Welcome everybody to the Illusion of Consensus podcast.This is professor Jay Bhattacharya hosting this episode. I'm here with Natalya Murakhver. She is the co-founder of Restore Childhood, an organization founded originally in New York City, but now expanded all over the United States. There have been people that have been advocating for open schools, for normal childhood for children, and Natalya is one of those people. I'm absolutely delighted to have her here. She is a longtime resident of New York City and also an advocate for children long before the pandemic.I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did.— Dr. Jay BhattacharyaThe Illusion of Consensus is a reader-supported publication. Support us by becoming a paid member:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Welcome everyone to the Illusion of Consensus podcast.I'm Professor Jay Bhattacharya. I am delighted to be here with Kevin Bardosh. Kevin is the research director and the director of Collateral Global, which is a charity in the UK. Just full disclosure, I'm a trustee of this charity. The goal of the charity is to document the harms that the lockdowns globally from 2020 and onward. And again, with an emphasis on documenting these harms in a scholarly way with data and with rigorous analysis. I hope you take away something new from this wide-ranging conversation on the multitude of negative societal shifts causes by lockdowns.Note to readers: the full podcast transcript is available thanks to Substack’s new functionality. You can access it by clicking on the podcast tab above.— Jay BhattacharyaIf you appreciate the work we are doing here, please consider supporting us by becoming a paid subscriber:Spotify link: Apple podcast: Note: For some strange reason, Jay’s audio has an intense echo for the first 10 minutes before it goes away. Apologies in advance.Support Kevin’s organization Collateral Global:https://collateralglobal.org/article/uk-covid-inquiry-turns-its-focus-to-great-barrington-declaration/Podcast Transcript Highlights:Kevin on his background:I've worked for 15 years in public health, global public health programs, mostly in the global south, so in over 20 countries in Africa, Asia, and that's on infectious disease programs. So I was involved tangentially in the Ebola response. And during the Zika pandemic, I actually led quite a large mosquito control program in Haiti. So that's dealing with community engagement, messaging, mosquito control, and the whole sort of range of scientific questions also about, well, where are microcephaly cases happening, et cetera. I've also worked a lot on parasitic diseases, neglected tropical diseases, et cetera.And all of that work in the global public health community in general, we have these sort of ethical frameworks around not doing harm, around equity, or, you know, community empowerment, et cetera. And we saw a lot of those sort of guiding principles thrown out the window during the COVID response. And I think a lot of people felt like, or a lot of academics who work in this space, didn't feel like they had a voice, or at least were very confused about where the consensus was going. And so... my sort of work for the last two years has been to try to somewhat speak to that issue, which is obviously a very political issue. Consider supporting us:Kevin’s detailed survey on the literature on lockdowns and their effects on poor countries:The report is called, How Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Harm Society? A Global Evaluation and State of Knowledge Review, covering 2020 and 2021. And I think what motivated me on, well, there's a lot of things that did, but on the one hand, the public discourse and public conversation, that there is this sort of scientific consensus. And I've actually called this and I'm covering the UK COVID inquiry for an online newspaper called Unherd. And I've called this the lockdown doctrine. which is the notion that during a respiratory pandemic, you need to lock down society faster and harder as a precondition to get a vaccine and then you reopen, right? And that's a very particular model, a political model, and it comes with some very detailed assumptions about reality and also about scientific evidence that I think is very flawed. What I saw essentially is you have thousands of papers on all these different topics about the harms of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID. And yet we don't have a good sense of, well, how do you put those together? How do you weigh, let's say the control of COVID, which has these very neat statistics, right? Like cases, deaths, you can sort of talk. It has this sort of simplicity and elegance to it that compels people to act and think a certain way. But then when you put together all of the different harms, it's like, it's, it's almost too complicated for people to get their head around. And so when we challenge, let's say this lockdown doctrine by saying, Well, actually, when you think about trade-offs, there's a lot more harm to locking down society than there is benefit. People will say, well, how do you weigh that? And so this framework was an attempt to, in as much detail as possible, come to terms with, well, what are those harms? What's the full range of it? And what does the academic community, or the academic knowledge, tell us about these harms? So on the one hand, type, right, type of harm, but then also the magnitude. And in that regard, I would say that the report has these sort of two elements to it. On the one hand, it's a story about the actual harms that took place in the real world, but it's filtered through the academic research that is available. And in some areas, we have very concrete statistics that are easy to appreciate, but in a lot of areas, we don't.Kevin on the pandemic’s negative impact on obesity and lifestyle:I would say one of the more worrying ones — this is from a meta-analysis on obesity rates — estimating a 1% increase in children