Dr. Bhattacharya: Here's Why the WHO Treaty Is Fauciism on Global Steroids

Shawn Thew/Pool via AP

The popular definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." That perfectly characterizes a new effort by the UN, the Biden administration, and far-left foundations to expand the power of the World Health Organization (WHO). Negotiations for a treaty not only breathe life back into the discredited pandemic management policies pushed by Anthony Fauci and empire-building bureaucrats in the US but seek to make them unaccountable by having WHO dictate them to member nations without redress or debate.

Advertisement

Dictate is the operative word, too, because the treaty would also give WHO jurisdiction over "misinformation." This has echoes of the worst of the speech-suppressing policies pushed by Fauci, the State Department, and Big Tech. One of the biggest targets for that censorship, Great Barrington Declaration co-author Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, warned about this in a RealClearPolicy essay last week co-authored by Kevin Bardosh. The WHO's funding ask is outrageous enough, but the power grab is much more dangerous and insidious:

Read through the current draft of the treaty itself and you will find a whole section dedicated to “fighting misinformation.” There is no section focused on preventing harm. Those speaking out about these dangers have been subjected to harsh censorship. Once esteemed professionals were summarily fired for describing the reality of what was happening. The authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration—professors at Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford—were subject to a “devastating takedown” at the hands of Dr. Fauci and top scientific bureaucrats at the National Institutes of Health and the WHO.

Public health came to resemble the police, and those pushing the new WHO treaty want to go further. It calls for more mandates, more vaccine passports, and more censorship—our new global health “Lockdown Doctrine.”

Proponents of the treaty would have you believe that it is merely a tool that countries can use to guide future pandemic response efforts, that it cannot trump national sovereignty or be used to force failed policies on entire populations. But the lifeblood of international treaties is not in the dried ink. Treaties are constantly ignored. Nonetheless, they do one thing very well: they create an illusion of consensus, signaling to those with power and influence. These priorities are then filtered down into national laws and plans where they can do tremendous damage. 

Advertisement

Dr. Bhattacharya spoke with me yesterday about the disastrous attempt to set bad policies and speech suppression into an unassailable and autocratic regime. The full interview is below, but here are some highlights of our discussion, cleaned up a bit from the AI-generated transcript. Both of us express grave concern over the rise of "scientism," specifically in the form of Anthony Fauci, as well as a refusal to apply any critical analysis to public-policy decisions in light of new data ... and sometimes old data as well.

===

Q: You were one of the victims of the scientistic, and I use that term advisedly. It's not scientific, it's scientistic. Scientism as a sort of a belief system. And its high priest was a guy named Anthony Fauci. And to disagree with him or to dissent from him was an attack on science itself. And I'm not exaggerating that, am I?

A: No, he literally said that to some CNN interviewer. I mean, I was absolutely stunned, right? It's one of these things where like, you know, we religious types get accused of this kind of sort of unreasoned faith. But in fact, I've never seen even as a religious person, I've never seen anything more on reasoned faith than in the faith that people placed in Tony Fauci. Scientism is exactly the right word. ...

Tony Fauci actually has this very interesting paper that he wrote a few years before the pandemic. Essentially, it's a utopia. He writes a utopia of how to reorganize our society to rid us of the possibility of disease. And to me, Ed, it reads like a dystopia. Where the central organizing principle of society is that we view each other as biohazards, as primarily biohazards and nothing more.
Advertisement

Q: The problem is that when you allow that type of dystopia to take place, as we did during the pandemic, when we allowed bureaucrats with MDs and PhDs to dictate all of our choices because we didn't know what to do, and you don't have accountability, you don't have debate over those things, you miss the truth.


You opt for bad policies. And that's exactly what happened. And it was, you know, I don't mean to ring your bell constantly during this, Dr. Bhattacharya, but it was guys like you who were trying to stand up and say, we need to have a conversation about this. We need to test these hypotheses. Because they're not tested yet. And that means it's not science. And you got shut down and shut down hard by the mechanism that the World Health Organization wants to put in place to control misinformation in the health space.


A: That's probably the most shocking part of this World Health Organization treaty. ... You're absolutely right at what happened during the pandemic was a mass scale violation of the American First Amendment, you had government officials in the name in the guise of public health and the guise of protecting the public from misinformation censoring scientific debate, where the main people they censored were the people that were criticizing government scientific pronouncements, false ones, right? So on topic after topic, is there immunity after you get COVID? Is there such a thing as herd immunity? Do the vaccines stop you from getting and spreading COVID? Do the mask mandates do anything to stop the spread of COVID? Is masking toddlers a good idea? On topic after topic, I mean, does it make sense to like walk into a restaurant mass and then sit down and take your mask off and that'll stop COVID?

Advertisement

I mean, on topic after topic after topic, the government experts silenced critics using the guise of suppressing misinformation. And what the WHO treaty does is it basically cements that in place. 


Q: But it's not just the bureaucrats, and it's not just really The World Health Organization,  it's not the scientists, scientistic bureaucrats, I guess I would prefer to say, but it's also some of these foundations. And you mentioned this, right? You mentioned the Gates Foundation. There's all sorts of foundations that work in this area. Some of them are foundations set up by, you know, multibillionaires, which is the Gates Foundation.

Some of them, operate on the basis of a little less transparency as to where they get their funding. But how big of a role did the foundations, these foundations, Gates and others, have in pushing forward these policies and blocking people from being able to debate and discuss them?


A: They played a central role at just just from the very, very beginning of the pandemic on right so the Gates Foundation, for instance, was, I think they funded the University of Washington group that was doing pandemic forecasting in the US that which very often turned out to be incorrect. They set WHO policy on lockdowns. Bill Gates himself was the vaccine, the biggest spokesperson. He went out and told the public things that were not actually consistent with what the data were showing regarding the capacity of the vaccine to stop you from getting and spreading COVID.


And the Gates Foundation, I think, just leave aside Bill Gates, I think broadly speaking, You really want democratic governance of these public health organizations. You fundamentally need checks and balances in place. It shouldn't be that a relatively small number of rich people can control exactly the policy that impacts the lives of billions and billions of people, the way that the Gates Foundation has been able to do on public health.


Advertisement

===

We have much more below, so be sure to read it all. We compare the lack of follow-up from the pandemic to the Challenger and Apollo I disasters, for instance. We also talk more about censorship and its role in amplifying bad outcomes during the COVID pandemic, damage which impacted Dr. Bhattacharya and us directly – and continues to do so to this day. I fully expect that the Big Tech platforms will attempt to demonetize and flag this interview as "dangerous" simply for having a discussion about pandemic policy failures and the rise of "scientism" rather than actual science. 

Yet we must have these conversations, to rally opposition to bad policies and to stop any effort to enshrine them into international law. That is what self-governance and liberty provide us, and what the autocrats want to deny us. 

We won't stop discussing this, but we do need your support. Many of our readers have joined the fight as part of our VIP and VIP Gold membership, and they have been crucial to our operations as an independent platform and the ability to debate all of the issues honestly. We also produce some great exclusive content for our members, as well as refusing to knuckle under to the Big Tech/government censorship complex.

Join us in the fight. Become a HotAir VIP member today and use promo code CENSORSHIP to receive a 50% discount on your membership.

Advertisement

Here is my full interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:



The Ed Morrissey Show is now a fully downloadable and streamable show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, the TEMS Podcast YouTube channel, and on Rumble and our own in-house portal at the #TEMS page!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement