. He was formerly a professor at Harvard Medical School. Note: Podcast episodes are fully available to paid subscribers on the M&M Substack. Partial versions are available elsewhere. Full transcript and other information on Substack.Episode Summary: Dr. Martin Kulldorff discusses the COVID pandemic response, reflecting on the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdowns in favor of protecting the vulnerable. They explore the virus's fatality rates, asymptomatic spread, and vaccine efficacy, contrasting textbook epidemiology with real-world decisions. He critiques institutional failures, like the CDC's misleading claims. He shares optimism for future pandemics with better leadership and public awareness.Key Takeaways:Lockdowns ignored basic public health principles, causing collateral damage like missed cancer screenings, while Sweden's focused protection approach led to lower excess mortality.Early data showed COVID's risk was 1000x higher for older people, yet lockdowns didn't prioritize them, unlike textbook strategies.Asymptomatic spread made containment impossible, unlike Ebola, where isolation works due to clear symptoms.Natural immunity was downplayed despite 2500 years of evidence, leading to wasted vaccines on those already immune.CDC falsely claimed vaccines stopped transmission, eroding trust when people got sick anyway, fueling vaccine skepticism.mRNA vaccine boosters lack proper trials, and their long-term effects need rigorous study, not assumptions.Kulldorff's new Journal of the Academy of Public Health pushes open peer review to rebuild trust in science.Related episode:M&M #100: Infectious Disease, Epidemiology, Pandemics, Health Policy, COVID, Politicization Support the showAll episodes, show notes, transcripts, etc. at the M&M Substack Affiliates: Lumen device to optimize your metabolism for weight loss or athletic performance. Use code MIND for 10% off. Readwise: Organize and share what you read. Athletic Greens: Comprehensive & convenient daily nutrition. Free 1-year supply of vitamin D with purchase. KetoCitra—Ketone body BHB + potassium, calcium & magnesium, formulated with kidney health in mind. Use code MIND20 for 20% off any subscription. MASA Chips—delicious tortilla chips made from organic corn and grass-fed beef tallow. No seed oils or artificial ingredients. Use code MIND for 20% off. For all the ways you can support my efforts

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent confront the troubling trend of downplaying the consequences of pandemic misinformation. They tackle RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine legacy and its normalization by influential doctors, explore the Great Barrington Declaration's advocacy for mass infection, and critique the intellectual theater around pandemic debates. The hosts highlight how these debates often overshadow the human toll of COVID, with 15 million lives lost globally. The episode also delves into the lab leak theory, emphasizing the need to focus on pandemic prevention over origin speculation.    Howard and Orent challenge the narrative that figures like Jay Bhattacharya and RFK Jr. offer viable leadership for public health, urging accountability and truth over spectacle. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageThe episode centers around President-elect Trump's cabinet nominations, highlighting the speed and implications of his choices compared to previous administrations. With a focus on Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for the NIH and Kash Patel for FBI Director, the discussion emphasizes their potential to reshape health policy and law enforcement in America.  Most especially with Kevin Hassett at NEC.Key Points from the Episode:Trump's cabinet nominations signal a swift transition process  Historical context of delays in previous presidential confirmations  Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's nomination aims to reform the NIH  Overview of the Great Barrington Declaration and its significance  Kash Patel's background and potential to revitalize the FBI  Reflection on the implications for public trust in federal agenciesDiscussion of the importance of actionable leadership  Kevin Hassett at National Economic Council will regain the MOJO we had back in 2018, and 2019 to get the economy moving again.   Suggestions for further reading on related topicsOther resources: Fat Man, Thin Man podcast episodeWant to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!Because we care what you think about what we think and our website, please email David@teammojoacademy.com.

