Bhattacharya: Honesty and Transparency Will Get Better Results Than Vaccine Mandates

 NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told Newsmax on Thursday night that he supports Florida's plan to end all vaccine mandates and researching concerns about vaccine side effects raised by HHS Secretary Kennedy.

Bhattacharya argued that mandates are not the most effective way to get the most people vaccinated. "The European strategy is different, and they’ve had better results than we do on essential vaccines like MMR," he said. "In the UK, Sweden, and Denmark, all vaccines are voluntary. None of them have mandates for any of their vaccines. What they do have is public health that doesn’t lie to their people."

"They’re not coercing people—they’re reasoning with them. I’m not making an announcement for the administration; I’m giving you my view as an epidemiologist. That seems the better approach: talk to people, show them the data, be honest when there are problems, and treat people like adults, especially parents, so they can make good decisions for their families," Bhattacharya said.


"I don’t think the MMR vaccine causes autism, based on my reading of the scientific evidence," he also said. "But I also know we don’t understand the rise in autism. The recent prevalence numbers are 1 in 31 kids; a few decades ago, it was 1 in 10,000. We really don’t know the etiology."

"As NIH Director—at the behest of Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—I’ve ordered an honest evaluation of the causes of autism," Bhattacharya said. "Through the normal NIH process, 250 research groups across the country competed, and we’ll select the top dozen based on scientific review. Those projects should be ready to start by the end of this month—in record time. We need to open our minds, ask the real questions, and get answers with excellent science. That’s the right way—instead of all this disputation."

ROB SCHMITT, NEWSMAX: You saw [HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] silenced a lot during this hearing as he attempted to disprove a lot of the allegations that were hurled at him. I thought that was so interesting—the people who never let somebody talk are trying to claim that they’re the good guys. That can’t be right.

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: Well, free speech suppression was a key tactic of public health during the pandemic. I can tell you from firsthand experience, so it wouldn’t surprise me. But I thought Secretary Kennedy got a lot of great points in—even though he wasn’t given much opportunity to respond.

ROB SCHMITT: Yeah, he fought back. I think the stickiest point of the day was any time we touched on vaccines—whether COVID or MMR—it got really hairy. I feel like on the left the position seems to be clear: they don’t want anybody to talk about the fact that there might be harm done by a vaccine. That conversation can’t happen, because in their minds it will lead to vaccine hesitancy. And obviously if nobody gets critical vaccines like measles, mumps, rubella, that’s a huge public disaster. Kennedy feels we should have transparency and work to make these vaccines safer. For whatever reason, whenever he goes down that road he’s immediately labeled anti-vaccine, anti-science, a threat to public health. Is that how you see it?

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: It’s totally unreasonable. Look at the MMR vaccine: the American people know better. You have 90-plus percent of parents vaccinating their kids, which makes complete sense given what the scientific evidence says and the risk-benefit ratios.

For the COVID vaccine, less than 20% of American parents vaccinate their children—because it doesn’t make sense for most kids. From a scientific point of view, the risk of COVID is very low for small children, especially infants. What Secretary Kennedy is doing is aligning American vaccine policy with what’s happening in Europe. It’s not anti-scientific—it’s actually closer to what the scientific evidence says. Rather than treating vaccines as a religious talisman, we should apply gold-standard science and give good advice for good decisions.

ROB SCHMITT: But that whole idea gets lambasted. If you want to touch any of it, you get silenced and canceled—just like during COVID.

I do want to get to this: the Florida Surgeon General made a big announcement on what the state is looking at doing with vaccines. Let’s play this:

FLORIDA SURGEON GENERAL LADAPO: The Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governor, is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida law. All of them.

ROB SCHMITT: So they’re looking at ending all vaccine mandates in the state of Florida. To a lot of people—even many who support Kennedy—this might be too far. Is the administration supporting this? What’s their take?

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: I’m not sure exactly what the administration’s position is yet. But I’ll tell you, Rob: in the UK, in Sweden, in Denmark—none of them have vaccine mandates for any of their vaccines. All vaccines are voluntary. What they do have is public health that doesn’t lie to their people.

