Peter Daszak’s recent X posts (June 2, 2025) labeling Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new NIH Director, an “anti-science Luddite” who is “destroying public health” are a masterclass in projection. …

Daszak, former head of EcoHealth Alliance (facilitator and co-conspirator of that recent pandemic, what was it called? Oh yes, SARS CoV-2 Covid-19), accuses Bhattacharya of having a “vendetta against the NIH” and claims his policies will cost lives, while pointing fingers at organizations like Brownstone Institute for being part of a right-wing conspiracy (how original!) to dismantle science. Let’s cut through the noise.

Calling Bhattacharya anti-science is absurd. Erstwhile Stanford professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, Bhattacharya has consistently championed evidence-based public health, advocating for open scientific debate over dogmatic policies. His focus on data-driven approaches—like considering natural immunity and the harms of lockdowns—earned him censorship under the previous administration. His leadership at the NIH promises transparency and rigor, both of which seem to terrify Daszak—operating without (his previous sponsor) Dr. Fauci’s golden parachute of a Biden/autopen pardon.

Now, let’s talk about Daszak’s version of “science.” EcoHealth Alliance, under his watch, funneled US. taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses—research that may have contributed to the unleashing of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan.

As I detailed in my Brownstone articles, Daszak’s collaboration with WIV’s “Bat Woman” Zhengli-Li Shi involved modifying coronaviruses to make them more infectious to humans, fitting the NIH’s own definition of gain-of-function despite his denials. That second article of mine only came about after EcoHealth Alliance’s bullying. When I had pointed out EcoHealth’s complicity in my original Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Own Gain-of-Function, Daszak’s minions tried to bully Brownstone into retracting the reference.

Science thrives on open debate, not censorship. Bhattacharya represents a return to that principle at the NIH, while Daszak’s behavior—blocking dissenters and evading tough questions—shows what anti-science really looks like. The public deserves better, and with Bhattacharya leading the NIH, we might finally get it.