We Want Them Infected Podcast

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent dive into the criticisms and negative reviews they have received for their podcast. They discuss accusations of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations made by doctors they have quoted in their discussions on pandemic policies and vaccination strategies. Dr. Howard begins by acknowledging the seriousness of the pandemic and the consequences of words spoken during such times. He highlights that some individuals treated the pandemic as a game, engaging in personal attacks instead of focusing on constructive discussions. The main focus of the episode is responding to a negative review they received from Christian Siegel, who criticized their representation of the Great Barrington Declaration supporters' views on vaccination and pandemic policies. Dr. Howard uses this review as a starting point to address similar criticisms he has received. Dr. Howard points out that his podcast has not engaged in ad hominem attacks or insults, but rather aims to accurately quote and discuss the views of doctors and experts. He quotes Winston Churchill, emphasizing the importance of free speech and the willingness to accept responses and disagreements. The episode highlights the common responses Dr. Howard has received from doctors he has quoted. These responses include ignoring his work, resorting to juvenile insults, and misrepresenting his views. Dr. Howard addresses each of these responses, providing examples from his interactions with specific doctors. One notable example is Dr. Stephan Baral, who accused Dr. Howard of promoting his book during the pandemic. Dr. Howard counters this claim and questions the idea that writing a book during the pandemic is a path to riches. Another doctor, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, is cited for misrepresenting Dr. Howard's views and engaging in personal attacks. Dr. Howard provides evidence of Bhattacharya's inaccurate representations and questions his stance on vaccination for children. The episode also delves into the criticisms made by Dr. Francis Ballou, a virologist and chair of computational biology at University College London. Dr. Ballou accused Dr. Howard of misrepresenting views and being a grifter with no domain expertise. Dr. Howard challenges these accusations and highlights the importance of accurately quoting experts. This sheds light on the challenges and criticisms faced by Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent. It emphasizes the need for respectful dialogue and open discussion during a pandemic. Resources mentioned: The Great Barrington Declaration Winston Churchill quote on free speech Dr. Stephan Baral's Twitter comments Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's articles and comments Dr. Francis Ballou's criticisms and accusations Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a global crisis that has reshaped the way we live and interact with each other. Amid the chaos and uncertainty, various strategies and policies were implemented to curb the spread of the virus. One such strategy was lockdowns, which drew significant attention and debate throughout the pandemic. In this article, we delve into the Great Barrington Declaration, a document that criticized lockdowns as a response to the pandemic and offered an alternative perspective. We examine the arguments presented in the declaration, assess their validity, and explore the consequences of lockdown measures. Lockdowns: Definitions and Historical Context The Great Barrington Declaration begins by defining lockdowns as a set of measures that include closing schools, businesses, restricting travel, imposing curfews, and more. It emphasizes that such restrictions have never led to the eradication of a disease in history. While this claim is generally accurate, it fails to acknowledge the nuances of each pandemic and the various measures taken to combat them. For instance, lockdowns played a role in controlling pneumonic plague outbreaks in Manchuria in the early 20th century. The Efficacy of Lockdowns One of the core arguments in the Great Barrington Declaration is that lockdowns only delay the increase in cases for a finite period and come at a great cost. This perspective downplays the value of delaying the spread of the virus, which provides crucial time for medical advancements, such as vaccines and treatments, to emerge. Lockdowns can help prevent overwhelming healthcare systems, reduce mortality rates, and protect vulnerable populations. Government Responses and Lockdowns The declaration suggests that governments worldwide continued to impose lockdowns, despite their questionable effectiveness. However, it is essential to recognize that governments tailored their responses based on evolving scientific understanding and regional COVID-19 dynamics. Lockdowns were often implemented as a last resort when cases surged and hospital capacities were strained. Physical and Mental Health Impacts The Great Barrington Declaration highlights the physical health harms of lockdowns, including delayed medical care and lower vaccination rates. While there were disruptions in healthcare access, attributing all these issues solely to lockdowns oversimplifies the complex healthcare landscape during the pandemic. Moreover, the declaration minimizes the importance of delaying the virus's spread. Mental Health Impacts The declaration acknowledges the importance of social interactions but fails to address the nuanced impact of COVID-19 itself on mental health. Isolation and fear were widespread during the pandemic, and while mental health issues increased, the relationship between lockdowns and mental health is multifaceted. Some studies suggest that lockdowns may have prevented a surge in teen suicides. The Debate Over School Closures The Great Barrington Declaration argues that school closures disproportionately harm children. While in-person education is valuable, it overlooks the necessity of adapting to the challenges posed by a highly contagious virus. Keeping schools open without proper safety measures would have put students, teachers, and families at risk. Pulling it All Together The Great Barrington Declaration offers a critical perspective on lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it simplifies complex issues and minimizes the importance of delaying the virus's spread and protecting vulnerable populations. A comprehensive evaluation of pandemic responses must consider the evolving science, regional differences, and the need to adapt strategies as new information emerges. Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The GBD, penned in October 2020, proposed an alternative strategy to the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions. It suggested that low-risk populations should be allowed to acquire natural immunity through infection, while high-risk groups, particularly the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, receive focused protection. This approach, the authors argued, would lead to herd immunity, reducing overall societal and economic disruptions. Questionable Origins and Ideological Underpinnings The hosts addressed the origins of the GBD, noting its association with the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank. This connection raised questions about the ideological motives behind the declaration, potentially conflating public health policy with economic and political agendas. Jeffrey Tucker: A Controversial Figure Central to the episode's critique was the examination of Jeffrey Tucker, a significant proponent of the GBD. Tucker's controversial views on child labor and pro-tobacco stances, as highlighted in the podcast, painted a picture of an individual whose ideologies might conflict with mainstream public health principles. The Impact on Public Health Policy The GBD's influence on public health policy has been substantial, igniting debates on pandemic management strategies. Its advocacy for herd immunity through natural infection contrasted sharply with the broader public health consensus advocating for vaccination and preventive measures. Closing: Learning from the Pandemic The analysis presented here underscores the complexities of pandemic management and the importance of scrutinizing the origins, motivations, and implications of public health policies. The Great Barrington Declaration, with its controversial stance and ideological underpinnings, serves as a case study in the critical evaluation of health policy during unprecedented times.   Resources mentioned: Great Barrington Declaration. Interviews and quotes from Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Jerome Adams. Statements from Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Information about the American Institute for Economic Research. Articles and viewpoints of Jeffrey Tucker. COVID-19 pandemic response policies and their impacts. Various epidemiological studies and data cited in the podcast. Historical context of public health measures during the pandemic. Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent take a deep dive into the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, a document that has stirred significant debate in the public health community. This declaration, penned by Dr. Sunita Gupta of Oxford, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, proposes a pandemic response strategy centered on achieving herd immunity through natural infection, particularly among younger, healthier populations. The Underestimation of COVID-19 At the heart of the episode is a critical examination of how the declaration's authors may have underestimated the severity of COVID-19. The hosts reflect on early pandemic opinions, including those from John Ioannidis and Dr. Scott Atlas, that influenced the declaration. They discuss the implications of pursuing herd immunity without a vaccine and the potential risks to public health, especially considering the virus's impact on different age groups. Ethical Concerns and Scientific Debate A significant part of the discussion focuses on the ethical dilemmas posed by the declaration. The idea of intentionally allowing a segment of the population to be infected raises serious moral questions. The hosts challenge the notion that young people have an obligation to contract the virus, likening it to a "war" against COVID-19. The Role of Dr. Scott Atlas Dr. Scott Atlas, a prominent figure in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response, is also discussed. His support for natural infection as a pathway to herd immunity is critically examined, with the hosts highlighting his statements from various interviews and articles. The Impact of Herd Immunity Without Vaccination The episode does not shy away from discussing the historical context of herd immunity and its effectiveness in managing pandemics. The hosts argue that without vaccination, achieving lasting herd immunity may be an unattainable goal, citing examples from the history of diseases like measles and smallpox. Final Words In conclusion, the episode provides a comprehensive critique of the Great Barrington Declaration, emphasizing the need for a nuanced, ethical, and scientifically sound approach to pandemic management. The discussion underscores the complexities of public health decision-making in times of crisis and the importance of basing strategies on robust scientific evidence and ethical considerations.   Resources mentioned The Great Barrington Declaration Interviews and articles by Dr. Sunita Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff John Ioannidis's Stat News article from March 17, 2020 Dr. Bhattacharya's Wall Street Journal article, "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" Dr. Martin Kulldorff's article, "COVID-19 countermeasures should be age specific" Dr. Scott Atlas's article, "Reentry After the Panic" Tucker Carlson's Fox News interview with Dr. Scott Atlas Twitter account @hypoautomatic Various scientific studies and data on COVID-19 mortality and transmission rates   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard, in the absence of co-host Wendy Orent, explores the misconceptions and risky propositions around achieving herd immunity through natural COVID-19 infection. He references an article by Drs. de Souza and Dowdy from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, highlighting the true meaning of herd immunity and its relation to vaccination. Howard critiques various early claims and redefinitions of herd immunity during the pandemic, stressing the dangers of using children as 'human shields' in the quest for herd immunity. The episode underscores the importance of vaccination in preventing serious diseases like measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox, and debunks myths about natural immunity being beneficial for children.   