Can Jay Bhattacharya bring much-needed transparency to NIH? Improve the quality of the poor inept science NIH is known for? Bring high-quality trustworthy transparent research? I think he can, I hope!

I write as a former senior Trump advisor at HHS; Decent article by Andrew Noymer; truth be told, Jay and I have serious differences on the Malone mRNA vaccine for I disagree vehemently with him that

it was beneficial in seniors, and he advocated it for seniors. I disagreed. IMO and all I know and have seen, seniors were never candidates for this Malone et al. mRNA death shot because they were not in the inclusion selection criteria in the legacy Pfizer and Moderna trials, and seniors as Jay would know are immuno-senescenced (declined, flat due to aging) and as such have no immune system (optimal) and CANNOT make immune memory. I have seen no comparative effectiveness research, no clinical evidence that seniors benefitted in any manner from the mRNA vaccines, as they do not benefit in any manner from the failed corrupted influenza vaccine year over year. It is a scam. Outrageous, dangerous one at that. Put a pin in the flu shot for a moment.

Back to HERD immunity. This is why we keep seniors away from pathogen and we, the low-risk population (as part of a HERD immunity strategy which is the optimal one) are used to be exposed to pathogen naturally and harmlessly ALWAYS and we get infected as part of day to day living, naturally, harmlessly, not deliberately, then recover, and develop natural immunity. We get to HERD immunity (that point where there is no effective transmission of infection, note recent discussions by Yeadon about the extent of infectious pathogen being transmitted aerosolized, fascinating, provocative and maybe accurate but put a pin there too) by breaking the chain of transmission and the COVID Malone et al. mRNA transfection shot failed to do this, was ineffective, plunged to negative efficacy and effectiveness, and was non-sterilizing out of the gate (did not stop infection or transmission) and as such could never have gotten us to HERD (less than 1 person infected by an infected person). The mRNA shots should have never ever been mandated. It was DOA.

As such, we needed infants, young kids, teens, young adults, middle aged, all ages who were healthy, with no medical conditions, to naturally be exposed and develop natural immunity (our innate immune and acquired adaptive as well as complement) if we were to tame COVID, and that is, IF, COVID coronavirus was even real to begin with. I have argued we could actually be dealing with a chemical, toxin, poison etc. That caused ILI pulmonary respiratory type symptoms in high-risk persons and killed some, but as we know today, 95% of all deaths were due to the devastating medical system abuse and response and management of our high-risk (and even low-risk persons) via catastrophic crushing isolation especially of elderly, dislocation, denial of antibiotics for bacterial pneumonia secondary to any viral issue (the greatest killer in the Spanish Flu of 1918 and possible over prescribing and use of newly discovered aspirin, toxic dose levels then), denial of potentially effective therapeutics (anti-infectives, aspirin, anti-coagulants for clotting etc.), dehydration, malnourishment of granny, powerful potent sedatives like lorazepam, fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, dia-morphine etc., DNR orders (do not resuscitate), deadly kidney and liver toxic ‘standard of care’ Remdesivir (Mengele Fauci’s baby), and the deadly ventilator that blew holes in granny’s lungs, killed her, caused ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

We, with our natural immunity, are then the ones who protect the elderly via HERD immunity. We are the Hadrian’s Wall so to speak, immunologically, as we strengthen the immunological battlefield. Basic immunology 101, and this I was pilloried for by moron imbecile at CNN Gupta and the other ass licker medical doctors and media who knew I was correct. But they had to make $$$ and help with the lockdowns and the crime and fraud of the PCR-manufactured fake COVID, so attacked me. But look today, I was right, they are and were wrong. Put a pin in that for a moment.

I continue to have deep scientific technical differences with Jay on the pandemic response even with the GBD, some aspects, yet and certainly with his view of the Malone Bourla Bancel Sahin Weissman et al. mRNA vaccine. IMO it should have never been brought, and no one was a candidate for the mRNA, highly unsafe, then and now and must be 100% pulled from market one hour after POTUS Trump is sworn in. Even his GBD if it was to be applied, has no room for any vaccine. It should have had room for some therapeutics but that is for debate. It, mRNA vaccine, was deadly, unsafe and all involved knew it. Any public health crisis can be tamed with precaution, moderation, common sense and first always protecting the vulnerable. Allowing all else to live normal lives.