and a 2% increase in adults in global obesity rates. So that's a pretty significant increase when you think about the consequences of obesity. People became much more addicted to screens. Screen use increased by 50% among children. And those screen addiction habits have continued, right? We're living in this sort of era where if you watch kids, they're all staring at their phones and COVID encouraged them to stare at their phones longer. And I think that that's, that is going to have astronomical cultural and psychological impacts going forward. It was something that we're already struggling with as a society, but we said, okay, everyone's, you know, don't go meet your friends at the park, which was already decreasing because how many people actually go to the park and know their neighbors. And if you go to the park, you watch the parents sitting on their phones while their kids are playing. Anyhow, I could rant about that for a long time. I actually don't own a cell phone. No, because of these effects. Yeah, I kind of just got rid of it a while ago. So sleep problems, all sorts of interesting studies, actually even about dream interruption. There's actually a whole sort of niche area of COVID and dreams, which is quite interesting. Obviously, exercise decreased, and exercise has all sorts of beneficial effects for health.The Illusion of Consensus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber: This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hi everyone,Welcome to episode 16 of The Illusion of Consensus podcast. I'm professor Jay Bhattacharya. I'm here with Dr. Azadeh Khatibi. She is a doctor who has distinguished herself during the pandemic by engaging in this lawsuit against a law in California called AB 2098. The law passed by the California legislature last year essentially put doctors at risk of losing their license if they contradicted public health advice. In effect, they basically made it so that the doctors had to look over their shoulder and see the CDC in the room with their patients, and they had to decide if they had the patient's interest in mind or the CDC's interest in mind. I hope you enjoy this rich and engaging conversation with Dr. Khatibi. The Spotify and Apple links are available below as well as the highlighted podcast transcript. The full video podcast is also accessible to paid members here:Spotify link:Apple podcast link: Transcript Highlights:Dr. Khatibi on challenging consensus throughout her career:In my own personal life and in my professional life, I have gone against formal consensus and informal consensus. Many times. I also feel like it's because I'm using my centred mind to make these decisions. I did it for my own health. I went against informal consensus opinion when I faced death and had to make some decisions about my own healthcare. I went against the informal consensus within my hospital care system. I've done it for my family members, I've gone against formal consensus for my family members, a matter for some health issues unrelated to COVID. And it turned out fantastic because we got data and information that we would have not otherwise gotten. And understanding that those consensus opinions were people taking into account the evidence as well as fiscal considerations. And for me, I was just looking at what's the smartest thing to do for these family members slash patients.Dr. Khatibi talks about California’s bill AB 2098:So in the declaration, I wrote from the perspective of both a physician and as a patient, because AB 2098, the law says that any doctor can be found to have unprofessional conduct if they engage in disinformation or misinformation. So disinformation, their definition was, knowing something is incorrect, but telling it to the patient anyway, right? Giving them false information that you know is false. I don't disagree with that. I think it's wrong and unethical for a doctor to give false information knowingly to a patient. But their other definition was also misinformation. And so then they had the definition of misinformation in the bill. And their definition of misinformation was false information that's contradicted by contemporary consensus or something. And so I read that, I was like, this is terrible. This is horrible, right? Because all along I had been thinking differently from consensus and if I say something, they're gonna come after me. Like this is frightening and I already knew so many of my friends had been chilling their speech, playing small, being afraid, didn't wanna get fired.Dr. Bhattacharya on how the leading scientific consensus has often been false:Let's assess the track record of this consensus. Like how well did the CDC and the World Health Organization and the California Medical Association do in assessing sort of the nature of COVID, you know, the age gradient in mortality risk, the infection fatality rate, the immunity after COVID recovery, how well did it do in assessing whether the vaccine stops you from getting and spreading COVID? How well did we do in some of the most important questions about side effects of the vaccine for young men, especially with myocarditis. It seemed to me like the consensus was wrong on important topic after important topic after important topic.Dr. Khatibi on how California’s censorship bill violated the 14th Amendment:The law is so vague. And that's where the 14th Amendment right violation comes in. The law is supposed to be clear to a person of average intelligence. But we argued that this law is so mumble jumble. You can even hear that I kind of like, I'm like, well, what was the wording of the law again? It's so unclear and vague that it, and the grammar of it was also really bad. And the judge even said when he granted us the preliminary injunction, this law doesn't, the grammar of it doesn't even make sense. So that was the 14th Amendment rights violation, the right to due process, understanding that the law and making sure that it's clear that