All good and well but until the liars are punished and convicted and justice is delivered then nothing changes. The Democrats will regain power someday and they will let the demons out again.
Accountability matters ā no argument there. But I'd say this: the fact that Bhattacharya is now running the NIH, that the lab leak went from "misinformation" to Senate testimony, that Fauci had to answer questions under oath ā none of that was inevitable. It happened because people refused to shut up. The structural changes Dr. B is making now are designed to outlast any single administration. That's the real play.
I appreciate those thoughts and why they are important unless there is real consequences the next guy will just do it again because there is zero personal risk. A couple incarcerated or worse Bureaucrats would go a long way to reestablishing trust in the Government which there is zero today.
Let's see if it turns to reality. I hope Dr B also makes changes at the NIH that make it take much longer for it to go sour again. I have no idea what that looks like but I assume Dr B will need congress to pass laws as well Dr. B to making changes to how research is funded and completed, success criteria are defined, departments are organized, etc.
That said, having been just smart enough to follow along over these years but not smart enough to help in any meaningful way, I appreciate your (and others) part in this *very* much.
Thank you, Bill ā genuinely. And don't sell yourself short. Following along, staying informed, sharing what you learn with people around you ā that IS helping. That's how the Overton window moved on all of this.
On the structural question: you're right that Congress matters. But Dr. B can do a lot administratively ā reforming how grants are awarded, ending the revolving door between NIH program officers and the journals they fund, restoring the firewall between funding decisions and political pressure. The DOGE-style transparency push is a start. If the funding process itself becomes more open, it gets much harder for a small group to hijack the entire research apparatus again.
That's a big ask ā and an important one. The short version: the original clinical trials were too short and too small to catch rare but serious adverse events. We now have years of post-market data, VAERS signals, and peer-reviewed studies documenting myocarditis (especially in young men), neurological events, and other injuries at rates well above what was initially disclosed. The "safe and effective" framing was always a marketing line, not a scientific conclusion. I've covered pieces of this across several posts ā and Dr. Bhattacharya's NIH may finally be the institution willing to fund the comprehensive study we should have had from day one.
This. "He also dropped this data bomb: autism rates have exploded from 1 in 10,000 children in 1985 to 1 in 31 today. (Thatās not a rounding error.)"
It's also not the result of "looking harder and widening the definition" despite what (I am sure) will be the refrain from vaccine hucksters and their bought-and-paid-for sycophants. I look forward to a time when the work of people who earlier wondered about the links between vaccines and autism sees the light of day. Dr. B's testimony gives me hope.
The autism data Dr. Bhattacharya highlighted is indeed staggering. It's becoming harder for the establishment to dismiss these shifts as merely "better screening" when the trend lines are this vertical. Jay's leadership at the NIH is the first real chance we've had for an honest, data-first inquiry into these environmental factors. Glad you found hope in the testimony.
VAERS results revealed mRNA adverse reactions much more often than longer used vaccines. Moderna did trash thousands of unused covid shots in ā25 as underutilized and expired product.
The VAERS signal was screaming from early 2021 and they spent years dismissing it as reporting bias. The Moderna write-off tells you everything about where public trust actually landed -- not where the CDC said it was. When even the manufacturer cant give the product away, the market has rendered its verdict.
All this means is that it is still full steam ahead for the vaccination schedule. No vaccine has been permanently removed. All that changed is a few recommendations. The big pharma controlled AAP will still instruct it's 67,000 members to carpet bomb every child with dozens of injections.
The vaccine machine has NOT been dismantled one iota. Newborns still get poisoned immediately after exiting the holy womb, parents call still inject their kids with every toxic vaccine on the planet (all 80 injections) and mRMA poisons are still readily promoted and available thanks to the HHS. Autism is alive and well as are big pharma profits...despite bourla and bancel crying in the rain.
GOF? Then why do we need hundreds of biolabs trying to create nasty things? Name me ONE positive to come out of any biolab that is a boon to the health of humanity. The HHS is planning for the next fake pandemic and it will be even more invasive, restricting and enforced. Be prepared and alert.