In this episode, hosts Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent dissect the ongoing efforts to rewrite the history of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the role of the Great Barrington Declaration. They examine Dr. Edward Livingston's recent commentary on the document, which downplays its advocacy for herd immunity through mass infection and instead praises its criticism of lockdowns. Jonathan and Wendy expose how Livingston's reframing and similar narratives contribute to the "Great Forgetting," erasing the devastating consequences of such proposals and the failure to protect vulnerable populations. They also critique the growing tendency to valorize empty statements like "I would have done this," highlighting the gap between words and actions in pandemic policy. As the conversation unfolds, they express concern over the potential impact of the incoming administration's policies, particularly on public health narratives. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent explore the controversial history of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document that advocated for herd immunity via natural infection, and its lasting impact on public health discourse. They critique the flawed claims made by its authors and discuss how the Declaration's proponents have rewritten its history to align with more socially palatable narratives. The hosts draw parallels to historical missteps in medicine, such as the unethical Tuskegee study, and dismantle comparisons to figures like Ignaz Semmelweis. Highlighting the real-world consequences of these ideas, they explore the devastation during Florida's Delta wave and challenge the notion that natural infection could protect the vulnerable. With Bhattacharya's Senate confirmation looming, they propose key questions that should be asked to hold him accountable for his actions during the pandemic.   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In this Christmas Eve episode, dive into a look back at thought-provoking discussions with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, President Trump's nominee for the National Institutes of Health, as he shares insights on public health policies and the Great Barrington Declaration. Explore the concept of 'focused protection' and the need for a balanced approach to pandemic management.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jeffery Tucker is the founder of the MAGA thinktank Brownstone Institute. In 2020, Brownstone published The Great Barrington Declaration, with lead author Jay Bhattacharya—now the nominee for head of the NIH.  Jeffrey's daughter, Julia, joins Matthew to discuss her dad's rise through the punditocracy, through decades of fringe libertarian publishing, working for Ron Paul, boosting anarcho-capitalism and crypto, writing for the Epoch Times, and asking such daring questions as: “What's so wrong about child labour?” Show Notes Patreon: Post-Catholic Music (w/Julia Tucker) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist who co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, "arguing for age-based focused protection instead of universal lockdowns, with specific suggestions for how better to protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives.”He discusses Dr. Jay Bhattacharya being appointed Director of NIH, his 1A case being heard at the SCOTUS, restoring trust in healthcare, his new publication and much more. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE LIKE AND SHARE THIS PODCAST!!!    Video Version of Show Rumble- https://rumble.com/v5w979n-coffee-and-a-mike-martin-kulldorff-structural-reforms-needed-at-nih.html   Follow Me Twitter/X- https://x.com/CoffeeandaMike Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/coffeeandamike/ Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/CoffeeandaMike/ YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/@Coffeeandamike Rumble- https://rumble.com/search/all?q=coffee%20and%20a%20mike Apple Podcasts- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coffee-and-a-mike/id1436799008 Gab- https://gab.com/CoffeeandaMike Locals- https://coffeeandamike.locals.com/ Website- www.coffeeandamike.com Email- info@coffeeandamike.com   Support My Work Venmo- https://www.venmo.com/u/coffeeandamike Patreon- http://patreon.com/coffeeandamike Locals- https://coffeeandamike.locals.com/ Cash App- https://cash.app/$coffeeandamike Mail Check or Money Order- Coffee and a Mike LLC P.O. Box 25383 Scottsdale, AZ 85255-9998   Follow Dr. Kulldorff X- https://x.com/MartinKulldorff LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-kulldorff-8a31a775/   Sponsors Vaulted/Precious Metals- https://vaulted.blbvux.net/coffeeandamike Independence Ark Natural Farming- https://www.independenceark.com/    

Happy Invasion Day! Learn what that means and what won’t happen. South Korea was in a state of Marshall law for about an hour in what has to be the worst coup attempt since ‘nam. Syria is popping off, learn who is who, and where their funding is coming from. Also, LOOK AT A MAP! Georgia is still angry Russia out cheated the West. Israeli hostages are pleading for President Trump’s help, the only people asking Biden for help are his own family. We hear about a few more Trump Cabinet selections and why privacy is rapidly dying. Finally, the rest of the world is catching up with your MMO show on BRICS and dedollarization. Art for Episode #148: SurveyorJose with a 4-peat victory, showing Hunter Biden's single use get out of jail free card good for any future crime of his choosing. Job Well Done! Do you like the show? Consider donating by going to: http://mmo.show/donate Associate Executive Producer for MMO #148: Eli the Coffee Guy Fiat Fun Coupon Donators: Emily the Fed, Not a Fed Ethan C. Fair Volt Tea This weeks Boosters: user75635113 | 420 | BAG DADDY BOOSTER! user75635113 | 100 Eli says: Gentlemen! Coverage of international events has been spectacular. Especially Abkazia, and the less talked about news. Thanks for the shoutout to Gigawatt a few shows ago. We want to offer MMO Producers 20% their first coffee order using code OTO20 at checkout. visit GigawattCoffeeRoasters.com Stay Caffeinated! Eli The Coffee Guy Shownotes Ep 148 Invasion Day             Web Bot             UFOs at Nuclear Facilities:                         Daily Star                         Daily Mail                         FAS                         TopWar                         Unexplained Mysteries                         NBC                         Eurasian Times                         (Old) Alarabiya                         (Old) IB Times                         (Old) Daily Mail                         (Old) Daily Mail Syria             Article: CFR on Hayat Tharir al-Sham (HTS)             Channel 4 UK Syria Offensive             Al Jazeera The Take on Syria Offensive Israel             Hell to Pay Georgia             Update – EU Bid on Hold Weather             Winter Storm Pardon             CNN Report             ABC Report on Pardon Trump Admin                         >>>NPR Article: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of The Great Barrington Declaration to                                lead NIH             Jay Battacharya Triggernometry             Marc Andreessen on Debanking             Marc Andreessen on Silicon Valley Split             Kash Patel Coming After Media Context             ABC Report on Hegseth Privacy             Aussie Teen AI GF             Center for Humane Tech NOTE ON DIGITAL ID From [REDACTED] Last show you covered the story of Australia looking to restrict social media access to allow only people over the age of 16 to access services such as FaceBook, X, Tiktok, Instagram, etc. I work in the field of digital identity in Canada and I have some expertise in this realm. This is a common story across the developed world where 'harms' are increasingly being associated with online activity. Digital Age Verification is one potential solution to making the internet more age appropriate. This can include access to social media, pornography, gambling, and purchases of age restricted goods online such as alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. You are right to be concerned that digital ID and legislation like Australia's can lead to a surveillance state. Many and most digital ID systems, whether government managed or corporately managed do enable surveillance. The common phase of "verifying you are who you say you are online" is often accomplished by tying a unique identifier to the individual as recorded in some data base. This unique identifier can be linked to your government ID, driver's license number, social security number, medical number, credit card number, bank card number and so on. Further these can be associated with your online use such as cookies, IP addresses and MAC addresses. We are already in the surveillance state because of what is called the Mosaic Effect: The mosaic effect occurs when ‘disparate items of information… take on added significance when combined with other items of information. I did a quick read of the Australian Digital ID website. It uses a federated ID model using OpenID Connect, which is a wide spread standard. In this model the ID provider, which could be FaceBook, Google, (aka Social Logon) or the national government, provides the ID to the user, and 3rd parties rely on the user to authenticate using that core ID to login to their services. This model enables surveillance by default and the ID Provider technically has the ability to know where the ID is being used. However, these companies or governments may or may not have a policy which says they don't access that data, except under specific circumstances. Murky! Alternatively, there are other forms of digital ID emerging and leveraging open source protocols and software that are "privacy preserving". Among these, there are gradations of the level of privacy being preserved. So the devil is in the details with digital ID. Many are being marketed as digital credentials held in digital wallets on your smart phone. This [REDACTED]. The Guardian had a headline with member of the Australian parliament stating the government cannot compel the social media companies to make users hand over personal ID document. This is tricky, because with some approaches, technically you will not need to show any personal identity document. A concept known as Zero Knowledge Proof uses advanced cryptography to prove a statement such as "I am over the age of 19 or 21" using a digitally signed credential containing your birthdate, but without actually sharing your birthdate of any other data from your government ID. We have the technology today that enables you to prove you are old enough to visit PornHub, while PornHub will only know that it was presented with an ID credential from an acceptable government issuer and that birthdate was sufficiently long ago. Further, the ID issuing government would not know when or where you used this ID credential. The most privacy preserving technologies are often not used because they do not meet certain industry standards such as NIST, for approved cryptographic algorithms. There is currently a long standing battle in the digital ID industry between governments, companies, standards bodies who all are taking different approaches. The type [REDACTED]. Hope this information helps the show. Happy to tell you more.

Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University-trained physician and economist, is has been selected by President-elect Donald Trump as the next director of the National Institutes of Health, after Bhattacharya reportedly impressed HHS nominee Robert Kennedy jr.   Jimmy discusses the Stanford physician's support for the Great Barrington Declaration during the pandemic and what his appointment at the NIH might mean.   Plus segments on why the American Medical Association is freaking out over RFK jr. potentially taking over at Health and Human Services, Canadian protesters derided as antisemites by Justin Trudeau for demanding the nation stop funding NATO violence and Kamala Harris's seemingly drunken message to supporters she recently recorded.   Also featuring Stef Zamorano and Dimitri Lascaris!

In this episode, Lisa and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, discuss the implications of the Omicron variant and government responses, including vaccine mandates. Dr. Bhattacharya advocates for focused protection of vulnerable populations rather than broad lockdowns and criticizes mass asymptomatic testing and forced vaccination. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/ God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Pleasure Unit Hypothesis, Inflammation, Dr. Bhattacharya, Great Barrington Declaration, Climate Model Adjustments, Marc Andreessen, Newspaper History, Tech Founder Debanking, History Timeline Splits, President Sheinbaum, Migrant Caravan, Why Kamala Lost, Democrat Leadership Vacuum, President Trump, Michael Moore, Ukraine Last-Minute Biden Funding, James Carville Directness, MSNBC Credibility, CNN Harry Enten, DEI Collapse, Chinese Starlink Competitor, AI Jet Dominance, Drone Warfare, Hypersonic Missile Warfare, President Putin, Unvaccinated Americans, Kamala Harris, NED National Endowment for Democracy, NGO Cut-Outs, Worldwide NGO Censorship, Mike Benz, Election Bellwether Counties, Sharon Stone, Israel Lebanon Ceasefire, False Memory Formation, Simulation Author Mode Affirmations, Scott Adams ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

President-elect Trump selected a critic of COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates to lead the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is known for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, a 2020 manifesto that advocated allowing COVID to spread in order to achieve herd immunity. It was widely criticized by top health officials. William Brangham discussed more with Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Revenge of the COVID victims! Great Barrington Declaration's Jay Bhattacharya named to NIH ft Dr. @mass_marion + Defeating Cultural Marxism ft @JudgeNap - The Miracle of PA ft @Maloney @PAChase  

