Ep 236 | Meet the ‘Fringe Epidemiologist’ Running the NIH | Guest: Jay Bhattacharya - Kibbe on Liberty

Summary

Kibbe on Liberty – Episode 236: Meet the ‘Fringe Epidemiologist’ Running the NIH with Jay Bhattacharya

Release Date: April 2, 2025 | Host: Matt Kibbe | Guest: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

1. Introduction and Background

In the opening segment, Matt Kibbe welcomes listeners to a compelling episode featuring Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a notable libertarian economist and the newly appointed director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Kibbe highlights Bhattacharya's controversial past, referencing footage from his series "The COVID Up" and the ironic twist of Bhattacharya, once labeled a "fringe epidemiologist" by former NIH head Francis Collins, now occupying the top position at the NIH.

Matt Kibbe [00:00]: "Kibbe on Liberty is a weekly podcast... featuring Dr. Jay Bhattacharya... he was just confirmed as the new director of the National Institutes of Health."

2. The Great Barrington Declaration and Fringe Label

The conversation delves into the origins and repercussions of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document advocating for focused protection over widespread lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya recounts how Francis Collins, the then-head of the NIH, dismissed him and his colleagues as "fringe epidemiologists" shortly after the Declaration's release.

Jay Bhattacharya [01:31]: "The Great Barrington Declaration... told the world that there was not actually a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown."

Martin Kulldorff [01:06]: "He called the three of us fringe epidemiologists."

This label spurred a significant backlash, leading to a concentrated effort to discredit the Declaration's premises. Despite the criticism, the Declaration amassed support from thousands globally, challenging the prevailing lockdown strategies endorsed by prominent institutions and officials like Tony Fauci.

3. Decline in COVID-19 Case Fatality Rates and Presidential Response

Adam Creighton introduces a pivotal moment where his analysis of declining COVID-19 case fatality rates gained national attention. He shared a graph in July 2020 demonstrating a significant drop in deaths over time, which President Trump showcased to the nation the following day.

Adam Creighton [05:38]: "President Trump is showing my graph to the entire country... and then when I got to visit with President Trump in the Oval Office..."

This meeting underscored the administration's reliance on specific scientific narratives to justify lockdown measures. Creighton recounts Trump's inquiry about saving lives through lockdowns, to which he had to respond that the projected numbers were exaggerated.

Adam Creighton [07:34]: "He [President Trump] asked me if he'd saved 2 million lives by locking down in March... But 2 million people didn't die."

4. Government Influence and Censorship During the Pandemic

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the alleged government overreach and censorship during the pandemic. The guests criticize the collaboration between national security agencies and public health institutions in managing information, suggesting a suppression of dissenting scientific voices.

Adam Creighton [18:08]: "The censorship apparatus is almost certainly... Why are they involved in Covid Censorship?"

Scott Atlas [19:33]: "The apparatus includes the FBI... telling social media companies what to censor and who to censor."

This collaboration extended to various government bodies, including the CDC, Surgeon General's office, and the White House, creating an environment where alternative scientific perspectives were marginalized. The guests argue that this suppression was detrimental to public discourse and effective pandemic management.

5. Call for Accountability and Transparency in Pandemic Response

The panel emphasizes the necessity for a thorough and unbiased investigation into the pandemic response. They advocate for a Covid commission independent of the decision-makers involved, ensuring that diverse scientific opinions are considered in understanding what transpired.

Martin Kulldorff [22:34]: "We are owed a real Covid commission... to invite outside scientists in that were critical of decisions to ask questions."

Jay Bhattacharya [23:41]: "We're owed transparency. We're owed an honest discussion so we can do our own evaluation."

The discussion highlights the failures in governance and the importance of learning from past mistakes to prevent future crises, drawing parallels to how aviation disasters are investigated thoroughly to improve safety.

6. Speculations on Biosecurity and National Security Implications

Towards the episode's conclusion, the conversation shifts to the theoretical origins of the pandemic response strategies, touching upon controversial topics such as gain-of-function research and biosecurity measures. The guests speculate on the intertwined nature of civilian and military applications in managing biological threats, raising concerns about the ethical and safety implications of such collaborations.

Scott Atlas [21:29]: "Maybe the truth is stranger than fiction... this hubris at the center of it, this idea that we can control nature."

Martin Kulldorff [24:32]: "It's impossible to say unless there's some openness and clarity from the government around this."

These speculations underscore the overarching theme of mistrust in governmental transparency and the critical need for informed public discourse on biosecurity policies.

Conclusion

The episode of Kibbe on Liberty with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya offers a critical examination of the U.S. pandemic response, highlighting issues of scientific dissent, government censorship, and the imperative for accountability. Through engaging discussions and poignant quotes, the guests advocate for a more transparent and inclusive approach to public health policy, urging listeners to question established narratives and seek comprehensive understanding.