I hear you ā and I share the impatience. But I'd push back on 'nothing has changed.' Six months ago, the NIH director was defending the status quo. Now Bhattacharya has ended GOF funding, the vaccine schedule went from 17 to 11 recommended diseases, and the Kennedy administration is funding the first serious look at the schedule's cumulative effects. Perfect? No. But the Overton window has moved more in 12 months than it did in the previous 20 years. The biolabs question is the right one to keep pressing ā and now there are people in power willing to hear it.
Strange that Hawley seems to keep referring to gain of function research in wuhan and how important it was to to end. What about GoF research elsewhere?
Sharp observation. Wuhan gets the focus because that's where the paper trail leads ā EcoHealth, the grant applications, the specific experiments. But you're right that GoF research isn't unique to one lab. There are BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities doing enhanced pathogen research across the US, Europe, and Asia. The real policy question is whether we ban the methodology globally or just play whack-a-mole with individual labs. Bhattacharya has signaled he wants NIH out of the funding business for this kind of work entirely, which would be a start.
"Almost poetic" is exactly right. The man who was blacklisted by the institution now runs it. And the contrast in communication style is the tell ā when you've actually done the work and thought through the problems, you can answer questions plainly. The bureaucratic deflection was never about complexity; it was about concealment. Appreciate the kind words on the coverage.
Another point, likely obvious to many, but still worth noting is this. The authors of the GBD are *amazingly* humble. The first interview I saw of Dr. Sunetra Gupta shocked me in that regard. Not only was her intellect obvious, but her desire to follow the evidence, regardless of where it led, was just as evident. No grandstanding. Just flat, factual, pensive, sharing and communication. Dr. B is more of the same. In stark, but unsurprising, contrast, Dr. PFauci is a grandstanding shaman-wannabe. (The "P" is for Pfizer!) Anyway, I remain hopeful...
The humility point is underrated and deeply important. When you've actually done the hard intellectual work, you don't need to perform confidence ā you just present the evidence and let it speak. Sunetra, Jay, and Martin were all like that from day one. Fauci's grandiosity was always the tell that something was off. Real scientists say "here's what we know and what we don't." Showmen say "follow the science" and mean "follow me." The GBD authors never asked anyone to trust them ā they asked people to read the data. That's the difference.
All good and well but until the liars are punished and convicted and justice is delivered then nothing changes. The Democrats will regain power someday and they will let the demons out again.
Accountability matters ā no argument there. But I'd say this: the fact that Bhattacharya is now running the NIH, that the lab leak went from "misinformation" to Senate testimony, that Fauci had to answer questions under oath ā none of that was inevitable. It happened because people refused to shut up. The structural changes Dr. B is making now are designed to outlast any single administration. That's the real play.
I appreciate those thoughts and why they are important unless there is real consequences the next guy will just do it again because there is zero personal risk. A couple incarcerated or worse Bureaucrats would go a long way to reestablishing trust in the Government which there is zero today.
Let's see if it turns to reality. I hope Dr B also makes changes at the NIH that make it take much longer for it to go sour again. I have no idea what that looks like but I assume Dr B will need congress to pass laws as well Dr. B to making changes to how research is funded and completed, success criteria are defined, departments are organized, etc.
That said, having been just smart enough to follow along over these years but not smart enough to help in any meaningful way, I appreciate your (and others) part in this *very* much.
Thank you, Bill ā genuinely. And don't sell yourself short. Following along, staying informed, sharing what you learn with people around you ā that IS helping. That's how the Overton window moved on all of this.
On the structural question: you're right that Congress matters. But Dr. B can do a lot administratively ā reforming how grants are awarded, ending the revolving door between NIH program officers and the journals they fund, restoring the firewall between funding decisions and political pressure. The DOGE-style transparency push is a start. If the funding process itself becomes more open, it gets much harder for a small group to hijack the entire research apparatus again.
I would like a report on if the Covid vaccines were safe and effective, and ifcthey cause vaccine injuries and to what extent.
That's a big ask ā and an important one. The short version: the original clinical trials were too short and too small to catch rare but serious adverse events. We now have years of post-market data, VAERS signals, and peer-reviewed studies documenting myocarditis (especially in young men), neurological events, and other injuries at rates well above what was initially disclosed. The "safe and effective" framing was always a marketing line, not a scientific conclusion. I've covered pieces of this across several posts ā and Dr. Bhattacharya's NIH may finally be the institution willing to fund the comprehensive study we should have had from day one.
