Science From the Fringe

In the third episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. revisit the legacy of An Inconvenient Truth twenty years after its release. Building on Pielke’s recent essay, they examine how Al Gore framed climate change through a religious lens—apocalyptic warnings, moral imperatives, and a defined path to “salvation.” Pielke reflects on how readily much of the scientific community embraced this framing and argues that the film’s most enduring impact lies not in any single claim it made, but in how it helped recast climate science as a vehicle for moral and political advocacy.A central theme is the concept of “new apocalypticism,” drawn from the work of sociologist Michael Barkun, which Roger uses to describe how scientific authority has been repurposed to support secular narratives of impending catastrophe. He argues that An Inconvenient Truth exemplifies this shift, presenting complex scientific issues through emotionally charged imagery and moral binaries that divide the world into good and bad actors. Bryce highlights specific examples from the film—including its use of extreme weather events, historical analogies, and symbolic imagery—to argue that it relies heavily on persuasion rather than careful scientific reasoning.The episode also examines what the film got right—such as the basic science of greenhouse gas emissions and warming—while emphasizing where it misled audiences, particularly on extreme weather and the role of political will. Roger argues that the film’s biggest error was its claim that solving climate change is primarily a matter of political motivation, rather than a challenge of technological innovation and economic alignment. More broadly, the conversation explores how the blending of science and advocacy can erode public trust, especially when scientific institutions adopt partisan or moralizing narratives.(recorded April 13, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels speaks with virologist Simon Wain-Hobson about Simon’s essay, “WHO Wordplay on COVID Origins,” which critiques the WHO SAGO report and a related Nature commentary on what is known about the origins of COVID-19.The discussion begins with SAGO’s claim that most peer-reviewed evidence supports a natural origin, while acknowledging that key intelligence and data remain unavailable. Simon argues this creates a misleading sense of certainty—presenting a conclusion while admitting critical gaps.The conversation then turns to peer review, emphasizing that it is not a final stamp of truth but the beginning of quality control. Publication does not settle questions; real scrutiny happens afterward. Both Simon and Bryce note that top journals can give findings outsized authority before they are fully validated.They argue that in politically sensitive areas like gain-of-function research and COVID origins, the publication system can shift from gatekeeping to gate blocking, limiting debate and shaping consensus prematurely. This has downstream effects, as institutions like SAGO and the Government Accountability Office rely heavily on published literature that may itself be incomplete or biased.The episode also highlights the value of work outside traditional journals, pointing to independent researchers who have contributed meaningful analyses. Dismissing such work solely for lacking peer review, Simon argues, is circular when the formal system restricts what gets published.A key theme is openness versus defensiveness. Drawing on his experiences in the HIV-era experience, Simon argues that confronting difficult hypotheses openly builds trust, while suppressing debate erodes it. This is reflected in the muted in-person response to Matt Ridley’s NIH lecture on the likely lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, which contrasts with stronger criticism expressed online.The episode concludes with potential reforms, including reducing the gatekeeping role of journals and expanding incentives for replication. Both emphasize that science functions best when dissent is allowed, evidence is openly examined, and no single institution defines the boundaries of truth.(recorded March 25, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the second episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels speaks with climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. about his recent review of Science Under Siege (SUS), a book by Michael Mann and Peter Hotez arguing that an “anti-science movement” threatens society.Roger argues that SUS is less a serious analysis than a partisan manifesto—one that treats political disagreement, especially from Republicans, as a form of scientific heresy. A central theme is the book’s use of terms like “anti-science cabal” and “anti-science ecosystem.” He contends that these categories are vague and elastic, functioning less as analytic concepts than as labels for people the authors oppose. Rather than clarifying how science is distorted in public life, he suggests, the book collapses disagreement into moral warfare.The episode also explores the broader politicization of science. Roger argues that parts of the scientific community have grown too comfortable embracing openly partisan narratives, thereby risking science’s credibility as a public enterprise meant to serve everyone—not just one political faction. At the same time, he criticizes heavy-handed political attacks on scientific institutions, arguing that restoring trust will require greater openness, pluralism, and tolerance for disagreement.