Silenced by Stanford: COVID Skeptic Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Speaks Out Against University’s Censorship Attempts

Written by Steve Cannon for USSA News.

Stanford University’s attempts to silence Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a self-described COVID lockdown skeptic and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, have been exposed in a powerful piece written by Dr. Bhattacharya himself. In the article, titled “How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test,” Dr. Bhattacharya highlights the university’s attempts to censor and intimidate him for scientifically refuting the mandatory lockdowns that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Bhattacharya was an early and influential voice in objecting to the harmful and Draconian policies enforced on populations globally, and he has paid a heavy price for it. In the article, he reminds us of how far people in power were willing to go to hide information and discussion from the public in order to keep the money spigots flowing. He writes, “The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.”

Dr. Bhattacharya initially became the target of censorship with the release of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), which was one of the first and most important refutations of Fauciism. In the paper, he, Harvard Professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Oxford Professor Dr. Sunetra Gupta argued that lockdowns were not the answer to slow the spread of the virus and that focused protections on the vulnerable should have been the path forward.

The blowback was swift, and at first, tens of thousands of scientists, epidemiologists, and doctors signed the GBD. However, Bhattacharya described how the mood suddenly changed, “The plan received the attention of the American press, at first curious and fair, but soon thereafter hostile and tendentious. I started getting calls from reporters, including outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post, asking me why I wanted to ‘let the virus rip’ through the population, even though that was the very opposite of what we were proposing, and questioning my credentials and motives.”