President-elect Trump selected a critic of COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates to lead the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is known for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, a 2020 manifesto that advocated allowing COVID to spread in order to achieve herd immunity. It was widely criticized by top health officials. William Brangham discussed more with Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- - Linda Kerns—Attorney & Pennsylvania Election Integrity Counsel for the Republican National Committee—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss another big legal victory! You can find Kerns at: www.lindakernslaw.com. 6:30pm- On Thursday, former Congressman Matt Gaetz announced he is withdrawing as Donald Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Attorney General. According to reports, Gaetz concluded he had no pathway towards confirmation after meeting with Senators earlier in the week and determining that at least four—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, and John Curtis—would not support him. Republicans will hold a 53 to 47 advantage in the Senate, consequently cabinet nominees cannot afford to lose the support of more than four Republicans. Later that day, Trump selected former Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi to serve as Attorney General of the United States. 6:40pm- Dr. Martin Kulldorff—An Epidemiologist, Biostatistician, and a Founding Fellow at Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article for The Federalist, “RFK Is Right—Let's Study Vaccine Risk Factors.” Dr. Kulldorff emphasizes his support and belief in vaccines but writes America cannot “abandoned evidence-based medicine.” He continues: “Scientists are tasked with both developing and evaluating drugs and vaccines, and it is important to separate these two important roles. Scientists evaluating drug and vaccine safety should not take money from pharmaceutical companies.” Dr. Kulldorff is a former Professor of Medicine at Harvard University and was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. You can read the full article here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/19/world-renowned-vaccine-scientist-rfk-is-right-lets-study-vaccine-risk-factors/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- On Thursday, former Congressman Matt Gaetz announced he is withdrawing as Donald Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Attorney General. According to reports, Gaetz concluded he had no pathway towards confirmation after meeting with Senators earlier in the week and determining that at least four—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, and John Curtis—would not support him. Republicans will hold a 53 to 47 advantage in the Senate, consequently cabinet nominees cannot afford to lose the support of more than four Republicans. 3:30pm- Dr. Martin Kulldorff—An Epidemiologist, Biostatistician, and a Founding Fellow at Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article for The Federalist, “RFK Is Right—Let's Study Vaccine Risk Factors.” Dr. Kulldorff emphasizes his support and belief in vaccines but writes America cannot “abandoned evidence-based medicine.” He continues: “Scientists are tasked with both developing and evaluating drugs and vaccines, and it is important to separate these two important roles. Scientists evaluating drug and vaccine safety should not take money from pharmaceutical companies.” Dr. Kulldorff is a former Professor of Medicine at Harvard University and was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. You can read the full article here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/19/world-renowned-vaccine-scientist-rfk-is-right-lets-study-vaccine-risk-factors/ 3:45pm- While speaking with U.S. Senators on Capitol Hill, Pete Hegseth—Donald Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense—denied newly resurfaced sexual assault allegations. The encounter allegedly occurred seven years ago, and Hegseth was never charged with any crime. 3:50pm- With Matt Gaetz withdrawing as Donald Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Attorney General, who might Trump pick next? Senator Mike Lee? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton?

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (11/21/2024): 3:05pm- On Thursday, former Congressman Matt Gaetz announced he is withdrawing as Donald Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Attorney General. According to reports, Gaetz concluded he had no pathway towards confirmation after meeting with Senators earlier in the week and determining that at least four—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, and John Curtis—would not support him. Republicans will hold a 53 to 47 advantage in the Senate, consequently cabinet nominees cannot afford to lose the support of more than four Republicans. 3:30pm- Dr. Martin Kulldorff—An Epidemiologist, Biostatistician, and a Founding Fellow at Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article for The Federalist, “RFK Is Right—Let's Study Vaccine Risk Factors.” Dr. Kulldorff emphasizes his support and belief in vaccines but writes America cannot “abandoned evidence-based medicine.” He continues: “Scientists are tasked with both developing and evaluating drugs and vaccines, and it is important to separate these two important roles. Scientists evaluating drug and vaccine safety should not take money from pharmaceutical companies.” Dr. Kulldorff is a former Professor of Medicine at Harvard University and was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. You can read the full article here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/19/world-renowned-vaccine-scientist-rfk-is-right-lets-study-vaccine-risk-factors/ 3:45pm- While speaking with U.S. Senators on Capitol Hill, Pete Hegseth—Donald Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense—denied newly resurfaced sexual assault allegations. The encounter allegedly occurred seven years ago, and Hegseth was never charged with any crime. 3:50pm- With Matt Gaetz withdrawing as Donald Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. Attorney General, who might Trump pick next? Senator Mike Lee? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton? 4:05pm- Congressman Jeff Van Drew—United States Representative for New Jersey's 2nd Congressional District—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump's impressive Election Day performance in New Jersey. Plus, Rep. Van Drew expresses his frustrations with President Joe Biden—explaining he's “escalating” the war between Ukraine and Russia. 4:30pm- On her SiriusXM show, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley raised concerns about Donald Trump's appointments of Tulsi Gabbard to Director of National Intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Secretary of Health and Human Services. 5:05pm- For the first time, Ukraine used long-range missiles to attack Russian territory earlier this week. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a revision in policy, signing a doctrine ultimately lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike—and on Thursday, Russia struck a military facility in Dnipro, Ukraine with an intercontinental ballistic missile. According to Putin, the ICBM reached speeds 10x the speed of sound—and he bragged that modern defense systems are incapable of intercepting these specific missiles. 5:20pm- Congresswoman Nancy Mace has introduced a resolution that would prevent biological males from using women's restrooms in the U.S. Capitol. 5:25pm- The show has been a little heavy today…so, Rich decides to lighten the mood by playing audio of his favorite Donald Trump supporter: Trump De Dump Dump Dump! 5:30pm- Speaking with Jen Psaki on MSNBC, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said she will not cooperate with Donald Trump's Administration or the federal government when it comes to the deportation of undocumented migrants. Gov. Grisham has a history of ignoring the constitution—in 2023, she attempted to unilaterally suspend concealed and open carry gun rights in her state before ultimately having to concede she was wrong. 5:40pm- Recess Appointment Complications. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Yale Law School professor Jed Rubenfeld makes a compellin ...

Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent trace the evolution of COVID-19 discourse from the early calls for open scientific debate to the current atmosphere of hostility and revenge.    They examine the shift in tone from figures like Vinay Prasad, who initially warned against demonizing heterodox views, to now using inflammatory language that fuels public outrage against scientists and public health officials. The discussion highlights the rise of dangerous populist narratives that threaten the integrity of the public health system, with explicit calls for purges, prosecutions, and dismantling of vaccine mandates.    Drawing historical comparisons to Soviet pseudoscience, Howard and Orent emphasize the alarming potential for misuse of political power against scientists, underscoring the risk to future pandemic responses and public trust in vaccines. The episode ends with Howard's anticipation of his upcoming debate against Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, where he plans to use the very words of the Great Barrington Declaration proponents to expose their inconsistencies. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

On Oct 4, Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford, held a symposium at his university. Titled “Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past,” it was marketed as an open-minded series of panel discussions involving a range of experts to debate and discuss the efficacy of Covid mitigation techniques. In reality, it was a collection of mostly anti-vax and definitely anti-lockdown contrarians that tried in vain to bait people like Dr Peter Hotez to attend in order to give the event an air of legitimacy. Held on the anniversary of the “Covid is bad for business” doctrine, The Great Barrington Declaration, the day presented an opportunity to air supposed “censorship” grievances and demands that the public should have a say in the science of future pandemics. The rub: most everyone involved is invested in the economics of public health, not the science, though those lines were freely and falsely blurred throughout the day. Considering Stanford's new president, economist Jonathan Levin, gave the opening remarks, the Covid contrarians took one more step into the mainstream with their business-first, science-whatever attitudes. Show Notes Pro-COVID UK Charity With Anti-Vax Ties Behind Controversial Stanford Health Policy Conference Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says a failing economy is worse than coronavirus  Dr. Vinay Prasad: “Public Health's (Mis)Truth Problem” Can Stanford Tell Fact from Fiction? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join me, Professor Jay Bhattacharya, as I sit down with Dr. Martin Kuldorff to discuss his journey through the COVID-19 pandemic. We cover the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, his thoughts on lockdowns, and the challenges he faced at Harvard. This conversation delves into the real impacts of public health policies and the importance of open scientific debate. Get an insider's perspective on one of the most debated health crises of our time Receive Exclusive Episodes & Q&A Content by joining our Substack Community: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ Sponsors - Alcami Elements :https://www.alcamielements.com/ Receive 10% OFF first order or 30% OFF subscription order using code: ILLUSION -Brownstone institute: https://brownstone.org/

Join me, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, on the Courting Controversy podcast with Jenin Younes. In this episode, We discuss my experiences and the recent Supreme Court decision in Missouri vs. Biden (now Murthy v. Missouri). Also we delve into the Great Barrington Declaration, which I co-authored to highlight the harms of lockdowns on children and young adults. Tune in to hear about the implications of this landmark case for free speech and scientific inquiry. Receive Exclusive Episodes & Q&A Content by joining our Substack Community: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ Sponsors - Alcami Elements :https://www.alcamielements.com/ Receive 10% OFF first order or 30% OFF subscription order using code: ILLUSION -Brownstone institute: https://brownstone.org/ Janin Yonues - Follow Jenin on X: https://x.com/JeninYounesEsq - Follow Jenin on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeninyounesesq/ - Watch Courting Controversy on YouTube: www.youtube.com/courtingcontroversywithjenin - Watch Courting Controversy on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/JeninYounesEsq - Listen to Courting Controversy on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/courting-controversy-with-jenin-younes/id1754874846 - Listen to Courting Controversy on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4FwAmhckuL9cmsdj7ZkyBS

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent critically examine the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial document that proposed achieving herd immunity by allowing COVID-19 to spread among low-risk populations. They explore the impracticalities and dangers of this plan, the public's rejection of it, and the declaration's failure to protect vulnerable individuals. The discussion highlights the unrealistic expectations of the declaration's authors and the real-world consequences of their recommendations. This episode underscores the importance of practical, evidence-based public health strategies.   Resources The Great Barrington Declaration - Original document outlining the plan for achieving herd immunity through natural infection. Medscape Article on Biden's Cognitive State - A piece discussing the speculation about President Biden's cognitive state during the pandemic. Science-Based Medicine Articles - Analysis and critiques of the Great Barrington Declaration and its premises. House Report: The Atlas Dogma - A detailed examination of Dr. Scott Atlas's influence on the Trump administration's COVID-19 policies. Changing Age Distribution of the COVID-19 Pandemic - Study highlighting the spread of COVID-19 among different age groups and its implications. Kit Yates' Modeling Study - A study identifying the flaws in shielding strategies like the Great Barrington Declaration's focused protection. Voices for Vaccines - Noah Louis Ferdinand's series on the shortcomings of focus protection strategies. Newsweek Article: How Fauci Fooled America - An article representing the Great Barrington Declaration authors' criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci. Florida Delta Wave Reports - News articles discussing the impact of the Delta wave in Florida, including school closures and record deaths. CDC Guidelines and Recommendations - Official guidelines on COVID-19 prevention and vaccination strategies. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a distinguished Stanford University professor specializing in epidemiology, economics, and health research policy. As the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, he has significantly contributed to healthcare economics. Bhattacharya's research centers on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations, focusing on the impact of government programs and biomedical innovation. When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, Dr. Bhattacharya pivoted his research toward understanding the epidemiology of the virus and the impact of lockdown measures. His research during this period culminated in co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter advocating for a targeted approach to achieve herd immunity by easing restrictions on lower-risk populations. Dr. Bhattacharya and several other sued the Biden administration when it was discovered that the government coerced social media platforms to censor them. This week, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue. Find out why this is a big problem for all of us, and where the case stands today.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, where he is also the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. After dedicating much of his career to studying the economics of health care, when the COVID-19 crisis began, Dr. Bhattacharya shifted his research focus to the epidemiology of COVID-19, the lethality of COVID-19 infection, and the effectiveness and effects of lockdown policies. This led him to co-author an open letter, The Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a lift of restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity. He is also the co-author of the widely acclaimed textbook Health Economics, a staple in undergraduate and graduate curricula worldwide. He holds four degrees from Stanford: a BA, an AM, an MD, and a PhD in economics. ------ Thank you to the sponsors that fuel our podcast and our team: Lucy https://lucy.co/tetra ------ LMNT Electrolytes https://drinklmnt.com/tetra ------ Squarespace https://squarespace.com/tetra ------ House of Macadamias https://www.houseofmacadamias.com/tetra