(recorded March 31, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Climate change is one of the most politically charged issues in science, often framed as a choice between denial and apocalypse. In the first episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels speaks with climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. about why that framing distorts the realities of climate science.At the center of the conversation is the role of scenarios in climate research—what Roger calls “the best kept secret in climate science.” Climate models do not predict the future; they simulate how the climate would respond under different assumptions about how the world develops, including population growth, economic activity, and energy use. These assumptions, known as emissions scenarios, determine how much carbon dioxide is emitted and, in turn, how much warming is projected.Roger explains that many of the most widely used scenarios—particularly those developed in the early 2000s—were built around assumptions of rapidly expanding coal use. These scenarios helped produce some of the most alarming projections of future warming and came to dominate both the scientific literature and public discussion. However, the world has not followed that trajectory, and many of these scenarios are now outdated—even as they continue to be used in current research.He emphasizes that climate change is real and serious, and that scenarios are a necessary tool for understanding possible futures. But he argues that failing to distinguish between plausible and implausible scenarios—and to update those assumptions as the world changes—can distort how climate science is interpreted.The episode also examines how institutional and methodological factors can slow the updating of scenarios, allowing outdated assumptions to persist in research, media coverage, and policy discussions.(recorded March 12, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the eighth episode of In Defense of Virology, distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson joins host Bryce Nickels to discuss Simon’s recent essay, “You Couldn’t Make Body Bags Fast Enough.” The essay examines a largely overlooked gain-of-function influenza experiment involving the avian virus H7N1 (Sutton et al., Airborne transmission of highly pathogenic H7N1 influenza virus in ferrets, published in Journal of Virology, June 15, 2014).In that study, researchers engineered an H7N1 influenza virus capable of airborne transmission in ferrets while retaining high lethality, killing three of five infected animals. Simon argues that if a virus with similar properties spread among humans, the consequences could be catastrophic.The conversation revisits earlier gain-of-function controversies—most notably the 2012 H5N1 experiments by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka—and asks why the H7N1 work drew far less scrutiny. Simon points to structural pressures within science—funding incentives, prestige journals, and deference to authority—that can discourage open criticism of risky research. He also discusses the role of journals in publishing studies with clear dual-use implications.Bryce and Simon also discuss the incentives that shape scientific behavior. They argue that current funding structures and the pursuit of high-profile publications can normalize increasingly risky experiments. The episode concludes with a call for clearer boundaries between “cutting-edge” research that benefits the public and “bleeding-edge” work that may put lives at risk—emphasizing that protecting the public from dangerous research requires confronting difficult questions about responsibility, transparency, and acceptable risk.(recorded March 8, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with cardiologist and medical commentator Dr. Anish Koka about his recent article examining the forces that led to physician-scientist Vinay Prasad’s departure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They discuss how Prasad’s efforts to strengthen evidentiary standards for drug approvals quickly ran up against powerful political, financial, and institutional interests. The conversation explores how his brief tenure became a case study in the difficulty of reforming institutions where scientific standards, patient desperation, political pressure, and financial incentives collide.As Anish explains, Vinay Prasad is an unusually independent thinker within academic medicine who built a reputation challenging weak evidentiary standards for drug approvals long before entering government. Once at the FDA, he attempted to raise those standards—particularly for vaccines and costly therapies approved on limited or indirect evidence. Those efforts quickly triggered backlash from pharmaceutical companies, investors, patient advocacy groups, biotech media, and political actors with stakes in the approval pipeline.Anish walks through a detailed timeline of the flashpoints that defined Prasad’s short tenure: disputes over gene therapies for rare diseases, conflicts with companies such as Sarepta, Moderna, and UniQure, and broader debates about how regulators should weigh desperate patient demand against uncertain clinical evidence. He explains how controversial trial designs—such as reliance on historical controls or small datasets—can allow extremely expensive treatments to reach the market