WASHINGTON – President-elect Donald J. Trump announced Tuesday evening that he would nominate Dr. Jay Bhattacharyaa Stanford health policy professor and outspoken critic of the country's public health system will take the lead National Institutes of Health.

In a press release on social media, Trump said, “Together, Jay and RFK Jr. will return the NIH to a gold standard of medical research by studying the underlying causes and solutions to America's greatest health challenges, including our chronic disease crisis,” to Robert F. Kennedy Jr ., his decision to steer the NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Bhattacharya would lead the $47.5 billion agency that’s the world's largest funder of biomedical research. NIH is a coalition of 27 institutes and centers that concentrate on cancer, infectious diseases, mental health, heart and lung disease, and substance abuse, amongst other areas.

“I’m humbled and honored that President Trump has chosen me to be the following NIH
Director,” Bhattacharya said on X. “We will reform America’s scientific institutions to make them trustworthy again and use the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again!”

By choosing Bhattacharya, Trump is choosing someone with expertise in economics and health policy to lead the Stanford Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. As an M.D. and Ph.D. in economics, he is a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

But he has no experience in basic or applied clinical biomedical research and has never held a government post. Over the past 50 years, the NIH has been led by renowned authorities in fields ranging from radiology to genetics. Many of them led smaller agencies before taking the helm of the NIH, a job with immense administrative responsibility.

He would be Dr. Replacing Monica M. Bertagnolli, a cancer surgeon and laboratory scientist who advocated for using artificial intelligence tools to create a research database. She also worked to make clinical trials more accessible to rural and minority patients.

Before spring 2020, Bhattacharya was a little-known academic who specialized in health policy issues such as physician reimbursement, cost and quality of care, geographic variation in physician practice, and regulatory oversight of FDA-approved products. Before joining the Stanford faculty, he was an economist at the RAND Corporation and taught courses in the economics department at UCLA.

But as the COVID pandemic broke out, Bhattacharya emerged as a leading critic of anti-pandemic measures, such as business and school closures, mask and distancing recommendations, and lockdowns.

The lockdowns and school closures led to economic and social devastation, he argued. He called for the pursuit of “herd immunity” through natural infections of those who are not sick or elderly.

He took aim at the NIH, saying it engaged in “massive suppression of scientific debate and research.” The CDC “exaggerated” the risk, he said. The FDA has approved vaccines and therapeutics with “little to no evidence, sometimes based on flawed models,” he claimed.

In response, he wrote, he experienced racist attacks and death threats during the pandemic.

He praised the result of the 2024 election, calling it a “vote against the establishment and for fundamental reform.” in a recent essay on the Unherd website. The Biden administration engaged in “orchestrated public relations campaigns,” he wrote, “and spread falsehoods and misinformation.”

Critics say he lacks the qualifications to lead the NIH.

“NIH is an institution founded on a foundation of respect for expertise,” he said Dr. Robert Morrisan epidemiologist and former professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

“Dr. Bhattacharya has repeatedly shown a disregard for professional expertise over the course of the COVID pandemic,” he said, “rejecting feedback from experts in virology, pathology and epidemiology while conducting an epidemiological study as an economist, although he almost did not do so had no training or experience in the field.”

Lucky Trana science communicator and PhD in biochemistry based in New York City, said: “Dr. Bhattacharya has spread misinformation about vaccines and COVID, fought against life-saving public health measures during the pandemic, and is supported by well-funded organizations that threaten public health to advance corporate interests. Now more than ever, the NIH needs to be led by an expert who strongly supports groundbreaking research on new vaccines, treatments, and emerging infectious diseases. ”

It was rumored that the Trump team was initially looking for candidates who could have extensive operational experience to lead the giant health research agency. Accordingly the biopharma newsletter Endpoints NewsThe search included Moncef Slaoui, a longtime pharmaceutical executive at GSK who led Operation Warp Speed, the previous Trump administration's successful COVID-19 vaccine rollout. A source told the newsletter that Slaoui said he wasn't interested and gave other names.

But Bhattacharya's contrarian stance has won the support of many leading conservatives on Capitol Hill, who say they are looking for reformers willing to fight the bureaucracy.

“Dr. Bhattacharya understands the need for comprehensive reform following the failure of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and has the knowledge and strength to do so,” said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, in a statement. “He would ensure that public health returns to science-based solutions – not bureaucratic malpractice.”

Bhattacharya is co-author of the controversial book Great Barrington Declarationa manifesto published in October 2020 that argued for an easing of restrictions in favor of “targeted protection” – protecting those at risk of dying but allowing younger people to return to public life and through the natural spread of the virus build immunity.

He accused Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases attempt to destroy the careers of dissident scientists.

Bhattacharya was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, Murthy v. Missouri, alleging Biden administration officials pressured social media to suppress content critical of the administration's COVID policies. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue their claims.

He is a supporter of nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and praises Kennedy's promises to end the chronic disease epidemic in the United States and eliminate corruption in the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

If appointedBhattacharya would haBecause he has no direct authority over the CDC and FDA, which he has heavily criticized during the COVID pandemic, the CDC, FDA and NIH are separate operating divisions within the Department of Health and Human Services.

At NIH, Bhattacharya vowed to change the NIH's “top-down leadership” and limit the tenure of institute directors to encourage the influx of new ideas, he said New Max TV. He also said he would strengthen the role of replication in research and help build confidence in the reliability and generalizability of study results.

“Transform the NIH from something that … controls society,” he said on NewsMax, “to something geared toward discovering the reality to enhance the health of Americans.”