“This catastrophic response that we faced during this pandemic will happen again in our lifetimes. The new normal is lockdown until vaccine. That is how we're going to manage pandemics until there's an explicit repudiation of the doctrine by public health,” says Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.In this episode, Dr. Bhattacharya shares his theory on what happened these last four years and the link between seemingly disparate events.Dr. Bhattacharya is one of the plaintiffs in a landmark free speech case against the Biden administration, Murthy v. Missouri, and the co-host of the Illusion of Consensus podcast.“The International Health Regulations and the WHO treaty are a way to essentially institutionalize this paradigm of how to manage pandemics going forward. You can't have a Sweden next time that bucks the agenda,” he says.*Check out American Essence magazine here. Use promo code 24ATL10 for $10 off! Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

An Interview with Jay Bhattacharya Four years ago this past March, America followed the direction of public health officials and went into lockdown mode due to the emergence of Covid-19. Yet by the fall of 2020, it became clear to some in the medical community that the soundest approach to the pandemic was to let healthy individuals resume daily life, while protecting the most vulnerable.  Medical experts from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford led the way in promoting this approach by issuing The Great Barrington Declaration.  What happened next is a case study in government overreach and censorship. The Declaration's authors were cast aside by their peers, shut down by the US government and threatened by the public.  Courageously, they continue to speak up.  Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is one of those experts and is our guest on this episode of Voices of Freedom. A 2024 Bradley Prize winner, he joins us to share his experience and what's at stake for a free society, and science and research, when free speech is denied. Bhattacharya is Professor of Health Policy at Stanford University, Director of the University's Center for Economics and Demography of Health and Aging, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research. Topics Discussed on this Episode What drew Bhattacharya to economics, medicine and health policy and why these fields are complementary The point at which he realized that continued lockdowns were devastating Why scientists felt compelled to self-censor during the pandemic The reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration Key takeaways from oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark free speech case Where Americans can go to learn perspectives that the media doesn't cover The state of scientific integrity and debate What it means to Bhattacharya to win a Bradley Prize

After a storied career as a health policy expert, Stanford Medicine’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s work became a political focal point during the COVID-19 pandemic, when he advocated against widespread lockdowns. He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter signed by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists which advocated for a focused protection approach to […]

As we look back on the pandemic, there are clear ways in which our public health strategies failed. From the quarantine to vaccines, understanding the pitfalls in our response will enable us to do better in the future. But who's brave enough to step forward and identify these issues? Dr. Martin Kulldorff joins the podcast to shed some light on the subject… Dr. Kulldorff is an epidemiologist, a biostatistician, and a founding fellow at Hillsdale College's Academy for Science and Freedom. He has also been a Professor of Medicine at Harvard University for thirteen years. As the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, he advocated for a pandemic strategy of focused protection instead of lockdowns during the 2020 health crisis. Dr. Kulldorff is an expert in infectious disease outbreaks who researches surveillance methods for post-market drug and vaccine safety and early detection and monitoring. How has his perspective shifted the conventional pandemic narrative? Tune in now to find out! In this conversation, we dive into: Why Sweden did so well during and after the pandemic. Dr. Kulldorff's initial response to COVID-19. Why news outlets were ignoring basic public health principles. Whether or not masks were effective in preventing disease transmission. You can learn more about Dr. Kulldorff and his work by following his Twitter! Want to find out more about Michael and his research? Click here to view his Stanford profile, and here to purchase his latest book! Take advantage of a 5% discount on Ekster accessories by using the code FINDINGGENIUS. Enhance your style and functionality with premium accessories. Visit bit.ly/3uiVX9R to explore latest collection. Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/30PvU9

Hi everyone,In this episode, Aaron Kheriaty and I discuss our involvement in the Missouri versus Biden case, which challenges the government's censorship pressures on social media companies. We discuss the censorship we personally experienced and the discovery of government involvement in the censorship. We also discuss the media blackout surrounding the case and the role of legacy media in supporting censorship. The episode concludes with a discussion of the Supreme Court oral arguments and the justices' positions. The conversation delves into the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case challenging government censorship on social media platforms. The speakers analyze the questions and comments made by the justices and provide insights into their potential rulings. They highlight the importance of the case in protecting free speech and the potential impact on public health. We also discuss the issue of entanglement between the government and social media companies and the need to define the threshold for censorship. The speakers express optimism that the case will result in a significant victory for free speech.Takeaways* The Missouri versus Biden case challenges the government's censorship of social media companies and the discovery of government involvement in the censorship.* The preliminary injunction against the Biden administration is a significant step in protecting free speech rights.* There has been a deliberate media blackout surrounding the case, likely due to the economic interests of legacy media and their desire to suppress competition.* The Supreme Court oral arguments revealed different positions among the justices, with some showing support for the plaintiffs' arguments and others questioning standing and direct government action.* The outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for free speech rights in the digital age. The Supreme Court oral arguments in the case challenging government censorship on social media platforms were analyzed.* The potential rulings of the justices were discussed, with a focus on the importance of protecting free speech and the potential impact on public health.* The issue of entanglement between the government and social media companies was highlighted, along with the need to define the threshold for censorship.* The speakers expressed optimism that the case will result in a significant victory for free speech.Sound Bites:* "The government had essentially set up what he called an Orwellian ministry of truth."* "This is the worst free speech violation in United States history."* "Throttle everything that's positive about Great Barrington Declaration."Chapters00:00Introduction and Personal Experiences with Censorship06:15The Scope and Impact of Censorship09:42Government Influence on Social Media Companies10:27The July 4th Ruling and Constitutional Violations11:30Discovery and Shocking Revelations12:11Subtle Forms of Censorship13:17The Circuit Court's Ruling and Third-Party Censorship14:13Government Cutouts and Censorship15:23The Supreme Court Case and Tea Leaves16:46The Appeals Court and Preliminary Injunction17:26Media Coverage and Economic Interests18:19Misinformation and Perception of the Case20:03The Supreme Court Case and Expectations24:55The Twitter Files and Reporting26:52The Role of Legacy Media and Censorship28:59The ACLU and Professional Medical Societies32:33The Supreme Court Experience and Observations36:21 Reading the Tea Leaves: Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson39:16 Concerning Justices and Compelling State Interest41:46 The Purpose of the First Amendment42:39 Hypothetical Situation43:44 Contempt for the General Population46:00 Government's Spread of Misinformation46:47 Illusion of Consensus47:29 Government's Right to Free Speech48:56 Censorship vs. Speech49:26 Government's Misinformation51:48 Government's Persuasion53:24 Section 230 and Liability Protection55:21 Power Dynamics and Threats58:27 Potential Supreme Court Ruling01:00:48 Impact of Winning or Losing01:07:31 Importance of Free Speech This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

In this conversation, AJ Kay discusses her early experiences with writing about COVID-19 and the backlash she faced for challenging the mainstream narrative. She shares how her essay on Medium, titled 'The Curve is Already Flat,' was censored and demonetized, leading to the formation of the Rational Ground group. AJ also talks about the impact of school closures on her children, particularly her daughter with autism and her other daughter with special needs. She highlights the loss of services and support that these children relied on and the detrimental effects of isolation and disrupted routines. The conversation highlights the importance of early intervention and support for children with special needs. They express concern for children diagnosed in 2020 who did not receive in-person help for three years, emphasizing the critical period of neuroplasticity in early childhood.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background01:16 Early COVID Essays06:37 Censorship on Medium08:03 Formation of Rational Ground22:30 Motivation to Speak Out25:49 Transition to Zoom School31:32 Impact on Children with Special Needs34:16 Lack of In-Person Help for Children with Special Needs39:51 The Effect on College Students45:36 The Purpose of Life and the Importance of Relationships52:55 The Great Barrington Declaration and Consent58:29The Critique of the Great Barrington Declaration01:00:54 The Inhumane Treatment in Nursing HomeTakeaways* AJ K. faced censorship and deplatforming for challenging the mainstream narrative on COVID-19.* The Rational Ground group was formed as a response to the censorship and aimed to provide a platform for independent writers and researchers.* School closures had a significant impact on children with special needs, depriving them of essential services and support.* The isolation and disrupted routines caused by the pandemic had detrimental effects on the mental health and well-being of children. Early intervention and support are crucial for the development of children with special needs.* The period of neuroplasticity in early childhood is finite, and the lack of in-person help during the pandemic may have long-term consequences for children's outcomes.* College closures and isolation measures have had negative effects on young adults' socialization and well-being.* The trade-off between safety and the loss of important relationships and experiences raises questions about the purpose of protection. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

In this episode, Lisa welcomes back Dr. Martin Kulldorff to discuss his firing from Harvard and the disagreement over vaccine mandates. He highlights the importance of infection-acquired immunity and argues against vaccine mandates for those who have already had COVID-19. The conversation also covers the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for better protection of high-risk individuals and opposed lockdown measures. Dr. Kulldorff emphasizes the harms of lockdowns on mental health, cancer screenings, and overall public health. He expresses concern about the erosion of trust in science and the need for open debate and freedom of speech. Subscribe now to the Truth with Lisa Boothe - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Lisa welcomes back Dr. Martin Kulldorff to discuss his firing from Harvard and the disagreement over vaccine mandates. He highlights the importance of infection-acquired immunity and argues against vaccine mandates for those who have already had COVID-19. The conversation also covers the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for better protection of high-risk individuals and opposed lockdown measures. Dr. Kulldorff emphasizes the harms of lockdowns on mental health, cancer screenings, and overall public health. He expresses concern about the erosion of trust in science and the need for open debate and freedom of speech. Subscribe now to the Truth with Lisa Boothe - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist who along with Professor Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, "arguing for age-based focused protection instead of universal lockdowns, with specific suggestions for how better to protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives.” He discusses being fired at Harvard, his 1A case being heard at the SCOTUS, writing the Great Barrington Declaration, and much more. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE LIKE AND SHARE THIS PODCAST!!!    Video Version of Show Rumble- https://rumble.com/v4j9v7x-coffee-and-a-mike-episode-771-with-dr.-martin-kulldorff-the-truth-got-him-f.html   Follow Dr. Kulldorff Twitter- https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Great Barrington Declaration- https://gbdeclaration.org/ Article- https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramples-the-truth   Follow Me Twitter/X- https://twitter.com/CoffeeandaMike Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/coffeeandamike/ Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/CoffeeandaMike/ Truth Social- https://truthsocial.com/@coffeeandamike Gettr- https://gettr.com/user/coffeeandamike Rumble- https://rumble.com/search/all?q=coffee%20and%20a%20mike Apple Podcasts- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coffee-and-a-mike/id1436799008     Support My Work Venmo- https://venmo.com/code?user_id=3570365208987017385&created=1658667789.4661531&printed=1 Website- www.coffeeandamike.com Email- info@coffeeandamike.com