without clear proof they improve patient outcomes. In his view, Prasad’s push to tighten evidentiary standards exposed deeper structural problems in the drug-approval system.The conversation also explores the political and media dynamics surrounding Prasad’s tenure, including accusations that he created “chaos” at the agency, personal attacks, and media leaks that intensified pressure on FDA leadership. Bryce and Anish argue that Prasad’s willingness to publicly take responsibility for regulatory decisions—and to challenge entrenched interests—made him an unusually rare figure in Washington.The episode concludes with a broader discussion about incentives in drug regulation: the influence of pharmaceutical profits, the vulnerability of rare-disease communities to exploitation, and whether meaningful reform of the FDA’s approval process is possible from within the current system. Despite Prasad’s departure, Anish argues that his brief tenure exposed important weaknesses at the intersection of science, regulation, industry, and media.(recorded March 8, 2026)Timestamps00:31 – Introducing Anish Koka and the Vinay Prasad story02:12 – Why Prasad’s FDA appointment was surprising03:20 – Prasad’s background and COVID-era break from consensus04:24 – The core issue: declining evidentiary standards at FDA06:41 – Prasad’s integrity and inevitable clash with the system09:57 – Was Prasad set up?12:08 – Why Peter Marks mattered politically13:19 – Prasad’s new vaccine approval framework14:18 – Sarepta and weak evidence in rare disease drugs17:13 – Media leaks and the role of Stat News19:33 – Marty Makary backs Prasad20:05 – “Bad politics” or principled regulator?21:58 – The Moderna dispute over vaccine evidence23:51 – Accountability and why Prasad stood out27:49 – Personal attacks and mounting pressure28:09 – The UniQure controversy30:53 – What a sham control is33:55 – The problem with historical controls36:00 – Who decides trial matching?38:00 – Media narratives of “chaos” at FDA40:19 – Political pressure from Congress42:39 – The chain of events leading to Prasad’s exit45:04 – Rare disease desperation and potential exploitation49:03 – What Prasad exposed about the FDA ecosystem50:45 – The rare disease approval loophole53:45 – Investors, incentives, and distorted evidence54:13 – Why few would want Prasad’s job54:39 – Final reflections on integrity and institutional pressureintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the seventh episode of In Defense of Virology, distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson discusses the science (or lack thereof) behind two of the most influential publications on the origin of SARS-CoV-2: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” (“Proximal Origin,” published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020) and “Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19” (“Calisher et al.,” published in The Lancet on March 7, 2020).These publications were instrumental in establishing the false narrative that the weight of scientific evidence strongly favored a natural origin over a laboratory origin. While both papers have been widely criticized for years (including by Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels, who has been part of multiple calls for Proximal Origin to be retracted - see, Proximal Origin Retraction Request #1; Proximal Origin Retraction Request #2; Petition to Retract Proximal Origin), Simon’s comments in this episode, including his own call for their retraction, represent one of the strongest condemnations of these papers from a member of the virology community itself. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the importance of accountability in cases (such as “Proximal Origin” and “Calisher et al.”) where established scientific norms are violated in such an odious manner.This episode serves as a companion to Simon’s essay, “Distal truths,” in which he elaborates on these arguments in written form.(recorded February 2, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the sixth episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels speaks with distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson about a potentially catastrophic biosafety issue: the human H2N2 influenza virus is not classified as a federal select agent, yet live samples remain stored in laboratory freezers around the world. The discussion is prompted by Simon’s recent essay, “The virus not on the Select Agent list.”The discussion centers on a concerning exchange between NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and NIAID Acting Director Jeffrey Taubenberger on an August 2025 episode of The Director’s Desk podcast. During that conversation, Taubenberger—a prominent influenza researcher best known for his role in the highly controversial resurrection of the deadly 1918 “Spanish flu” virus—said that the virus responsible for the 1957 pandemic, H2N2, poses a serious concern. He noted that since 1968, no one has been exposed to this virus, even though it was fully adapted to humans. Despite this, H2N2 is not a select agent. Taubenberger explained that his lab voluntarily handles it under the same conditions as the 1918 virus, though such precautions are not required, and acknowledged that H2N2 likely remains in clinical, diagnostic, and basic virology laboratory freezers around the world. He admitted that this situation “really scares” him, since most of the global population born after 1968 lacks immunity to H2N2—a virus known to have already caused a pandemic.Simon highlights Taubenberger’s striking acknowledgment that live H2N2 stocks persist in numerous laboratories without select agent designation or enhanced biosafety requirements. This stands in sharp contrast to the 1918 influenza virus—reconstructed by Taubenberger himself—which is designated as a Tier 1 select agent and subject to the highest level of regulatory control. Given the well-documented record of laboratory accidents, Simon argues that keeping H2N2 stocks under minimal oversight poses an unacceptable risk of a lab-acquired pandemic.The episode questions why, if Taubenberger himself is “really scared” by the existence of H2N2 stocks in laboratories worldwide, neither he nor the NIH Director has taken concrete action since their podcast discussion. Simon maintains that H2N2 is uniquely dangerous: it is fully adapted to humans, highly transmissible, and capable of causing millions of deaths in today’s densely populated, interconnected world—potentially matching or exceeding the impact of COVID-19. In his view, any speculative scientific value in retaining live H2N2 virus stocks is vastly outweighed by their global hazard.Emphasizing that pandemic potential depends primarily on transmissibility rather than case fatality—unlike pathogens such as Ebola—Simon calls for urgent corrective measures. He advocates adding human H2N2 to the Federal Select Agent List as a Tier 1 agent, destroying all unnecessary laboratory stocks under U.S. jurisdiction, retaining only genomic sequences for possible future reconstruction if ever justified, and encouraging equivalent actions internationally.The conversation places these recommendations within the broader “Do No Harm” ethos of the series, arguing that responsible virology sometimes requires restraint, remediation, and the deliberate elimination of nonessential risks.(recorded January 9, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In Episode 5 of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson have a sobering conversation about the emerging risks of applying artificial intelligence to virus design.The discussion centers on a recent Stanford preprint in which researchers trained AI models on bacteriophage genomes and used those models to generate entirely new viral sequences. From hundreds of AI-generated designs, the team synthesized 16 fully functional viruses. One replicated faster than its natural reference phage, while six displayed striking genetic stability, accumulating no detectable mutations at all. Even for Simon, whose career spans decades of studying viral evolution, the results were genuinely surprising.Although bacteriophages are often framed as promising therapeutic tools, particularly for treating antibiotic-resistant infections, Simon cautions that the implications of this work extend far beyond phage biology. Applying similar AI-driven approaches to animal or human viruses could unintentionally generate pathogens that are more transmissible or more virulent—effectively producing gain-of-function outcomes without any traditional laboratory manipulation.The episode places these findings within a broader and increasingly urgent context. Leaders in the AI community have begun sounding alarms about AI-enabled biology. Most notably, Yoshua Bengio warned in a New York Times op-ed that the implications of this technology are “terrifying.” Similar concerns were echoed at the September Red Lines AI meeting, where pandemic genesis was identified as the foremost global risk.Simon and Bryce argue that this moment demands restraint rather than curiosity. They urge scientists to refrain from applying AI-based viral design to human-relevant pathogens and call on research funders, including the National Institutes of Health, philanthropies, and private foundations, to withhold support for work that could escalate existential risk. (Such restraint would align with recent U.S. executive orders aimed at preventing the enhancement of dangerous pathogens.)The episode closes with Simon making a broader appeal for scientists to stop prioritizing technical novelty and high-risk experimentation, but for a renewed commitment to the principle of do no harm. Biology, he contends, should focus its energy on urgent human challenges (e.g., cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and mental health) where progress can be transformative without carrying the risk of catastrophic consequences.(recorded December 7, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Dana Parish—an award-winning songwriter, patient-rights advocate, advisory board member of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, co-author of Chronic, and host of The Dana Parish Podcast—about her personal experience with Lyme disease, the broader scientific, medical, and political controversies surrounding tick-borne illness, and the historical significance of the Lyme Disease Roundtable hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday, December 15, 2025.The conversation begins with Dana’s personal Lyme story: a tick bite that abruptly derailed her music career and led to severe multisystem illness, including heart failure, after early treatment failed. She describes a long and difficult journey to diagnosis, the discovery of co-infections such as Bartonella, and her eventual recovery through extended antibiotic treatment under Dr. Steven Phillips. That experience ultimately led her to co-author