Originally published: November 26, 2024 at 6:43 pm PST

Details on the new NBA rights contract

The sudden death of President Ebrahim Raisi is unlikely to drastically change Iran's foreign and domestic policy, however it has left an influence vacuum.

As provided for within the structure, Raisi replaced by his first vice chairman, Mohammad Mokhber, as interim president before presidential elections in 50 days. Raisi was reportedly being groomed to exchange the ageing Ali Khamenei as supreme leader, the final word ruler and decision-maker of the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian supreme leader serves for all times and is the very best religious and political authority within the Islamic Republic. He is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and oversees other vital institutions comparable to the judiciary and state media. He also oversees the Guardian Councilwhich has the facility to veto election candidates and veto parliamentary laws. In this capability, the supreme leader has the ultimate say in foreign policy and various areas of domestic policy.

As a Researcher for Iranian domestic and foreign policyI even have studied the method that determines who’s elected to office or whether or not they succeed. This process has evolved over the nearly 50-year history of the Islamic Republic and is a function of politics somewhat than religion.

The story of succession

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, there have been two supreme leaders – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who ruled between 1979 and 1989, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded him.

Khomeini was not only a revolutionary and charismatic leader, but additionally a Grand Ayatollah and Source of emulationor “marja' al-taqlid”. A Grand Ayatollah is one in all a select group of high-ranking clerics and is taken into account a “sign of God” in Twelver Shiism, the biggest branch of Shiism and the state religion of Iran. These clerics have the authority to make legal decisions for his or her lay followers and for lower-ranking clerics.

Although Khomeini got here to power in February 1979 as a spiritual cleric and revolutionary leader, it took until The Islamic structure was approved by referendum in December This yr, the position or office of Supreme Leader was officially introduced. It was inspired by Khomeini’s concept of Guardianship of the lawyeror the concept a senior cleric should oversee the state in accordance with Islamic law.

The election facade

In 1982 and 1983, when Khomeini was the supreme leader and Khamenei was the third president, this position or office fell under the jurisdiction of the Expert meetingas anchored in Articles 107 and 111 of the Constitution.

The Council of Experts is a body of over 80 members, each serving eight-year terms, with the facility to elect, supervise, and, if obligatory, dismiss the supreme leader. Although members are elected by popular vote, they’re first vetted by the Guardian Council, just like presidential and parliamentary candidates.

It needs to be noted that the members of the Guardian Council are appointed by the Supreme Leader and chief judge or head of the judiciarywho can be appointed by the Supreme Leader. So the Supreme Leader, through the Council, confirms the candidates, who’re then elected to a body that oversees him, making the method anything but free and fair.

As within the last election to the Assembly of Experts in March 2024, historically low voter turnout of about 40%The Guardian Council has disqualified many candidates.

This is especially the case amongst moderates and reformers who are likely to oppose the supreme leader on various issues. For this reason, the Assembly just isn’t known to seriously supervise or challenge of the Supreme Leader, and its meetings remained strictly confidential or closed to the general public.

The successor of 1989

Originally, the supreme leader was to be a grand ayatollah and role model. However, as Khomeini neared the top of his life in 1989, the structure was amended to permit a lower-ranking cleric like Khamenei to take over the office.

As a seminary student of Khomeini who was more considering politics than religion, Khamenei was under an Ayatollah. Within the Shiite clerical hierarchy and like other Islamic scholars who studied under an Ayatollah, he was given the title Hojjat al-Islamor “proof of Islam”.

After his appointment as Khomeini’s successor Khamenei’s rank was increased appointed Grand Ayatollah overnight. The reason for the appointment was that Khamenei, like Raisi, was a long-time loyalist and insider of the regime, although he lacked charismatic and non secular authority by Khomeini.

Until 1989, Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri – a distinguished theologian and revolutionary leader – expected to assume the role of supreme leaderHowever, in that yr he was ultimately ignored by Khomeini and later House arrest by Khamenei.

Montazeri succumbed to this fate because he had criticized the regime for its repression, especially for the execution of hundreds of political prisoners in 1988 by a Committee of 4 prosecutorsone in all them was Raisi.

The situation with succession today

With just one precedent, the supreme leader's succession process appears to be anything but formulaic and formalized.

Technically, the Assembly of Experts is chargeable for selecting the long run supreme leader. However, as with other institutions, it’s the supreme leader who ultimately exercises authority over the assembly, not the opposite way around.

In addition, as a result of the intervention of the Guardian Council, the Expert Council and other institutions currently controlled by hardliners.

This scenario also applies to a parliament that approve again Amending the structure and changing the required qualifications of the following leader. It is crucial for Khamenei that the Assembly of Experts and parliament – the Majles – are controlled by hardliners loyal to the regime.

As with Raisi and within the spirit of patronage or clientelism, Hardliners are sometimes appointed They are promoted by the supreme leader to other positions throughout the political and economic establishment. Consequently, they owe their careers to him and are likely to show him their loyalty.

While political outcomes within the Islamic Republic are difficult to predict, the strategy of succession is basically within the hands of the supreme leader and subject to his discretion. As in 1989, dictated or determined determined by Khamenei's political and private preferences somewhat than by religious and ideological principles.

At the identical time, one can say with certainty that the hardliners within the Assembly of Experts and other institutions usually are not monolithic and don’t all follow the supreme leader's agenda. They probably have different opinions about who should succeed him and other issues.

In my view, while the supreme leader will retain the upper hand throughout the system, the number of his successor will likely require consultation and consensus with the hardliners. This shall be crucial to managing a transition made much more delicate by the death of the hardliner president and potential successor.