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. On the podcast we discuss life since we last spoke 2 years ago, how to restore faith in public health, his historic 1A case being heard by SCOTUS on March 18,  being named in the Twitter files, meeting with Elon Musk, having dinner with Thomas Sowell and much more. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE LIKE AND SHARE THIS PODCAST!!! Video Version of Show Rumble- https://rumble.com/v4hj3rx-coffee-and-a-mike-episode-762-with-dr.-jay-bhattacharya-train-of-death.html   Follow Dr. Jay Twitter- https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Substack- https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ Great Barrington Declaration- https://gbdeclaration.org/   Follow Me Twitter/X- https://twitter.com/CoffeeandaMike Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/coffeeandamike/ Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/CoffeeandaMike/ Truth Social- https://truthsocial.com/@coffeeandamike Gettr- https://gettr.com/user/coffeeandamike Rumble- https://rumble.com/search/all?q=coffee%20and%20a%20mike Apple Podcasts- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coffee-and-a-mike/id1436799008     Support My Work Venmo- https://venmo.com/code?user_id=3570365208987017385&created=1658667789.4661531&printed=1 Website- www.coffeeandamike.com Email- info@coffeeandamike.com  

A contrarian doctor “just asking questions.” Super reasonable. Certainly not anti-vax, just a regular guy who grievance-mongers about quarantine measures and mocks people afraid of long Covid. Vinay Prasad cuts a different type of figure on the conspiracy-influencer stage. He fits right in with his pal, the charismatic guru-esque Dr. Zubin Damania, and might just pop up in your YouTube feed alongside Andrew Huberman and Peter Attia. Prasad demands unrealistic randomized controlled trial data for everything on his podcast, including protecting ICU patients from Covid via visiting restrictions. Who's volunteering for that control group?! Julian sits down with returning guest, Dr. Jonathan Howard, the author of We Want Them Infected. They talk about Prasad (among others) who play a sensationalist science-distortion role in the digital economy and their connections to libertarian think tanks like AIER (architects of the Great Barrington Declaration) and Brownstone Institute—who's founder, Jeffrey Tucker, wants to repeal laws around child labor and underage smoking. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a fantastic week for people finally standing up. There are 3,000 doctors who are suing the Biden regime, saying that they should not be forced to chemically and surgically mutilate children. And, there are climate scientists who are standing up and are calling for more carbon dioxide. The Surgeon General of Florida is finally calling out the human DNA of the injections. We also talk about the bad news. In 2020, an international consulting firm predicted that in 2025 there would be a 60% decrease in population in counties such as the US and the UK. We talk about this prediction and why it disappeared from the firm's website as it seems to now be coming true. And, I will avail you of evidence that the CDC's official position in March of 2020 on viruses and responses was nearly the same as the Great Barrington Declaration's.What does God's Word say? Psalm 30:1-5I will exalt you, Lord, for you lifted me out of the depths and did not let my enemies gloat over me.2 Lord my God, I called to you for help, and you healed me.3 You, Lord, brought me up from the realm of the dead; you spared me from going down to the pit.4 Sing the praises of the Lord, you his faithful people; praise his holy name.5 For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime;weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.Episode 1,314 Links:USA Boxing to allow transgender women to compete against female boxers under certain conditions from 2024 after introducing new policyThousands of Doctors Take Legal Action Against Transgender Mandate; 3,000 doctors are suing the Biden administration to avoid being forced to give children ‘gender-affirming' care, including hormone therapy drugs and surgeryClimate Scientists Say We Should Embrace Higher CO2 Levels; While governments pour billions of dollars into lowering CO2 emissions, several climate experts say CO2 is essential and higher levels are not a problem.Scientists are warning that a new COVID strain will cause a global “heart failure pandemic,” prompting much skepticism.Deagel's Depopulation Forecast confirmed by Heavily Censored Pfizer DocumentsFrancis Collins admits Public Health is irrevocably brokenFrancis Collins Doubles Down on the COVID Vaccine Reducing TransmissionFrancis Collins Says The Great Barrington Declaration Tried to 'Short Circuit' the Science: 'I Don't Regret Saying It Was Dangerous, It Was'Making Devils; find these narrative mechanisms and ruthlessly cut them downFlorida Surgeon General believes when real truth comes out on COVID vaccines, Pfizer will cease to exist…America's COVID Response Was Based on LiesAlan's Soaps https://alanssoaps.com/TODD Use coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price. Bioptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/todd Use promo code TODD for 10% off your order.. Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/todd Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions. Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com) Get your FREE copy of Common Cents Investing at Know Your Risk Radio .com or call 866-779-RISK. SOTA Weight Loss https://sotaweightloss.com SOTA Weight Loss is, say it with me now, STATE OF THE ART! GreenHaven Interactive Digital Marketing https://greenhaveninteractive.com Your Worldclass Website Will Get Found on Google!