it was failed on, and that was the grounds actually upon which we won the preliminary injunction. The judge said this law is vague, it's not clear.Azadeh shares her remarkably impressive success in filmmaking and production:I got involved in a film called Window Horses with Sandra that was shortlisted for Academy Award nomination for best animated feature in 2018. That was one of 27 films that was shortlisted in that category. And I also helped produce that film and I played two voices. I was doing voiceover two characters in that film. And that was about creating intercultural, intergenerational bonds. It was about Iran. It was about love. It was about coming together, processing the past wounds. And then as I progressed in my filmmaking, I, we started a production company called Genius at Large. And so our projects are really looking at more of a human, humanity, human rights focus at this point. And so our film Sinjar was a co-production with Spain and looked at the Yazidi genocide of 2014. So ISIS came into Iraq and they invaded the city of the area of Sinjar and they killed the adults. the adult males and the older boys, and they enslaved the women and children, and they stole them and they sold them. So ISIS is very organized. They have actual slave markets.If you appreciate the work we’re doing, consider supporting our work by becoming a paid member: This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello Illusion of Consensus readers,Today’s podcast episode features independent author Gabrielle Bauer, who wrote the excellent new book Blindsight is 2020 (Amazon link here). Jay and Gabrielle spend the hour discussing fear in the pandemic, religious communities’ response to Covid, and faux scientific consensus.Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GabrielleJBauer This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello Illusion of Consensus readers,Today we are excited to bring you a conversation on The Illusion of Consensus podcast between Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and ER physician Dr. Joseph Fraiman. Dr. Fraiman lead the re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s safety data and discovered a 1 in 800 serious adverse event rate — far higher than any other vaccine on the market. In this podcast episode, Jay and Joe discuss his study and the implications for scientific authority and public trust — as well as Dr. Fraiman’s early experiences with Covid in the ICUs and how he changed his position over time.If you appreciate the work we are doing at The Illusion of Consensus, consider supporting our publication and podcast by becoming a paid subscriber:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/— The Illusion of Consensus Team This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello readers,We are pleased to share with you episode 13 of The Illusion of Consensus podcast with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora. We are happy to have received excellent feedback on our previous episodes with Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Alex Berenson, and others.Today’s guest is Dr. Aaron Khariety, a psychiatrist and director of the Program in Bioethics and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.Jay and Aaron discuss how core bioethical principles were violated during the pandemic,Note to readers: we are offering an exclusive 10% off discount on all paid subscriptions for our month-end-sale. Please consider supporting us to receive exclusive Q+A podcasts with Dr. Jay, in-depth articles, and upcoming pieces on mental health solutions outside of Big Pharma:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/p/the-dangerous-illusion-of-scientific— The Illusion of Consensus team This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello Illusion of Consensus readers,Today, we are happy to bring you the second part of Rav and Dr. Jay’s podcast conversation with Dr. Robert Malone.Subscribe now to receive exclusive Q+A podcasts with Dr. Jay and Rav Arora’s upcoming investigation on a leading cardiologist’s regrets in vaccinating young people at his clinic:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello Illusion of Consensus community,Today’s special edition podcast episode features a must-listen, long-form exchange with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Robert Malone — two scientists who have maintained great courage, bravery, and resilience throughout the pandemic. This is part one of a larger 2+ hour conversation the two doctor-heretics engage in.To receive the exclusive second part of their conversation in video format, please consider subscribing to The Illusion of Consensus newsletter and podcast:https://www.illusionconsensus.com This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hi Illusion of Consensus readers,I am delighted to host Kelly Kroner, who has come to prominence during the pandemic as basically a citizen scientist, a leader in holding the CDC and other scientists accountable for basic errors in math and counting. It's been striking to watch professionals publish pieces — scare-mongering about the deadliness of COVID to children — and to watch Kelly take apart these claims, using data from the CDC, analyzing the basic standard sources.I've been admiring her advocacy for some time now on Twitter. In fact, I think I wrote a tweet saying that you're a national treasure, and I honestly believe that. It's been wonderful to watch. Enjoy my hour-long conversation with her.— Jay BhattacharyaSubscribe to our Substack:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Hello Illusion of Consensus subscribers,On today’s podcast episode, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya hosts Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project, for a one-on-one interview. They discuss her background living in a communist country,— The Illusion of Consensus podcast This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe