US President-elect Donald Trump has chosen health economist Dr Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institute of Health, the country's top health research and funding institution.
Trump, in a statement, said that Bhattacharya, the 56-year-old physician and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, will work closely with Trump's another high profile pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
With this, Bhattacharya becomes the first Indian-American to be nominated by Trump for a top administrative position. Jayanta Bhattacharya, who was born in Kolkata, moved to the United States for higher education. He earned a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in 1990, followed by a Doctor of Medicine (MD) in 1997, and a PhD in Economics in 2000, all from Stanford University.
Earlier, Trump picked Indian-American Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency along with Tesla owner Elon Musk. However, that is a voluntary position and does not need confirmation from the US Senate.
With a USD 48 billion budget and 27 distinct institutes and centres, each with its own research goal and concentrating on various ailments including diabetes and cancer, Dr Bhattacharya would be heading the world's top medical research body, if the Senate confirms his appointment.
Bhattacharya is widely known for his work on public health, particularly in relation to health policy, ageing and infectious diseases.
The Great Barrington Declaration
Bhattacharya became the face during the pandemic owing to his widely disputed open letter published in October 2020 -- the Great Barrington Declaration -- that said people without underlying medical conditions should be allowed to resume life as normal while establishing the idea of "focused protection" for the vulnerable groups.
Authored by two other leading medical professionals, Harvard professor of medicine Dr Martin Kulldorff and Oxford professor Dr Sunetra Gupta, the Declaration contended that the virus should be allowed to spread among healthy young people as they were at minimal risk of death and can develop natural immunity.
It was subjected to extensive criticism by the World Health Organisation and numerous other public health bodies citing that it lacked any scientific basis. The public health establishments swiftly dismissed the letter stating it could lead to millions of unnecessary deaths.
In response, 80 experts published a manifesto, the John Snow Memorandum, pointing out that the Declaration's approach is bound to endanger the lives of Americans with underlying conditions and put them at high risk to COVID-19.
Bhattacharya had noted that he felt like he was a part of a "propaganda attack" by public health professionals. Despite all the criticism that the Great Barrington Declaration received, The Post pointed out that most Americans felt that school shutdowns, pandemic policies and lockdowns lasted longer than required.
The Santa Clara COVID-19 study
In March 2020, Bhattacharya wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal stating that the actual death rate of COVID victims was unknown as, during that time, there was limited testing. He authored a study, 'COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California', that measured how many people at large in Santa Clara County had antibodies.
The results showed that 50 times more people had been infected than identified cases in Santa Clara County and infections were 40 times more than what was recorded in LA County.
Based on the results he argued that lockdowns were not that effective and the disease has been spreading. However, the death rate implied by the study was around 0.2 per cent while WHO established the death rate at 3.5 per cent. He said that the death toll might top out at 40,000 Americans but in the end more than 1.2 million died.
However, his study and the results were viciously attacked and faced considerable criticism. The study was targeted stating that the sample size was too small and could not be representative of a broader population. Experts also questioned the accuracy of the antibodies used during the study and that it could lead to inflated estimates. It received widespread attention for its narrative questioning the severity of the pandemic.
Social media censorship and Stanford academic freedom
In a 2021 interview, Bhattacharya spoke about how social media platforms censored his voice which diverged from the official narrative. He claimed these platforms suppressed important discussions around lockdowns and the spread of the virus. He established the fact that dissenting scientific views are often stifled to maintain a singular narrative on a public health issue.
Bhattacharya's research was met with sharp opposition within academic circles especially within his home institution, Stanford University. Critics accused him of promoting dangerous and scientifically unproven ideas.
Bhattacharya faced pushback not only from his colleagues but also the administration. The Chair of Medicine ordered him to refrain from giving interviews about COVID public policies. The environment at Stanford, as he describes, was hostile to open inquiry claiming that there was little to debate on government pandemic policies.
He argued, in an interview to the Stanford Review that it was a "straight-up violation of academic freedom" stating that the University which was known for its commitment to academic freedom failed to engage in substantiative discussions on the pandemic policies.
Bhattacharya is a figure emblematic of the broader struggle for interllectual freedom. However, Bhattacharya's possible nomination has led medical experts to point out the concerns of his leadership. With the diminishing trust in public health in the US, the consequences, particularly from Trump's health nominees, might be long-lasting, especially the erosion of trust in the safety and effectiveness of public-health measures.