So you have excellent vaccine uptake for MMR in those places without mandates, without violating bodily autonomy, because public health has the trust of the people—because they are trustworthy. The problem in the U.S. has been that public health hasn’t been trustworthy, especially during COVID. You saw exaggerations about the COVID vaccines’ ability to stop infection and transmission. And mandates just deepened the distrust. It's not obvious the strategy of using mandates is the right one. The European strategy is different, and they’ve had better results than we do on essential vaccines like MMR.

ROB SCHMITT: I don’t think a lot of people realize that—that in Europe, there isn’t a mandate, even to get into public school.

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: That’s right. They’re not coercing people—they’re reasoning with them. I find that approach attractive. I’m not making an announcement for the administration; I’m giving you my view as an epidemiologist. That seems the better approach: talk to people, show them the data, be honest when there are problems, and treat people like adults—especially parents—so they can make good decisions for their families.

ROB SCHMITT: Senators Kennedy and Cassidy—both Republicans—had harsh comments about the Secretary in recent days that I don’t think are fair. Even today, there was no real response from critics to Kennedy when he raised points like the 2002 study in Fulton County, Georgia. That study showed Black boys were 260% more likely to develop autism if they got the MMR vaccine before age three. That research was deleted from a study. There’s no response from critics when he brings that up. What is the answer to something like that? If there is a danger there, is the answer to wait longer? It's a critical vaccine, but he shows there's a danger that has been hidden from the American people.

DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: That was 2002. It was a very different version of the MMR vaccine than we use today. Based on my reading of the scientific evidence, I don’t think the MMR vaccine causes autism. But I also know we don’t understand the rise in autism. The recent prevalence numbers are 1 in 31 kids; a few decades ago, it was 1 in 10,000. We really don’t know the etiology.

As NIH Director—at the behest of Secretary Kennedy and President Trump—I’ve ordered an honest evaluation of the causes of autism. Through the normal NIH process, 250 research groups across the country competed, and we’ll select the top dozen based on scientific review. Those projects should be ready to start by the end of this month—in record time. We need to open our minds, ask the real questions, and get answers with excellent science. That’s the right way—instead of all this disputation.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/09/05/nih_director_dr_jay_bhattacharya_.html

Roberts Invites Leftist Bullying Campaigns Against SCOTUS Playing Politics On The Bench

 It’s been widely reported for years that Chief Justice John Roberts has altered his jurisprudence in pivotal matters before the Supreme Court to preserve what he views as the “legitimacy” of the judiciary. So, it comes as no surprise that America’s leftist media have sought to exploit that weakness by trying to bully the Bush appointee into giving them the judicial outcomes they want.

That appeared to be a major goal of an NBC News article published Thursday, which contained critical remarks from anonymous lower court judges upset that the Supreme Court won’t entertain their judicial coup against the Trump administration. While many of these unnamed judges whined about the high court’s use of the emergency docket to temporarily block injunctions on the administration’s policies, several of them noticeably directed their verbal fire at Roberts, who they argued should do more to push back against President Trump’s criticisms of the lower judiciary’s overreaching antics.

“With tensions so high, four of the judges said they believe the Supreme Court and specifically Roberts, the head of the judiciary, should do more to defend the courts,” NBC reporter Lawrence Hurley wrote. “The Supreme Court, a second judge said, is effectively assisting the Trump administration in ‘undermining the lower courts,’ leaving district and appeals court judges ‘thrown under the bus.’”

The article included additional criticisms from lower court judges of Roberts’ handling of emergency docket-related cases involving the Trump administration.

As acknowledged by Hurley, Roberts — who has both sided with and against the administration in emergency docket cases — has not been shy about voicing his dissatisfaction with Trump. Earlier this year, the chief justice issued rare remarks pushing back on the president’s call to impeach an Obama-appointed judge for his outlandish conduct in an immigration-related case before his court.

The Bush appointee had previously issued a statement in 2018 expressing disagreement with Trump’s characterization of an Obama-appointed judge as, well, an “Obama judge.” He also publicly condemned Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in 2020 after the New York Democrat verbally threatened Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they didn’t rule on an abortion-related case the way he wanted.

While a few of the unnamed judges who spoke with NBC appeared less willing to criticize Roberts, the underlying goal of the article — to bully the chief justice and SCOTUS into allowing the lower courts’ judicial coup to continue and delivering case outcomes they find politically advantageous — is pretty evident. And although leftist-backed smear and intimidation campaigns against the high court’s Republican appointees aren’t a new phenomenon, the perpetual belief among Democrats and their media allies that such tactics work can be attributed to Roberts himself.