Notable Quotes:

Jay Bhattacharya [01:31]: "The Great Barrington Declaration... told the world that there was not actually a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown."
Adam Creighton [07:34]: "He [President Trump] asked me if he'd saved 2 million lives by locking down in March... But 2 million people didn't die."
Martin Kulldorff [22:34]: "We are owed a real Covid commission... to invite outside scientists in that were critical of decisions to ask questions."
Scott Atlas [21:29]: "Maybe the truth is stranger than fiction... this hubris at the center of it, this idea that we can control nature."

For more insightful conversations and to support Kibbe on Liberty, visit freethepeople.org.

Transcript

Matt Kibbe (0:00)

Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. This week I'm Talking Again with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, featuring a bunch of unseen footage from my series, the COVID Up. It's relevant because he was just confirmed as the new director of the National Institutes of Health. And in this episode, you'll learn the sweet karma of being labeled a fringe epidemiologist by the former head of the nih. Now Jay is in that chair. It's going to be awesome. Check it out. Welcome to Kibby on Liberty.

Jay Bhattacharya (1:04)

Four days after we wrote the Declaration.

Martin Kulldorff (1:06)

Wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling.

Jay Bhattacharya (1:08)

Me a fringe epidemiologist.

Martin Kulldorff (1:09)

I think I shared a card with you.

Scott Atlas (1:11)

I have your fringe epidemiologist business card here.

Martin Kulldorff (1:14)

A friend of mine made up. I'm going to put that on my grave. It says fringe epidemiology on it. A friend of mine made that up for me. Then he called for a devastating takedown of the premises of the Declaration.

Jay Bhattacharya (1:31)

When we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. This is October of 2020. Four days after he wrote it, the head of the NIH, Francis Collins, National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling the three primary authors, me, Sinatra Gupta and Martin Koldorff. He called it the three of us fringe epidemiologists. I mean, it's. Well, whatever, I'll just leave that aside, right?

Scott Atlas (1:56)

Stanford, Harvard, Stanford, fringe institutions.

Jay Bhattacharya (2:01)

The thing is, that's why he wrote that email. And then he called for a devastating published takedown of the premises of the Declaration. He wrote that email because the institutions from which we wrote, Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, threatened him and his lockdown strategy. It threatened his underling, Tony Fauci's strategy. When we wrote the Declaration, almost hundreds of thousands of regular people signed onto it. People sent in from around the world. They sent us translations of the documents, a page document you can go look at online, see if you find it controversial. And they sent US translations into 30 different languages. Almost immediately, we got tens of thousands of scientists and epidemiologists signing on. What the great branch of Declaration did, the reason why it was important is not actually the ideas in it. The ideas in it are as old as the hills. The reason it was important is because it told the world that there was not actually a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown. And the lockdown strategy we adopted, and that's why Tony Fauci and Francis Collins acted the way they did. That was the threat. It undermined the illusion that there was a consensus around this lockdown and they couldn't abide that this goes back to your point about Hayek and decentral. I mean, I'm just trying to imagine what Hayek would have made of the interchange between Rand Paul and Tony Fauci in the Senate, where very famously Tony Fauci's response to Rand Paul was, look, if you're criticizing me, you're, you're not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing science itself or something very close to that. I mean, in a sense, it's like this la science, c'est moi, like the Louis XIV kind of moment. For a science bureaucrat, the arrogance is almost unbelievable. And the Great Barrington Declaration, what it did is it punctured that arrogance because it said, look, there are a lot of prominent, well known, completely reasonable, not actually fringe scientists who don't like the strategy you've adopted, who think that the strategy of adopters was an enormous mistake. And that's why you saw this smearing campaign. And they're very effective at that. I started getting calls from reporters asking me why I wanted to let the virus rip. I never said those words. I never even thought those words. It's not in the Great Barrington Declaration. It's a piece of propaganda designed to destroy the credibility of anyone who says it. Because my primary goal is to save life, right? Protect vulnerable populations. The key tenet of the plan of the great brain deduction is focused protection of the old. How is that letting the virus rip? And then there's this sort of demonization of the idea of herd immunity, as if it's some sort of weird conspiracy theory or strategy, when in fact it's just a biological fact. This pandemic ends when there's sufficient immunity in the population. It's not. Now, what we know is that that kind of immunity doesn't protect you from getting the disease over again. What it does, it'll be more like the other coronaviruses, where you can get them over again, but you don't get severely ill, right? So I think that idea that herd immunity is a strategy, they use that as a propaganda tool against in favor of lockdown, as if somehow the endpoint of lockdown strategies also hurt immunity.