This. "He also dropped this data bomb: autism rates have exploded from 1 in 10,000 children in 1985 to 1 in 31 today. (Thatās not a rounding error.)"
It's also not the result of "looking harder and widening the definition" despite what (I am sure) will be the refrain from vaccine hucksters and their bought-and-paid-for sycophants. I look forward to a time when the work of people who earlier wondered about the links between vaccines and autism sees the light of day. Dr. B's testimony gives me hope.
The autism data Dr. Bhattacharya highlighted is indeed staggering. It's becoming harder for the establishment to dismiss these shifts as merely "better screening" when the trend lines are this vertical. Jay's leadership at the NIH is the first real chance we've had for an honest, data-first inquiry into these environmental factors. Glad you found hope in the testimony.
VAERS results revealed mRNA adverse reactions much more often than longer used vaccines. Moderna did trash thousands of unused covid shots in ā25 as underutilized and expired product.
The VAERS signal was screaming from early 2021 and they spent years dismissing it as reporting bias. The Moderna write-off tells you everything about where public trust actually landed -- not where the CDC said it was. When even the manufacturer cant give the product away, the market has rendered its verdict.
All this means is that it is still full steam ahead for the vaccination schedule. No vaccine has been permanently removed. All that changed is a few recommendations. The big pharma controlled AAP will still instruct it's 67,000 members to carpet bomb every child with dozens of injections.
The vaccine machine has NOT been dismantled one iota. Newborns still get poisoned immediately after exiting the holy womb, parents call still inject their kids with every toxic vaccine on the planet (all 80 injections) and mRMA poisons are still readily promoted and available thanks to the HHS. Autism is alive and well as are big pharma profits...despite bourla and bancel crying in the rain.
GOF? Then why do we need hundreds of biolabs trying to create nasty things? Name me ONE positive to come out of any biolab that is a boon to the health of humanity. The HHS is planning for the next fake pandemic and it will be even more invasive, restricting and enforced. Be prepared and alert.
I hear you ā and I share the impatience. But I'd push back on 'nothing has changed.' Six months ago, the NIH director was defending the status quo. Now Bhattacharya has ended GOF funding, the vaccine schedule went from 17 to 11 recommended diseases, and the Kennedy administration is funding the first serious look at the schedule's cumulative effects. Perfect? No. But the Overton window has moved more in 12 months than it did in the previous 20 years. The biolabs question is the right one to keep pressing ā and now there are people in power willing to hear it.
Strange that Hawley seems to keep referring to gain of function research in wuhan and how important it was to to end. What about GoF research elsewhere?
Sharp observation. Wuhan gets the focus because that's where the paper trail leads ā EcoHealth, the grant applications, the specific experiments. But you're right that GoF research isn't unique to one lab. There are BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities doing enhanced pathogen research across the US, Europe, and Asia. The real policy question is whether we ban the methodology globally or just play whack-a-mole with individual labs. Bhattacharya has signaled he wants NIH out of the funding business for this kind of work entirely, which would be a start.
"Almost poetic" is exactly right. The man who was blacklisted by the institution now runs it. And the contrast in communication style is the tell ā when you've actually done the work and thought through the problems, you can answer questions plainly. The bureaucratic deflection was never about complexity; it was about concealment. Appreciate the kind words on the coverage.
Another point, likely obvious to many, but still worth noting is this. The authors of the GBD are *amazingly* humble. The first interview I saw of Dr. Sunetra Gupta shocked me in that regard. Not only was her intellect obvious, but her desire to follow the evidence, regardless of where it led, was just as evident. No grandstanding. Just flat, factual, pensive, sharing and communication. Dr. B is more of the same. In stark, but unsurprising, contrast, Dr. PFauci is a grandstanding shaman-wannabe. (The "P" is for Pfizer!) Anyway, I remain hopeful...
The humility point is underrated and deeply important. When you've actually done the hard intellectual work, you don't need to perform confidence ā you just present the evidence and let it speak. Sunetra, Jay, and Martin were all like that from day one. Fauci's grandiosity was always the tell that something was off. Real scientists say "here's what we know and what we don't." Showmen say "follow the science" and mean "follow me." The GBD authors never asked anyone to trust them ā they asked people to read the data. That's the difference.