Chronic, a project shaped by striking parallels between Lyme disease politics and the public response to COVID-19.Dana discusses her advocacy work with organizations such as the Bay Area Lyme Foundation and the Lyme Disease Biobank, emphasizing the urgent need for improved diagnostics, increased research funding, insurance coverage, and formal recognition of chronic Lyme disease. The episode also explores the recent HHS Chronic Lyme Disease Roundtable, featuring figures such as RFK Jr., Dr. Oz, Dr. Steven Phillips, and Dr. Bob Bransfield. The discussion highlights growing acknowledgment of chronic Lyme’s reality, the severe neuropsychiatric consequences many patients face—including rage, psychosis, and suicide risk—and calls for systemic reforms in testing, treatment, and coverage.Interwoven with humor and banter—including jokes about exterminating ticks, “limited hangouts,” and mutual suspicions of being “spooks”—the episode confronts deeper issues: institutional denial, media bias, insurance barriers, failed vaccine efforts, and the enormous personal and economic toll of untreated chronic illness. Dana and Bryce also explore links between Lyme disease, toxic mold exposure, reactivated infections, and long COVID, underscoring the complexity of chronic inflammatory conditions.The episode closes with cautious optimism about potential reforms under new HHS leadership, stressing both the urgency of alleviating patient suffering and the need for skepticism and follow-through to ensure that recent developments amount to real change rather than symbolic optics.(recorded December 19, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with documentary filmmaker Jenner Furst, the Director of Thank You, Dr. Fauci, which examines the career and controversies surrounding Dr. Anthony Fauci.The conversation explores Jenner’s motivation for making the film, which began when independent financiers approached him to investigate Fauci’s record during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jenner describes his deep dive into Fauci’s involvement in gain-of-function research, the lab-origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2, and what he characterizes as a vast scientific cover-up, reconstructed through emails, publications, and whistleblower testimony.They discuss interviews featured in the film with figures such as Fauci’s long time nemesis Richard Ebright, former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, and current FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, while critically examining institutional incentives, possible intelligence-community entanglements, and how crises can be leveraged for power, profit, and political advantage.Interspersed with humor—ranging from bad Christmas songs and Ghostbusters metaphors to behind-the-scenes filming anecdotes—the discussion also confronts darker themes: suppressed dissent, fraud in science, failures of transparency, and the structural weaknesses of modern biosafety and public-health oversight.The episode asks how ambition, distorted incentives, and institutional corruption may have contributed to a global catastrophe—and whether meaningful accountability or reform is possible under new leadership. Listeners are encouraged to watch the film for a fuller reckoning.(Recorded December 13, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the fourth episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers Professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels and distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson argue that labs should destroy frozen stocks of dangerous, nonessential pathogens produced through gain-of-function research or historical resurrection—simple to do, high-impact for reducing global risk.Simon highlights precedent—from post-eradication smallpox and rinderpest—and cites a recent Newcastle disease virus re-emergence in China strongly suggestive of a freezer escape. Given that even top labs leak, he argues, destruction of unnecessary stocks is common-sense risk reduction.The episode concludes with an overlooked puzzle: despite SARS-CoV-2’s devastating impact, fewer than 100 related genomes have been disclosed, compared to more than 240 for SARS-1. Whether due to undersampling or undisclosed sequences, Simon contends the gap is a public-health failure—surveillance is essential, but must not be confused with the risky manipulation that helped create today’s biosafety crisis. Virology must decide between continued high-risk work and responsibly “cleaning house.”(recorded November 22, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Dr. Meryl Nass—medical adviser to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., biological warfare expert, publisher of Meryl’s CHAOS letter, and founder of DoorToFreedom.org—about the urgent need to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).The conversation examines the escalating risks posed by bioweapons research, and why the current political moment—with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Trump openly calling for an end to bioweapons development—may offer the strongest opportunity in decades to close the gaps in the Biological Weapons Convention.Dr. Nass recounts that President Nixon’s 1969–70 decision to renounce U.S. offensive bioweapons work led to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention—now joined by nearly 200 nations—but one deliberately drafted without verification, inspections, or