Recent social media posts from EcoHealth Alliance’s former leader Peter Daszak have sparked controversy by targeting newly appointed NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya with accusations of being “anti-science” and undermining public health. These allegations, made on June 2, 2025, appear to deflect attention from Daszak’s own controversial past.
Dr. Bhattacharya, previously a Stanford University professor and prominent figure behind the Great Barrington Declaration, has built his career on promoting evidence-based public health strategies. His appointment to lead the NIH represents a shift toward transparent, data-driven decision-making in public health policy – a stark contrast to previous approaches that faced criticism for suppressing scientific debate.
The irony of Daszak’s accusations becomes apparent when examining his own scientific record. Under his leadership, EcoHealth Alliance directed American taxpayer funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research. This work, conducted in collaboration with researcher Zhengli-Li Shi, involved manipulating coronaviruses to enhance their human infectivity – activities that align with the NIH’s definition of gain-of-function research, despite Daszak’s continued denials.
Daszak’s response to criticism has raised eyebrows in the scientific community. When confronted with questions about EcoHealth’s
involvement in the coronavirus pandemic, his organization attempted to force the retraction of critical articles. After these efforts failed, Daszak resorted to blocking critics on social media platforms, raising questions about his commitment to scientific discourse and
transparency.
The accusations against Bhattacharya of harboring a “vendetta against the NIH” and claims that his leadership will endanger lives appear to be diversionary tactics. These statements come at a time when Daszak himself faces ongoing scrutiny over EcoHealth’s decision to channel funds to a Chinese Communist Party-controlled laboratory with questionable oversight measures.
Throughout his career, Bhattacharya has consistently advocated for balanced public health approaches, including the recognition of natural immunity and careful consideration of lockdown policies’ broader impacts. His censorship under the previous administration highlights the challenges faced by scientists who question established narratives.
Daszak’s latest attacks on Bhattacharya and the Brownstone Institute, which he dismisses as part of a right-wing conspiracy, reflect a concerning pattern of avoiding substantive debate through character assassination. This approach stands in direct opposition to the principles of scientific inquiry, which thrive on open discussion and critical examination.
The appointment of Bhattacharya to lead the NIH signals a potential return to these fundamental scientific principles. His leadership promises to prioritize evidence-based decision-making and open dialogue – elements that appear to make certain figures in the scientific establishment uncomfortable.
The contrast between Daszak’s confrontational approach and
Bhattacharya’s commitment to transparent, evidence-based policy making couldn’t be clearer. While one seeks to silence critics and avoid accountability, the other advocates for open scientific debate and rigorous analysis of public health measures.
The scientific community and public alike deserve leadership that embraces transparency and robust debate. As the NIH moves forward under Bhattacharya’s direction, the focus on evidence-based approaches and open scientific discourse may finally replace the culture of censorship and intimidation that has hindered progress in public health policy.