Bhattacharya was censored, blacklisted, and vilified for the last four years due to his opposing views on health policy,<\/strong>\u00a0including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses. He was recently honored with the prestigious \u201cIntellectual Freedom\u201d award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters.<\/p>\n Before the pandemic, Bhattacharya was one of the most respected scientists in the world<\/strong>\u00a0and served as the director of Stanford\u2019s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.<\/p>\n That all changed when he dared to question the science behind pandemic policies,<\/strong>\u00a0including suggesting that natural immunity would be as good if not better protection for young healthy individuals.<\/p>\n It did not matter that positions once denounced as \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d have been recognized or embraced by many.<\/p>\n Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.<\/p>\n Others argued that the virus\u2019s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a \u201cdebunked\u201d coronavirus \u201cconspiracy theory<\/a>.\u201d The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called\u00a0any mention of the lab theory \u201cracist.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus \u2014 both positions were later recognized by the government.<\/p>\n Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science.<\/strong>\u00a0In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the rule \u201csort of just appeared\u201d and \u201cwasn\u2019t based on data.\u201d Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.<\/p>\n Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book,\u00a0\u201c<\/em>The Indispensable Right<\/em><\/a>,\u201d the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.<\/p>\n Now, those who supported these policies are gathering to oppose Bhattacharya.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is hardly surprising that one of the first hit pieces came from Scientific American. The magazine not only helped lead the mob response to the pandemic but has also been criticized for abandoning neutrality in recent elections.<\/p>\n Only a few weeks ago, editor-in-chief\u00a0Laura Helmuth posted a raving, profanity-laden meltdown<\/a>\u00a0on social media in which effectively called over 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump both \u201cfascists\u201d and bigots.<\/strong><\/p>\n Now the magazine has published an article by\u00a0Dr. Steven Albert<\/a>, a professor and the Hallen Chair of Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh\u2019s School of Public Health.<\/p>\n Two specific attacks stand out in the piece.<\/p>\n The \u201cPersonal Pique\u201d of Censorship<\/em><\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n First, Dr. Albert suggests that Dr. Bhattacharya was never actually censored. He insists that what Bhattacharya calls censorship was merely the fact that \u201csocial media venues \u2026 dropped his messaging.\u201d It is curious wording and it is not quite clear what Dr. Albert is trying to say.<\/p>\n When Albert\u2019s article appeared, various other outlets advanced the same claim. For example, MSNBC (which also was a leading outlet in the attacks on skeptics and dissenters during the pandemic)\u00a0mocked<\/a>\u00a0the claim that Bhattacharya was censored.<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem is there\u2019s basically zero evidence to support Bhattacharya and his supporters\u2019 claims of censorship. It is true that some internet sites appeared to remove or limit access to the document. But, as with medical professionals not being sure how best to handle Covid, the same was true of social media companies, which struggled with how best to handle the spread of potentially dangerous information that could have resulted in harm to users.<\/p>\n Many companies chose, of their own free will and as they were allowed as private actors, to downplay certain information that they felt might do more harm than good. That is their own First Amendment-protected right as private entities in the United States.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article goes on to suggest that there is no proof of censorship without government direction or control.<\/p>\n As the ACLU has long maintained, censorship occurs in both private and governmental forums. The same figures insist that, if there is no violation of the\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0<\/a>(which only applies to the government), there is no free speech violation. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it.\u00a0Free speech can be undermined<\/a>\u00a0by private corporations as well as government agencies.<\/p>\n There is also ample evidence of government officials pushing social media companies to censor pandemic critics. MSNBC simply excuses the censorship by saying that these companies \u201cstruggled with how best to handle the spread of potentially dangerous information that could have resulted in harm to users.\u201d In reality, the censorship itself cost the nation greatly. We never had the type of debate that we need on the efficacy of natural immunities, masks, or other precautions. We never explored the science supporting the six-foot rule. We suffered immense costs in education and the economy rather than allowing scientists on both sides to be heard equally on such forums.<\/p>\n Instead, Bhattacharya became a persona non grata in academia and was subjected to cancel campaigns. \u00a0In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how \u201cwe\u2019re living in an upside-down world\u201d because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while \u201cBhattacharya\u2019s name doesn\u2019t appear in the event announcement,\u201d he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled \u201cThe COVID lab leak claim isn\u2019t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Critics of Bhattacharya have also cited the fact that he retained his position, unlike some who were dropped by their institutions or associations. Survival is hardly the test of whether someone was censored or canceled.\u00a0 Bhattacharya holds a position with academic protections, as do some of us fortunate to have tenure in this age of rage. The fact that he persisted and the American people rejected the establishment in this election is not proof that he was not targeted or blocked from academic settings or social media sites.<\/p>\n Dr. Albert dismisses the censorship debate as a \u201cpersonal pique\u201d and \u201ca distraction\u201d that \u201cshould not obscure the central focus of U.S. public health policy during the pandemic.\u201d Obviously, for many of us who value free speech and a diversity of viewpoints, it is a bit more than a \u201cpersonal pique.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cVanity\u201d of Personal Autonomy<\/em><\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n The second point that stood out in the Scientific American article was the warning that Bhattacharya is too focused on individual rights and personal autonomy to be the head of NIH. Dr. Albert declares:<\/p>\n \u201cPitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is a chilling observation from a leading public health figure. NIH leadership suggests policies impacting a nation and must balance the costs and benefits of any given course. The NIH\u00a0states<\/a>\u00a0that it is focused not just on \u201cscientific integrity\u201d but \u201cpublic accountability and social responsibility in the conduct of science.\u201d Isn\u2019t individual rights part of that responsibility?<\/p>\n I would hope that the head of NIH (indeed every NIH official) would place individual rights and personal autonomy as one of the most prominent considerations in setting policies.policy-making Indeed, the NIH\u00a0routinely discusses<\/a>\u00a0and publishes papers on the importance of personal autonomy when discussing subjects like abortion.<\/p>\n These two points are linked on some level. The nation was divided on many COVID policies, and doubts only grew with the censorship and intolerance that was evident during the pandemic.\u00a0The NIH contributed to that mistrust with its heavy-handed tactics and viewpoint intolerance.\u00a0<\/strong>One of the victims of that period will now head the NIH. That experience could be invaluable as Dr. Bhattacharya steers his agency toward a more transparent and tolerant path.<\/p>\n *\u00a0 *\u00a0 *<\/p>\n Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of \u201c<\/em>The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage<\/em><\/a>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.zerohedge.com\/s3fs-public\/inline-images\/image%20-%202024-12-29T082240.123.jpg?itok=1oe9DdQS\")
<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n