List of Resources Mentioned Article: "What is Herd Immunity and How Can We Achieve It with COVID-19" by Dr. de Souza and Dr. Dowdy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (April 16, 2021) Article by John Ioannidis in Stat News (March 17, 2020) CNBC Article: "Sweden resisted a lockdown. And its capital Stockholm is expected to reach herd immunity in weeks." (April 22, 2020) Article by Dr. Vinay Prasad and Alison Crew (February 2022) Article: "COVID-19 And children and university students" by Dr. John Ioannidis Editorial in the BMJ discussing childhood vaccination and herd immunity The Great Barrington Declaration   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard and expert Wendy Orent explore the contentious topic of a novel virus's origins. They examine the evolution of infectious diseases and the likelihood of laboratory involvement in the virus's emergence. The discussion revolves around the complexity of virus transmissibility, the historical context of virus outbreaks, and the challenges in pinpointing the exact origins. The conversation also addresses common conspiracy theories and the importance of scientific evidence over speculation.   Resources mentioned: SARS, Plague, Smallpox, and Ebola: Previous viruses that Wendy Orange has researched and written about. Biological Weapons: A focus area of Wendy's work. Vincent Roccaniello: A virologist mentioned in the discussion about virus transmissibility. Aron Fouchier and Nishihiro Okawa: Scientists referenced in relation to research on virus adaptation and transmissibility. Michael Warabi: A scientist whose work on virus origin tracing is discussed. Alison Young: Investigative reporter mentioned in relation to lab leak theories. Dr. Fauci: Referenced in the context of email communications regarding virus origins. Emily Kump: A writer with a viewpoint supporting the lab leak theory. Igor Domoradze: A scientist with whom Wendy worked closely, mentioned in the context of virus engineering. Dr. Parr: A scientist who co-authored a study on virus lineages.   Looking for something specific? Here you go! 00:04:41 Origin of virus still uncertain. 00:09:56 No takeaway. 00:13:04 Origin of virus still uncertain. 00:16:23 Lab leak theory debunked. 00:24:11 Lab leak theory lacks evidence. 00:24:50 Lab-origin of virus unlikely. 00:33:14 Origin of virus likely from market. 00:34:33 Lab leak theory debunked. 00:39:45 Lab leak theory lacks evidence. 00:44:10 Bats have unique immune systems. 00:51:16 No conclusive evidence for origin. Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent discuss various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the initial underestimation of the death toll by Dr. John Ioannidis. They address misconceptions such as the belief that people were dying with COVID, not of COVID, and the skepticism surrounding COVID-19 death certificates. Dr. Howard counters these claims by highlighting the challenges faced in the early stages of the pandemic, including limited testing availability. The discussion also touches on the impact of lockdowns and the belief that they caused more harm than good.    Furthermore, they challenge the notion that only elderly individuals were affected by COVID-19, emphasizing that the virus had a broader impact, even on younger individuals. The podcast explores the evolving nature of the virus and the long-term consequences that remain uncertain.   Looking for something specific? Here you go! 00:00:49 COVID death toll not inflated. 00:06:10 Lockdowns did not cause excess deaths. 00:12:29 Lockdowns caused harm but not mass death. 00:23:13 COVID-19 has long-lasting consequences. 00:24:42 COVID consequences still largely unknown. 00:31:11 Ventilators not causing high mortality. 00:40:08 COVID deaths may have been undercounted. 00:41:52 Underreporting of COVID-19 deaths 00:48:08 Misinformation can have real consequences.     Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com      The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In this episode, the hosts critically examine COVID-19 misinformation, focusing on the widespread myths that persisted during the pandemic. They discuss the controversial stance of Dr. John Ioannidis and others who underestimated COVID's impact and compared its dangers to everyday activities like driving. The episode highlights the serious consequences of these misconceptions, including the false notion that COVID only severely affected the elderly with pre-existing conditions, and addresses the damaging claim that doctors contributed to fatalities through premature intubations.    A list of resources mentioned: Stat News Article by Dr. John Ioannidis (March 17, 2020): An article by Dr. Ioannidis which discussed COVID-19, its impact, and the reliability of data surrounding the pandemic. Interview of Dr. Ioannidis with Fox News' Mark Levin (April 2020): A notable interview where Dr. Ioannidis expressed his views on COVID-19 and its relative danger compared to everyday activities. Autopsy Series from 2016-2017 on Elderly People Who Died of Flu: Research cited by Dr. Ioannidis in his argument regarding the cause of death during the pandemic. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Publication: A publication referenced for discussing COVID-19 deaths in Italy and the challenge of attributing deaths to SARS-CoV-2. CDC Guidelines and Investigations into COVID-19 Deaths: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's approach to recording and verifying COVID-19 deaths, including the analysis of death certificates. Perspectives on the Pandemic 4 (Interview dated April 17, 2020): An interview featuring Dr. Ioannidis, where he discusses the pandemic, particularly focusing on the risk to younger people and the role of underlying health conditions.  Study on COVID-19 Risk Comparison to Driving: A study or analysis conducted by Dr. Ioannidis comparing the risk of dying from COVID-19 to the risk of dying from driving. Data and Reports from Italy and the United States: Various statistical data and reports from Italy and the U.S. were mentioned to highlight the differences in COVID-19 death rates and the presence of comorbidities. Reports on New York City's COVID-19 Death Toll and Management: Specific references were made to the situation in New York City, including the handling of COVID-19 deaths and the challenges faced by the healthcare system Accounts from Frontline Healthcare Workers: Personal experiences and observations from doctors and nurses dealing with COVID-19 patients were discussed, providing firsthand insights into the pandemic's impact.      Looking for something specific? Here you go! 00:00:00 COVID myths and misinformation persist. 00:06:45 Questioning the impact of COVID-19. 00:14:04 Risk of virus is manageable. 00:19:39 COVID-19 deaths can be inaccurately recorded. 00:25:20 Two conflicting views on COVID. 00:31:52 Death certificates accurately reflect COVID-19. 00:37:57 COVID death toll undercounted   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com     The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.  The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information. The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content. The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content. Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer. Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In this discussion, Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent discuss the early responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of Dr. John E. Loannidis, a renowned scientist. They examine his initial underestimation of the virus's impact, the flaws in his predictions, and his shifting perspectives over time. Resources Mentioned: Dr. John E. Ioannidis' early writings on COVID-19 Stat News article "A Fiasco in the Making: As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data" (March 17, 2020) European Journal of Clinical Investigation article "Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and Non-Evidence-Based Measures" (March 19, 2020) Stephanie Seneff's critique of the Santa Clara antibody study Statistician Andrew Gelman's analysis of the study Looking for something specific? Here you go! 0:00 - Introduction to the podcast episode discussing early pandemic responses and hosts Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent. 3:10 - Discussion about Dr. John E. Loannidis and his role in questioning COVID-19 data and his contributions to evidence-based medicine. 3:52 - Dr. Loannidis' reputation as an expert in scientific methodology and evidence-based research, along with his early recognition of Elizabeth Holmes as a fraud. 12:24 - Reference to early pandemic concerns in Italy and New York and Dr. Loannidis' initial prediction of COVID-19's impact. 12:45 - Confirmation of the severity of the situation in Italy and New York during the early pandemic and Dr. Ioannidis' early prediction of 40,000 deaths in the USA. 16:05 - Analysis of Dr. Loannidis' prediction of 40,000 deaths and its accuracy, along with discussion of the Santa Clara antibody study and its criticism. 16:07 - Details about the Santa Clara antibody study, its implications, and criticism of its methodology and accuracy. 17:50 - Introduction to a discussion on a Fox News interview with Dr. Loannidis, his background, and credentials, as well as his early skepticism about COVID-19 data and revised assessment of fatality rates.   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com    The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard, a neurologist and psychiatrist, and Co-Host, Wendy Orent, discuss the emergence of the anti-vaccine movement, particularly focusing on doctors who have contributed to spreading vaccine skepticism. They examine the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the influence of certain doctors, and the alarming mainstreaming of anti-vaccine rhetoric.     About the authors: Dr. Jonathan Howard is a distinguished neurologist and psychiatrist based in New York City, practicing at NYU and Bellevue Hospital. His extensive background in neurology and psychiatry has made him a well-respected figure in the medical field. Dr. Howard has witnessed the profound impact of infectious diseases firsthand, especially during the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic. He brings his expertise and experience to the forefront in his work, podcast, and writing, shedding light on crucial issues related to infectious diseases and public health. Dr. Howard's dedication to accurate and evidence-based information has made him a trusted voice in the medical community, providing valuable insights into the challenges posed by pandemics and the importance of vaccination.     Wendy Orent is an American anthropologist and science writer with a focus on pandemics, biological weapons, and the evolution of infectious diseases. She is a freelance science writer whose work has appeared in "The Washington Post", "Aeon", "Undark Magazine", "The Sciences", "The Los Angeles Times", "The New Republic", "Discover", and "The American Prospect".   Looking for something specific? Here you go! 02:15 - Early Misinformation and COVID Minimization 07:30 - Rise of Conspiracy Theories 12:45 - The Formal Movement to Infect Young People 17:20 - The Influence of Pandemic Skeptics 23:10 - Impact on Vaccination Efforts 28:55 - The Fight Against Misinformation Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The fine print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.