As Dr. Jay Bhattacharya prepares for his upcoming confirmation, the stakes could not be higher—not just for him, but for the principles of academic freedom, scientific integrity, and governmental accountability. His confirmation would mark a turning point in restoring the credibility of public health institutions and ensuring that the lessons of the COVID-19 era are never forgotten.
Dr. Bhattacharya, a distinguished professor at Stanford University and a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, has been a consistent advocate for evidence-based policymaking, particularly in challenging the disastrous lockdown policies that defined much of the COVID-19 response. His voice was among the few that dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, and for that, he was smeared, censored, and even placed on government watchlists.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep flaws in the public health establishment, from the suppression of dissenting views to the reliance on flawed models that justified draconian restrictions. Dr. Bhattacharya’s career embodies what true scientific inquiry should be: an open debate grounded in empirical evidence, not dogma.
His research demonstrated that COVID-19, while serious, was overwhelmingly a threat to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. This was not a radical assertion; it was a simple, data-driven fact. Yet, public health bureaucrats, higher education elitists and media outlets painted him as a dangerous spreader of "misinformation" for merely advocating a more targeted approach.
Meanwhile, these same people celebrated Dr. Francis Collins, a former NIH Director, for repeatedly advocating lockdowns, including government-imposed restrictions like stay-at-home orders, business closures, and school shutdowns. He also strongly supported masking children 2 years or older. The videos you see of 2 year olds crying as teachers mask them over and over, or families being kicked off planes because their 2 year old refuses to wear a mask are largely because of Dr. Collins’ public support of masking children.
Recommended
Conversely, Dr. Bhattacharya did not blindly follow a fear-driven narrative. Instead, he consistently emphasized the costs of lockdowns—costs that have now been tragically validated.
The lockdowns not only failed to stop the virus but also caused immense collateral damage: learning loss among children, record levels of depression and suicide, economic devastation, and a collapse in routine healthcare services. He also consistently opposed masking children, arguing that the evidence for its effectiveness was weak and that it imposed unnecessary developmental and social costs. His voice of reason was ignored at the time, but his warnings have proven prescient.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Dr. Bhattacharya’s treatment during the pandemic was the extent to which he was actively censored by government agencies in coordination with Big Tech. Internal documents from the “Twitter Files” revealed that the White House and federal agencies pressured social media companies to suppress voices like his—scientists and doctors who dissented from the official narrative.
The suppression didn’t stop with Big Tech. Big Journals in academia got involved too. After Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, advocating "focused protection" of the vulnerable while allowing low-risk groups to resume normal life to build herd immunity, Science magazine published articles suggesting Bhattacharya’s plan underestimated deaths and dismissed evidence supporting lockdowns, portraying it as out of step with mainstream science. The tone implied Dr. Bhattacharya's approach was reckless, with Science emphasizing modelers’ consensus that extended restrictions saved more lives. Of course, real science has continued to show that lockdowns did much more harm than good.
This targeted suppression across domains should alarm anyone who believes in free speech and open inquiry. The government’s role in silencing experts who questioned its policies represents a direct assault on the very foundation of democracy. As a result, the American public’s trust in public health institutions, higher education and big academic journals has been severely damaged. This is not because of so-called "misinformation," but because these institutions failed the very people they were supposed to serve.
Dr. Bhattacharya’s confirmation is an opportunity to start rebuilding that trust. Unlike the bureaucrats who doubled down on their mistakes, he has always been willing to engage in open debate, admit when the data changes, and advocate for policies that balance risks with real-world consequences.
Moreover, his confirmation would send a clear message that experts who challenge official narratives should be heard, not silenced. The very essence of science is debate and discussion, not top-down dictates from unelected officials. If institutions are to regain credibility, they must embrace a diversity of perspectives rather than demonizing dissenters.
Dr. Bhattacharya’s confirmation is about more than just public health—it is a referendum on how we, as a society, handle expertise, dissent, and policy-making in times of crisis. The confirmation process will reveal whether we have learned from the past or whether we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes in the next emergency.
This is why his critics are so desperate to stop him. They know that his confirmation would be an indictment of the lockdown regime, including the bureaucrats, academic elites and big academic journal editors who enforced it. They understand that his appointment would open the door to long-overdue accountability. And they fear that his influence would inspire a new generation of scientists who refuse to bow to political pressure. Uncoincidentally, Dr. Francis Collins stepped down from his role at the NIH this week.
The debate over his confirmation is ultimately a battle between two competing visions of governance: one that values debate, transparency, and evidence-based policy versus one that demands obedience, censorship, and rule by an unaccountable elite.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s confirmation is not just necessary—it is essential. He represents the best of what scientific inquiry should be: skeptical, rigorous, and fearless in the face of pressure.
America needs leaders who are willing to tell the truth, even when it is unpopular. Dr. Bhattacharya has done that at great personal cost. Now, it is time for policymakers to reward his courage by confirming him without hesitation.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member