penalties in order to secure rapid international agreement. She explains that in 2001 the Bush administration abruptly dismantled a nearly completed verification protocol, fracturing international trust and leaving the treaty effectively unenforceable.Dr. Nass further notes that, since 2001, the surge in biodefense and “pandemic preparedness” funding has actively encouraged dangerous gain-of-function research—and that this research enterprise has itself become a significant source of global public-safety risk.Still, she sees a historic opportunity to reduce this danger by finally fixing the BWC. President Trump’s May 2025 executive order restricting gain-of-function research, his September 23, 2025 UN speech urging all nations to end biological weapons development, and RFK Jr.’s continued focus on the issue at HHS together create an unprecedented chance to add the verification, inspection, and enforcement mechanisms the treaty has lacked for more than fifty years.The episode offers a stark warning: today’s gravest biological threat is not nature but dangerous gain-of-function research. Dr. Nass argues that this moment must be seized—before the next accident or deliberate release makes COVID-19 look modest by comparison.(Recorded November 24, 2025)Timestamps00:30 — Introduction of Dr. Meryl Nass02:37 — Discovering Pentagon-funded bioweapons work at UMass (1989)07:43 — Joining the Council for Responsible Genetics; early BWC history09:50 — Nixon’s renunciation and the intentional omission of verification11:49 — Failures of five-year review conferences; Bush’s 2001 sabotage14:10 — Context of the 2001 walkout: 9/11 and the anthrax attacks15:20 — Why the U.S. abruptly killed the verification protocol17:35 — Trump’s 2025 UN speech and executive order on GOF19:55 — The global boom in “pandemic preparedness” funding22:23 — USAID’s $44B budget and dangerous research abroad24:15 — Why narrow GOF definitions are misleading26:56 — The number of lab incidents that occur each year30:37 — Risks of basic research on natural Ebola-level pathogens31:24 — The 2018–19 Ebola vaccine rollout: unresolved issues35:06 — Rand Paul’s oversight bill vs. the broader Trump/RFK Jr. strategy36:03 — Financial incentives behind the global biodefense system40:45 — Rebuilding trust and addressing entrenched interests41:45 — The opportunity created by RFK Jr. at HHS46:22 — Concrete steps that signal real progress48:55 — AI, synthetic biology, and the future of bioweapons oversight52:33 — Why public understanding of biowarfare risks remains limited01:00:14 — Closing remarksintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels, speaks with David Zweig—a New York City–based journalist, author, and contributor to The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Free Press—about his new book, An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and the Story of Bad Decisions.Their conversation traces David’s motivation for writing the book, beginning with his early recognition of the devastating effects of remote learning on children during the COVID-19 pandemic. David explains how a mix of action bias, politicization, and institutional inertia led to catastrophic decisions on school closures and mitigation measures such as masking, distancing, and barriers.David critiques the reliance on flawed models, the role of teachers’ unions, and the class divides that deepened the harms, while highlighting how real-time evidence from Europe and elsewhere was ignored. The discussion also explores the erosion of public trust, the suppression of dissent, and the moral grandstanding that replaced evidence-based reasoning.At its core, this episode examines how “good” intentions and systemic dysfunction combined to produce policies that harmed children with little to no public health benefit, and what it will take to ensure more intellectually honest, transparent, and evidence-driven decision-making in future crises.(recorded November 10, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels, Professor of Genetics at Rutgers University, speaks with Aaron Siri—civil rights attorney, managing partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP, and author of Vaccines Amen: The Religion of Vaccines. Together, they discuss the corrupting influence of commercial interests on scientific integrity and public policy, and how, in the case of vaccines, appeals to authority are sold to the public as unassailable fact.The conversation begins with the historical inflection point of the little known 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which established legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers and reshaped the incentives that underpin vaccine development and public health policy. The discussion then turns to how this unprecedented legal structure has contributed to shortcuts in scientific oversight, particularly in “placebo” trial design, post-licensure safety evaluation, and mechanisms for compensating vaccine injuries.Aaron argues that many vaccine claims are rooted in dogma rather than evidence, critiques the role of figures like Dr. Stanley Plotkin in shaping vaccine policy, and highlights cases of coercion, censorship, and inadequate safety oversight. He emphasizes the importance of informed consent, individual rights, and persuading the public on merits rather than mandates, while touching on potential unintended consequences of vaccination programs, including the potential disruption of humanity’s ecological relationship with certain pathogens.At its core, this “scientist meets lawyer” conversation probes how scientific integrity can be distorted by profit-driven systems, what happens when healthy skepticism becomes verboten, and the human cost of trading transparency for expedience.