It’s been well documented for years that the chief justice pays close attention to how the Supreme Court and the judiciary writ large are viewed and portrayed among the American public and media. This was quite evident during the high court’s 2012 Obamacare case.

Roberts reportedly originally sided with his fellow Republican appointees in deeming Obamacare unconstitutional but got cold feet over fears about potential public blowback should the court do so. As detailed by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino in their book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, Roberts cut a deal with the court’s Democrat appointees to salvage the law instead of adhering to the Constitution.

“Whatever Chief Justice Roberts’s reasons, the result was not an improvement in the Court’s reputation,” the authors wrote. “The accepted narrative, even among those who welcomed the chief’s decision, was that he changed his legal position not on principle but in response to public pressure. … It was a regrettable outcome for anyone concerned about the legitimacy of the Court.”

The perhaps unintended consequence of the chief justice’s actions was that it telegraphed to Democrat politicians and legacy media that Roberts — and the Supreme Court as a whole — is susceptible to intense public bullying campaigns. That is, if left-wing activists and their media buddies gin up enough noise and “outrage,” they can sway Roberts’ (and potentially other Republican-appointed justices’) opinions on any given case.

When it becomes clear that a judge’s main priority is not upholding the Constitution as written but engaging in backdoor politics for PR purposes, leftists are going to exploit that to advance their ideology at every available opportunity. That’s what’s happening here with NBC’s latest report, and it’s what will continue to occur as long as Roberts keeps playing the role of a politician in a black robe.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/05/john-roberts-invites-leftist-bullying-campaigns-against-scotus-by-playing-politics-on-the-bench/

Ex-Chicago Police chief: Democrats are afraid Trump will fix city crime

 President Donald Trump announced plans last month to place the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and deploy National Guard troops across the District of Columbia. He vowed to combat crime and “restore the beauty” of Washington.

Trump told reporters that the district’s homicide rate topped that of some of the world’s most dangerous cities, while car thefts had doubled and carjackings had more than tripled over the past five years.

The outrage from the Left was swift and fierce. For days, Democrats flooded the airwaves, parroting a recent report claiming that violent crime in Washington dropped to a 30-year low. New York Times correspondent Peter Baker insisted that Trump was “citing a nonexistent crime crisis.”

In a fiery multipost rant on X, popular podcast host Dan Carlin declared, “Those of you who don’t know what authoritarianism looks like…this is it. All the gaslighting about previous presidents ‘what about…!!! Is bulls***. I’ve been talking about the slide towards NOW for 30+ years. Those earlier concerns were nothing. Now we are HERE.”

Three weeks later, the results speak for themselves: Trump’s plan is working. Even Mayor Muriel Bowser has expressed surprise at the turnaround. At a recent press conference, she highlighted that carjackings had dropped by 87%. This week, she went a step further, signing an executive order to establish the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center, a new body that will partner with the federal government to “promote public safety” beyond the initial 30-day emergency.

After his undeniable success in Washington, Trump is preparing to take his law-and-order formula to other crime-plagued cities. Next on the list: Chicago.

After a particularly brutal Labor Day weekend in Chicago, marked by at least 54 shootings and eight deaths, Trump said, “We’re going in. I didn’t say when, [but] we’re going in.”

Despite Chicago’s persistently high levels of homicides and violent crime, Mayor Brandon Johnson and Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL) remain vehemently opposed to the deployment of National Guard troops and have gone to great lengths to voice their resistance to Trump’s proposal.

Asked why the pair are refusing the offer of federal assistance to combat crime during a Tuesday interview with The National News Desk, former Chicago Police Chief Jody Weis said the quiet part out loud: They’re afraid it might work.

“I think they are afraid that people will see what can be done if politicians commit to taking action and really want to make a difference,” Weis explained. “That’s really the only reason I can think of because otherwise, it makes no sense.”

According to Weis, 81% of shooters and 78% of shooting victims are black.

“So you’ve got black-on-black crime,” Weis said, “and yet the governor and the mayor said they don’t want any help. So, to me, when you refuse help, you are saying you are happy with the numbers — and that is absolutely unacceptable in Chicago right now.

