Dr. Peter Hotez is a proxy for many other public health "experts" who got almost everything wrong. This is also an indictment of the many legacy news outlets that failed to do basic journalism and, instead, served as stenographers for US public health officials and Pharma. I'm patiently waiting for the numbers to actually come out, but I repeatedly wonder how many people died because this "vax," which was actually gene therapy, was pushed and coerced upon us.

In the following video, new director of the NIH, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explains the dangers of ALL mRNA products. Follow that link to learn of the many ways that Dr. Bhattacharya was mistreated by the US public health establishment during COVID. He was the voice of reason throughout COVID. Despite his courageous stands during COVID, he was called a "fringe epidemiologist" by Anthony Fauci.

Here are the ways he was punished [from GROK]:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, faced significant pushback from the U.S. public health establishment during the COVID-19 pandemic due to his criticism of lockdown policies and advocacy for "focused protection." Here are the key ways he was mistreated, based on available information:

Censorship and Blacklisting: Bhattacharya was reportedly placed on a Twitter "Trends blacklist" in August 2021, limiting the visibility of his posts, as revealed by the Twitter Files in 2022. He also faced censorship on other platforms, with Facebook removing a video of him discussing COVID policies in Florida and Google "deboosting" searches for the Great Barrington Declaration to prioritize critical content over the declaration itself.

Targeting by Public Health Officials: Former NIH Director Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, actively sought to discredit Bhattacharya. Collins emailed Fauci in October 2020, calling Bhattacharya a "fringe epidemiologist" and urging a "quick and devastating published takedown" of the Great Barrington Declaration. This set a tone for dismissing his views without engaging in substantive debate.

Academic Suppression: At Stanford, Bhattacharya's department chairman blocked his attempt to hold a seminar on the Great Barrington Declaration, and the dean of epidemiology circulated a petition to censor his speech on COVID. These actions stifled his ability to discuss his ideas within his academic community.

Personal Attacks and Misrepresentation: Bhattacharya received death threats and racist attacks following his public stance against lockdowns, particularly after the Wall Street Journal op-ed and the Santa Clara serology study in 2020. He was misrepresented as advocating to "let the virus rip," despite his proposal focusing on protecting vulnerable populations while allowing others to resume normal life.

Legal Battles Over Free Speech: Bhattacharya was a plaintiff in a 2024 Supreme Court case alleging that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to suppress his views on COVID policies. Although the court ruled he hadn’t demonstrated direct harm, the case highlighted the broader chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Professional Marginalization: The public health establishment, including the CDC and WHO, dismissed Bhattacharya’s ideas as dangerous or unscientific. For example, the WHO Director-General in October 2020 called herd immunity strategies "unethical," indirectly targeting the Great Barrington Declaration. This marginalization extended to legal settings, where courts, like one in Manitoba in 2021, noted that most experts did not support his views, undermining his credibility.

Despite this, Bhattacharya’s supporters argue he was vindicated, as lockdowns caused significant social and economic harm, and some critics, like Francis Collins, later admitted to a overly narrow focus in 2020. His nomination by President-elect Trump in 2024 to lead the NIH reflects a shift in recognition, though critics still question his fitness for the role, citing his contrarian stance.

The establishment’s response—prioritizing narrative control over open debate—likely amplified the mistreatment Bhattacharya experienced, reflecting a broader intolerance for dissent during the pandemic.

Bhattacharya's criticisms of public health extend to the the mRNA platform itself, a criticism that is increasingly being shared among those who are not financially captured by Pharma