I worked as a senior advisor to the NIH Director, Jay Bhattacharya. My mission was to build a framework to eliminate ideological bias in NIH-funded research like this:

A team of leftist academics conducted an entire study around this tweet from the President. The idea was that people took COVID less "seriously" after the tweet. (Sorry for the flashback to when leftists/Dems needed everyone to feel the exact level of panic and doom with COVID they felt.)

NIH funded that "research".

They just gave the researcher another $651,586 for "misinformation" research in July, including $200,000 from the Office of the Director.

Problem: Jay ghosted me after hiring me. He wouldn't respond to messages or questions. In the end, it seemed like he didn't want to eliminate the absurdly biased grants or address the problem in a systematic way – at least not now.

The Daily Caller has now published my article on my experience at NIH this year.

1/x

https://x.com/ValidScience/status/1313186529058136070

Let me wrap up the Jay thing before getting to the substance of the framework and grants.

There must be an explanation for Jay's behavior – I just don't know what it is. For example, he bizarrely deleted the last couple months of my messages to him (keeping the older ones), including the synopsis of the framework. That's inexplicable, makes no sense at all. This was the strangest, most unprofessional experience of my career.

I was building the framework, reading tons of grants, sending Jay questions and examples, and it was dead air – it was like talking to a toaster.

The contractors working in the NIH Office of the Director, myself included, were laid off in late September (≈20 people). No warning or explanation. I only worked for and reported to Jay, so it was very awkward that he didn't say a word to me when this happened.

The end result is that NIH is still funding invalid, ideologically driven "research" that has no chance to improve Americans' health. The initial grant cancellations you might have heard about earlier this year just scratched the surface. They were based on a keyword search, probably by DOGE, that was missing lots of keywords. A systematic, rigorous framework is necessary to do the job, especially if we want lasting change, and that's not happening. It's what I was trying to implement, but Jay wouldn't let me.

2/x

I'm stunned by the media's extreme partisan bias. What do journalism schools teach? @libbycathey writes that Republicans "avoid or dismiss" her stupid policy preferences, characterizes their views as "Republican talking points". Has no subject knowledge.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/after… There's a real ignorance and stupidity on firearms among the American left and legacy media that looks different from their performance on other issues. There's no sign of cognition beyond "do something", "it's the guns", "ban "assault weapons"". I'm not even sure about what...

1. We're trying to have a civilization here. This means we never, ever believe claims that "X is the leading cause of death for children." Especially not if the CDC or leftists make the claim.

Also, it's irrational and foolish to care about *true* "leading cause of death" claims Firearms are not, and have never been, the leading cause of death for children. To get that claim the CDC removed infants – **removing the three leading causes of death** – and added 18 and 19-year-old adults, **doubling the number of firearms deaths**. Here are the true figures.