“I see JB Pritzker walking the lake at 6 o’clock in the morning, saying, ‘There’s no crime here. It’s beautiful.’ Well, it’s 6 o’clock in the morning along the lake. I live pretty close to that area. There is no crime. Let him walk in the Austin neighborhood or the Inglewood neighborhoods at 11 o’clock because that’s where many of his constituents live — and they’re not going to feel safe.”

Weis was referring to Pritzker’s Tuesday morning stroll along Chicago’s scenic Lakefront Trail with a reporter. Citing the bloody weekend, she asked the governor, “Would you ask your friends to ride the L [train] after midnight or after 9 o’clock at night?”

Pritzker replied, “Look, big cities have crime. There’s no doubt about it. But let’s just pay attention to what President Trump is doing targeting Chicago. He’s overlooking red states that have much higher crime rates.”

While it’s true that some red states, such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee, have high crime rates, this is largely driven by the Democrat-led cities within them: New Orleans, Jackson, St. Louis, and Memphis, respectively, which rank among the most dangerous cities in the country.

And yes, all big cities struggle with crime. But the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens and uphold law and order.

So the question becomes: What level of crime does Pritzker consider tolerable? How many murders are acceptable before he concedes that Chicago’s violence demands more than a dismissive shrug?

Why are the governor and the mayor siding with criminals over Trump? Would they rather see more murders and violent crimes, as Weis suggested, than allow Trump another win? Well, it certainly looks that way.

As they dig in against Trump, they’re resorting to statements so outrageous they border on the absurd.

“Unlike Donald Trump, we keep our promises,” Pritzker warned in a recent post on X. “We will not stand idly by if he decides to send the National Guard to intimidate Chicagoans. Action will be met with a response.”

In a second post, he wrote, “Donald Trump is exactly the kind of person that our founders warned us about. He cozies up to dictators like Putin because he idolizes them. His actions are dangerous and un-American.”

Johnson blamed the high crime rate on red states in a video posted on X this week.

“Chicago will continue to have a ‘violence problem’ as long as Red states continue to have a gun problem,” Johnson posted. “The endless flow of illegal guns into Chicago can be traced to Red states like Mississippi, Indiana, and Louisiana. It is up to the federal government to step up and stop interstate gun trafficking networks.”

The reality is that Democratic policies have led us here. Cashless bail measures adopted in many Democrat-run jurisdictions have left police demoralized — arresting criminals only to watch them walk free just hours later.

Additionally, the Left’s “defund the police” movement, bolstered by an aggressive propaganda campaign to turn public opinion against law enforcement, has fueled a nationwide recruitment and retention crisis. As a result, police departments across the country are grappling with severe staffing shortages. Who in their right mind would want to wear the badge today?

Chicagoans don’t feel safe. Man-on-the-street interviews have shown that many residents would welcome federal help to lower the city’s crime rate.

Johnson and Pritzker are losing the debate on crime. Any sane leader would put the safety of their constituents ahead of their Trump Derangement Syndrome — but they can’t, and they won’t.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3794272/ex-chicago-police-chief-democrats-afraid-trump-fix-crime/

LAPD yanks cops off Kamala Harris’ mansion after uproar over diverted patrols

 The Los Angeles Police Department has pulled its cops from a security detail at Kamala Harris’ Brentwood, California home after outrage that crime-fighting units were being diverted to guard the former vice president.

A dozen Metro Division officers had been stationed outside Harris’ mansion after President Trump revoked her Secret Service protection last week, ending an extension through which had been quietly granted by President Biden.

By Saturday, the backup was gone, sources told the Los Angeles Times.

3

LAPD Metro Division officers were seen outside Harris’ Brentwood mansion earlier this week before the city pulled the plug on the temporary detail.FOX 11

The short-lived detail drew fury inside the department after LAPD officers were pulled from crime suppression in the San Fernando Valley to guard Harris. 

“Pulling police officers from protecting everyday Angelenos to protect a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire … and who can easily afford to pay for her own security, is nuts,” the Los Angeles Police Protective League’s board said.

Mayor Karen Bass had directed LAPD to assist the California Highway Patrol in the wake of Trump’s move, which she called an act of “political retaliation.” 

