A Stanford medical professor is fighting the COVID industrial complex with new Academy of Science and Freedom. Following the effects of COVID-19 public initiatives, the new Academy of Science and Freedom aims to reestablish public confidence in medical treatment.
A new medical academy is being established by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a renowned professor of medicine and outspoken critic of the severe COVID-19 lockdown measures, in an effort to “restore the norm of free discussion within science” and combat the “COVID industrial complex.”
Dr. Bhattacharya is forming a new academy in collaboration with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, another co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as a direct reaction to the pervasive censorship experienced at the height of the COVID lockdowns.
“We have basically created an interest group to keep this pandemic going: the testing, the passports, the scanning… all of this has created a huge industry that keeps anxiety going,” in a recent interview, Dr. Battacharya noted and discussed the necessity of the academy.
Watch the video below:
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Dr. Bhattacharya’s fight against lockdown flaws
In 2020, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor of medicine and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, released medical research that upset the widely held belief that large scale lockdown and vaccination campaigns would stop the spread of COVID-19. As a result, he was censored and denounced by eminent scientific organizations.
The majority of Western countries followed these measures.
But Dr. Bhattacharya uncovered a strong group of “central funders of science” by writing and releasing his now-famous Great Barrington Declaration, which exposed the shortcomings of these national programs.
In a lengthy video interview, Dr. Bhattacharya spoke at length with Sunday Express Health and Social Affairs Editor Lucy Johnston and claimed that these central funders were “working very hard to take their ideas and exclude any scientists who disagree” from what they require science to prove.
Thus, a small number of individuals are permanently altering the way Western medicine is practiced.
Dr. Bhattacharya was able to see that science had changed from investigation, dissent, and inquiry for the sake of the truth to conformity and enforcement for public control as a result of the backlash that followed the publication of the Great Barrington Declaration.
‘Central control of science is bad for science’
“The place of science is never to dictate policy; it’s to inform policy,” Dr. Bhattacharya remarked in his interview with Johnston. The “old plan” of doing science “trusts the public,” Dr. Bhattacharya continued, in contrast to the new strategy, which succumbs to pressure from central funders.
“We have a public health that distrusts the public. And now the public distrusts public health,” he said. As a result of their newfound skepticism of public health specialists, Dr. Bhattacharya believes that people will reconsider being vaccinated.
“The voices at the table during the lockdowns were so limited,” Dr. Bhattacharya opined about the early reactions to the spread of COVID-19.
Only epidemiologists, immunologists, and virologists, he pointed out, were consulted, demonstrating that this was “too narrow a basis for which to design policy to affect billions of people.” Political leaders needed advice from economists, artists, philosophers, and “a vast array of expertise,” according to Dr. Bhattacharya, in order to correctly navigate a society’s reaction to an undiagnosed disease.
“Central control of science is bad for science,” asserted Dr. Bhattacharya. “You have to allow for dissent, even if it’s uncomfortable.”
Purpose of the new Academy
Dr. Bhattacharya has established the new Academy of Science and Freedom to restore genuine scientific research and accepted diversity of viewpoints.
The Academy of Science and Freedom was founded alongside Scott W. Atlas, M.D. of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D. of the Brownstone Institute with the goal of promoting the “old plan” of science, operating to inform – not try to enforce – public policy with scientifically sound studies.
“The moral basis for unanimity in messaging is solid science” Dr. Bhattacharya explained. “If public health is not built on solid science, it has no moral basis for unanimity in messaging. On the other hand, the norms in science itself involve dissent. If you remove all dissent, you’ll never get to good science.”
Dr. Bhattacharya cited the terrible failure of ideological science analysis in New York’s “scarce resources,” such as the unfortunate choice to place COVID patients in nursing homes. According to Dr. Bhattacharya, “the scarce resource was not hospital beds; it was the elderly.”
But, he continued, leadership had chosen universal agreement on an expedient solution over extensive scientific study, and very few experts dared to contradict New York’s leaders’ unwarranted focus on pairing COVID patients with the elderly. The result was disastrous.
“Fear blocked our ability to have a public discussion about what to do,” Dr. Bhattacharya observed, pondering on the nursing home deaths that occurred during the pandemic lockdowns. Rather, even when explanations were needed, scientists should have been “very honest about what is known and not known.”
For the purposes of action, Dr. Bhattacharya stated that specialists “came to this response that it was a moral imperative to suppress dissent.”
With school lockdowns, the same moral necessity was enforced once more. In this situation, though, COVID testing had evolved into something new, becoming “essentially a way to implement lockdown by stealth,” according to Dr. Bhattacharya.
He did, however, reiterate that school lockdowns were not based on sound science. “By October 2020, we knew that school lockdowns were not working, thanks to papers published by the Swedish Public Health Agency.” Leaders had urged action, forcing scientists to forego critical peer evaluations in favor of clear findings – even if those conclusions were void or incorrect.
With a depressing admission, Dr. Bhattacharya estimated the overall percentage effectiveness of the lockdowns at the schools. “If I had to put a number, I’d say zero [percent].”
COVID has created an ‘interest group’ intent on keeping the ‘pandemic going’
A “COVID industrial complex” had been developed, according to Bhattacharya, as a result of the concentration of all expert opinion within a small number of scientists who catered to political leaders with different agendas.
“We have basically created an interest group to keep this pandemic going: the testing, the passports, the scanning… all of this has created a huge industry that keeps anxiety going,” Dr. Bhattacharya concluded.
To put it another way, a new leadership class had emerged, complete with resources and political clout; there was no incentive for this group to swiftly relinquish their newfound power or to maintain it within the parameters of science.
Through the Academy of Science and Freedom, Dr. Bhattacharya aspires to start fully addressing these problems, which have had a significant influence on medical research’s reputation, trustworthiness, and fundamental honesty.
Dr. Bhattacharya’s new Academy of Science and Freedom, which is committed to decentralized research free of strong interest groups, will help heal medical practice overall, despite the enormous task at hand.
Dr. Bhattacharya claimed that despite the delayed progress of the work, everyone will benefit from it. “When you’ve harmed the lives of a billion people or more it’s very difficult to say, ‘Oops, I’m sorry.’”