Two of the greatest public health disasters happened under POTUS Trump and expanded under POTUS Biden, namely the disastrous failed OWS lockdown lunacy policies and the deadly Malone et al. mRNA vaccine. I make no excuse for POTUS Trump for I know he is a good man, loves his nation and flag and sought to do the best thing re COVID. He was fooled, misled, deceived by Fauci and Birx (it was their lockdown policy) and his Task Force of inept specious intellectually lazy and academically sloppy Madmen and Women, save IMO Giroir. Atlas was the only person save me worth weight in gold, with Navarro. Fighting NIH, FDA, CDC, Fauci et al. behind the scenes. Put a pin in that too. For a moment.

I am friends with Jay and like him, a decent human being, a serious man, father, husband, scientist. I admire him. Greatly. As I do Martin Kulldorff (good friend, a giant intellect) and Sunetra Gupta. As I do Scott Atlas, a colleague when I was at HHS as a senior advisor, and he advised 47. But we, Jay and I, disagree on the Malone et al. mRNA vaccine, and I am more in line with his Stanford colleague, Dr. John Ioannidis (I am friends too with him, a genius, giant). I support Jay’s view on a pandemic response overall and IMO he knows HERD immunity and understands the cornerstone of it. I agree in large part with his views on lockdowns. Mine is never to be used, none of it. Yet COVID (whatever it was) was no pandemic, and we never had one, and put a pin in that for a moment.

It is Jay’s intellect, combined with his openness to listening to disparate, dissident, contrarian views that wins me over and especially those views that he may disagree with. It is indeed a basis for advancement. He does not want to silence anyone, he wants discrepant views, he seeks to learn, and to help, I know him, have spoken with him many times, and it is this that I admire. I will want him to stand up now as he is now silenced by the Trump orbit but put a pin in that for a moment. I will give Jay space to be confirmed and then to speak up and out. He I can work with. I will do what I can to help him! Improve NIH and thus help benefit America.

I do agree with the core thesis of Noymer here and print his words:

“I have seen Jay’s commitment to hearing diverse and disagreeing viewpoints. Jay is not one to try to muzzle a dissenting opinion.”

Jay Bhattacharya Will Bring Much-Needed Transparency to NIH | RealClearWire

‘Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – the Stanford professor who is President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for the directorship of the National Institutes of Health – will bring transparency to this government agency, which sorely needs it.

I am an odd person to write a piece supporting Jay Bhattacharya’s nomination to lead the NIH. During the pandemic, I disagreed with Jay on COVID response. Jay supported the Great Barrington Declaration, while I favored a more active and engaged public health response, broadly although not completely along the lines of what was actually done in the United States. At times our differences were fundamental, other times pragmatic. Nonetheless, the differences of opinion between Jay and me on this subject were deep.

I debated Jay over Zoom on the topic of pandemic response, so I am well aware of his views on COVID response, as he is of mine. Our debate was not archived but was roughly similar to the Munk Debate I did with Jay’s Stanford colleague, John Ioannidis, and the SoHo Forum debate I did with Jay’s Great Barrington collaborator, Martin Kulldorff. These discussions are dated now, but they still reflect deep intellectual rifts that were brought into sharp relief by COVID and the collective response to it.

What makes my endorsement of Jay all the more peculiar is that he and I still disagree on COVID response. I know because I had the chance to talk with Jay and others in October at a conference that he organized at Stanford, at which I served as a panelist. What’s more, Jay invited me to this conference knowing that his and my opinions on this subject continue to diverge. Here and in other examples, I have seen Jay’s commitment to hearing diverse and disagreeing viewpoints. Jay is not one to try to muzzle a dissenting opinion.