3

The union representing LAPD rank-and-file blasted the deployment, saying Valley patrols lost cops while crime remains a top concern there.AP

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had to approve CHP protection, hasn’t confirmed the arrangement, but his office said “the safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulse.”

A FOX 11 helicopter spotted LAPD officers standing guard at Harris’ home earlier this week, but the city-funded detail was always expected to be temporary, with Harris likely to hire private security. 

3

Security for former vice presidents normally lasts just six months, far less than the lifetime protection given to presidents.Getty Images

The controversy over taxpayer-funded protection comes as Harris gears up for a 15-stop international book tour promoting her memoir, “107 Days,” which recalls her brief 2024 presidential campaign.

Former vice presidents traditionally receive just six months of Secret Service protection, compared to lifetime coverage for presidents.

A spokesperson for Harris did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/06/us-news/lapd-pulls-cops-from-kamala-harris-home-security-detail/

'Hengrui Licenses Heart Disease Drug to US Startup for up to $1B+'

 

Hengrui Pharmaceuticals has been busy this year, signing a nearly $2 billion cardio contract with Merck in March and a 12-asset agreement with GSK in July worth up to $12 billion.

China’s Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals has found another U.S. partnership, this time putting it in line for potentially more than $1 billion in total payments.

Under the terms of the agreement, Hengrui will receive $65 million upfront from Delaware-based startup Braveheart Bio, plus up to $10 million in additional near-term payments once the transfer of certain technologies has been completed. Hengrui will also be eliglble for up to $1.013 billion in clinical and sales-related milestones, plus royalties on worldwide sales outside of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.

The centerpiece of Friday’s transaction is Hengrui’s selective myosin blocker HRS-1893, according to a regulatory filing to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The asset works by tamping down on the excessive contraction of heart muscles, in turn preventing hypertrophy in the left ventricle and improving heart muscle relaxation.

HRS-1893 is currently in late-stage development for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM). Braveheart and Hengrui will establish a joint steering committee—with each company nominating at most five members each—to oversee the global development and commercialization of the asset.

With Friday’s agreement, Hengrui and Braveheart will take on Cytokinetics, which earlier this week achieved “potentially best-in-class” efficacy for its own cardiac myosin inhibitor aficamten, according to analysts at Truist Securities. Aficamten is also being developed for oHCM. An application is undergoing FDA review with a target action date of Sept. 26.

Braveheart represents Hengrui’s third major partnership this year. In March, the company received $200 million upfront from Merck for its investigational small-molecule lipoprotein(a) blocker HRS-5346. Under this agreement, Hengrui could also receive up to $1.77 billion in developmental, regulatory and commercial milestones, and royalties on top of those.

Then, in July, Hengrui struck gold when it entered into a sprawling, 12-target pact with GSK. Leading this partnership is HRS-9821, a potentially best-in-class PDE3/4 inhibitor being tested for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. GSK paid $500 million upfront for this asset and for the opportunity to work on 11 more molecules with Hengrui. Future payments could reach up to $12 billion if all programs are optioned and all milestones are hit.

Not much is known about Hengrui’s latest partner Braveheart. According to the regulatory filing on Friday, the startup was founded in 2024 and is led by Travis Murdoch, who was previously the CEO of HI-Bio before it was acquired by Biogen in May 2024 for $1.8 billion.

https://www.biospace.com/business/hengrui-licenses-heart-disease-drug-to-us-startup-for-up-to-1b

American College of Lifestyle Medicine Culinary Medicine Program

 The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) is pleased to offer this complimentary Culinary Medicine Program based on the foundational work of Michelle Hauser, MD, MS, MPA, FACP, FACLM, DipABLM, Chef. A strong foundation in culinary medicine skills — including an understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet and how to find, obtain, and prepare healthy and delicious food — is an essential part of achieving optimal health.

This resource library contains nearly fifteen hours of video content exploring fundamental kitchen knowledge, basic cooking skills, and delicious recipes, along with handouts covering topics like safe food handling,
whole grains, and mindful eating.

The program is designed to help you move toward a whole food, plant-predominant dietary pattern
and is suitable for both experienced home cooks and those new to the kitchen.

 

For the best user experience, we recommend using a desktop computer or laptop.

https://connect.lifestylemedicine.org/culinarymedicineeducation/home