The most important outstanding item on the COVID agenda is: Where did SARS-CoV-2 – the virus that causes COVID – come from? The pursuit of this question is where Jay Bhattacharya and I have the most in common. I am on the advisory board of Biosafety Now, an organization dedicated to increasing transparency in high-risk experiments on pathogens with the capacity to harm people. Jay was, for a time, also involved with BN.

The stakes could not be higher: COVID killed 15 million people worldwide in 2020 and hasn’t stopped killing, although thankfully at a lower rate more recently. Tracing the origins of epidemics is one of the cornerstones of public health. This task is woven into its very fabric, even from before John Snow’s founding the science of epidemiology in the 19th century, through to the work of American pioneer Theobald Smith in the 20th century, and to the present day. There are a number of questions about COVID that may point to SARS-CoV-2 having leaked from a lab.

The NIH has not heretofore acted with enough transparency on COVID origins. It was a funder of gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Former NIH director Francis Collins and former director of NIAID (National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases), Anthony Fauci, were both major proponents of gain-of-function virology research, some of which is objectively dangerous enough to require the highest security (BSL-4) labs (think: labs inside an air lock and researchers in pressure suits). Grants from NIH in this area included funding the research of Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine.

However, NIH has not acted to shed light on its actions, and has even stonewalled Congress.

There is nothing inherently political about wanting to know where COVID comes from; it is a core function of epidemiology. It is virologists – not those in epidemiology who wish to get to the bottom of COVID origins – who have politicized the COVID origins debate. As one of my colleagues at the University of California, Irvine condescendingly scolded me via email in 2022: “Suggesting lab leaks or worse (without any real evidence) feeds into the right-wing, anti-China conspiracies promoted by the Trump administration.” Other virologists have shown a remarkable incuriosity: “What difference does it make where it [SARS-CoV-2] came from?” asked another one of my University of California, Irvine colleagues, at a conference here. It makes an enormous difference. To avoid a repeat of COVID, we need better regulation of gain-of-function virology, and full transparency about coronavirus research in the years leading up to the pandemic.

Jay Bhattacharya understands that the NIH budget is public money, and that every American is a stakeholder in research performed by NIH, including the grants it makes to external scientists. He and I had, and continue to have, deep disagreements about the public health response to COVID, but the most important task facing NIH at the moment is give the world a full account of its involvement in research on the bat viruses that are the ancestor of the COVID virus, so we can better understand how SARS-CoV-2 jumped into humans. Transparency is a principal (and principled) solution to lack of public trust in institutions. I am confident that Jay’s pursuit of transparency can restore public trust in NIH.’

___

You must not wait for another catastrophic crisis (at times manufactured but we are prevented from making our own basic personal decisions or accessing needed drugs and response tools) to catch you off-guard. We must take charge and be prepared today so that we can enjoy peace of mind tomorrow.

Enter the Wellness Company as a solution and a willing participant in the health care conversation. From telemedicine, prescriptions, memberships, and supplements, TWC is leading America with alternative choices to the traditional health care model.

If you wish to give a donation to help me, you can at:

Zelle:

sr7283@gmail.com

Or Ko-Fi

Ko-fi.com/drpauleliasalexander

Or to my address at:

150 South 8th Street

Unit 170

Lewiston, New York

14092

Alternatively, please consider going from an UNPAID subscriber or follower to a PAID at $5 per month or $30 per year. This can provide me help. If this is not possible at this time, this is ok, please remain a subscriber for FREE and there is no difference between FREE and PAID. No restrictions.

Please consider support of a good PATRIOT company (in this PATRIOT economy) Drs. McCullough, Risch, Thorp, myself support (they are our sponsors), The Wellness Company; see the emergency preparation kit (key component being antibiotics you were denied by doctors, pharmacists, governments during the fraud COVID), first aid kit, travel emergency kit, contagion control kit etc. Please consider the SPIKE SUPPORT (spike protein DETOX dissolving spike from mRNA vaccine, this is critical to remove spike form the mRNA vaccine/and DNA viral vector) formula with NATTOKINASE as well as the triple formula (SPIKE SUPPORT, BROMELAIN, CIRCUMIN)