(Recorded October 29th, 2025)Timestamps00:30 — Introduction of Aaron Siri01:17 — Aaron’s definition of a vaccine03:03 — Aaron shares his personal opinion on vaccine policy08:32 — Dr. Stanley Plotkin: a central figure in vaccinology12:04 — Aaron’s 2018 deposition of Plotkin in a custody case15:28 — The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act19:57 — How the 1986 Act inverted market incentives for vaccine safety22:24 — Design defect claims and the Supreme Court’s ruling on vaccine liability 26:19 — Lucrativeness of vaccines for pharmaceutical companies28:26 — The Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines and HHS’s failure to fulfill it32:36 — Potential for HHS under RFK Jr. to enforce vaccine safety mandates35:55 — Mistreatment of vaccine injured: the case of Maddie de Garay42:20 — Broader societal treatment of vaccine-injured and unvaccinated44:14 — GSK’s 2017 pertussis vaccine ad and litigation over misleading claims48:19 — Exchange with Dr. Paul Offit on placebo trials57:26 — Humanity’s ecological relationship with infectious diseases01:08:35 — Measles mortality decline pre-vaccine and potential long-term effects of eradication01:11:50 — Aaron describes his vision for a world without mandatesintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the third episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers Professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels and distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson discuss two striking examples of reckless virology research—one well known and the other largely forgotten—and issue a call to change the culture of modern science.The first example revisits the controversial resurrection of the 1918 Spanish flu, a virus that killed tens of millions worldwide. Simon explains how NIH-funded researchers extracted genetic fragments from frozen cadavers, used PCR to reconstruct the viral genome, and then revived the virus in 2005, publishing the full sequence in Science. Despite claims that the work would aid vaccine development, he argues that no public-health benefit ever materialized, while the potential for misuse dramatically increased.The second example, less known but equally concerning, involves retroviruses resurrected from fragments within the human genome. In work published in 2006 and 2007, researchers in France and New York chemically synthesized what they believed to be defunct human viruses—naming one “Phoenix.” Although performed with NIH and national-science-foundation support, there was no transparency about biosafety levels or prior ethical review. Simon argues that such experiments, however clever, violate the moral boundary between curiosity and recklessness.From these examples, Simon and Bryce turn to solutions—chief among them a Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Just as physicians swear to “do no harm,” they propose that life-science researchers and funding agencies adopt a similar pledge to avoid work that makes the world more dangerous. Simon envisions a three-part reform: NIH and major foundations embedding the principle into grants, universities incorporating it into graduation ceremonies, and scientific culture embracing it as a moral baseline.The conversation closes with a call to action for listeners: write to local universities or newspapers to support a research culture grounded in humility, safety, and moral responsibility.(recorded October 23, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the second episode of In Defense of Virology, Genetics Professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels engages virologist Simon Wain-Hobson in a nuanced discussion on how recent advances in biotechnology have amplified both the promise and the perils of modern virology research.Building on Episode 1, Simon delves deeper into the dangers of gain-of-function (GOF) research, this time focusing on how today’s biotechnology makes it possible to build entire viruses from digital genetic sequences—blueprints that can be transmitted and replicated worldwide in seconds.Simon is blunt in his assessment: there are no redeeming benefits to dangerous gain-of-function experiments. To better describe the risk, he introduces the concept of “single-use research of concern” (SURC), a term for studies that generate genuine hazards without any plausible public good. This contrasts with the more familiar idea of “dual-use research of concern” (DURC), which acknowledges that some experiments carry risks but may also advance valuable scientific or medical progress.Reflecting on his career during the HIV/AIDS era, Simon recounts helping organize a landmark 2000 Royal Society meeting that addressed verboten questions about whether the oral polio vaccine played a role in HIV’s origins. That experience, he says, underscored the value of humility, transparency, and open communication between scientists and the public. From past vaccine mishaps to the careless publication of viral genome data, Simon warns that the real threat to virology isn’t skepticism from outside—it’s hubris and secrecy from within.(recorded October 20, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Sigrid Bratlie, Norwegian molecular biologist and science communicator, about her comprehensive new book The Wuhan Mystery: The Hunt for the Origins of COVID.The conversation delves into the evidence supporting a lab-related origin of COVID-19, the politicization of science, and the personal backlash Bratlie has faced from prominent scientists. She describes how public debate and media coverage of COVID origins in Europe trail behind the U.S., as well as how trust in science and transparency have been eroded across the pond, as well. Bratlie walks listeners down her path from reflexive skeptic to one of Norway’s leading advocates for an open, evidence-based discussion of the lab leak hypothesis. She candidly describes the personal and professional costs associated with her advocacy, including harassment and intimidation within the scientific community, and underscores the importance of courage, accountability, and intellectual openness in the face of institutional pressure.(Recorded October 16, 2025)Timestamps 00:31 — Introduction of Sigrid Bratlie 01:48 — Sigrid discusses her new book: The Wuhan Mystery: The Hunt for the Origins of COVID03:13 — Conclusions on lab leak evidence and the scientific cover-up06:45 — Reception the book has received in Norway08:34 — Bratlie’s role as one of Norway’s leading voice on lab-origin discussions10:36 — How Europe trails behind the U.S. in the origins debate12:07 — Strongest evidence for a lab origin13:27 — Kristian Andersen’s involvement in shaping the origins narrative 22:29 — Bratlie discusses Andersen’s trip to Norway last year and possible motives28:52 — Other critics of Bratlie34:28 — Scientific intimidation and silencing tactics 39:52 — Bratlie discusses Ralph Baric’s role44:45 — Lessons learned: misplaced priorities, risks ignored, and the erosion of public trust intro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the inaugural episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers Professor and Science From the Fringe host, Bryce Nickels joins forces with distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson for a new series that aims to defend virology from bad actors within.Introducing this new segment, Wain-Hobson explains that the real threat to virology isn’t public skepticism, but the recklessness of insiders who promote dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) research and attempt to silence debate.Drawing from his popular series of essays written for the Biosafety Now Substack newsletter, Simon dissects how flawed GOF studies, perverse incentives, and bureaucratic groupthink have compromised public support for virology, and by extension, science itself.Bryce and Simon call for virology to reclaim its integrity—returning to an open, truth-driven discipline centered on understanding viral biology and advancing modern medicine.(recorded October 14, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of the Science From the Fringe podcast, Bryce Nickels speaks with his Rutgers colleague and long-time collaborator Richard Ebright (Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University) about the emerging threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.Ebright discusses how his research on bacterial RNA polymerase led him to uncover new compounds with therapeutic potential. He shares why the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers is referred to as the “birthplace of antibiotics,” reflects on what ended the “golden era” of antibiotic discovery, and explains how modern medicine could collapse if society doesn’t address the emerging threat of antibiotic resistance.Ebright also describes how market failures and policy neglect have stalled innovation—and why he believes policymakers continue to fail the public writ large.Other topics include the potential use of engineered, multi-drug-resistant bacteria as bioweapons, the limits of phage therapy as an alternative to antibiotics, and the ethical parameters of animal testing in drug research.(Recorded October 12, 2025)Timestamps00:38 – Introduction of Richard Ebright02:16 – Research on RNA synthesis and antibiotic discovery10:52 – The global threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR)16:57 – How AMR evolves through natural selection19:55 – Why new antibiotics are urgently needed22:12 – Top bacteria causing 11% of global disease burden23:30 – Drivers of AMR: human, livestock, and crop use25:35 – Biodefense funding after 9/11 and its impact on AMR27:29 – Market failures and underfunding of antibiotic R&D29:47 – Rutgers’ antibiotic legacy and Selman Waksman’s role33:12 – End of the “golden era” of discovery35:59 – Why Big Pharma abandoned antibiotic research41:33 – Ebright’s policy solution – delinking revenue from sales45:49 – The Pasteur Act – goals and reasons it failed48:33 – Limitations of phage therapy for bacterial infections53:36 – Dual-use risks – engineered resistant bacteria and bioweapons56:32 – Animal testing and ethics in drug development01:06:17 – APY Therapeutics – Ebright’s new antibiotic startup01:16:36 – Closing thoughts – preserving modern medicine with new antibioticsintro and outro by Tess ParksScience from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

After a thought-provoking Science From the Fringe interview —“Conversations with Bryce Nickels: Kevin McKernan (Biotech Entrepreneur)”, recorded on September 29, 2025 — Bryce Nickels invited Kevin McKernan back for a live X Space on October 9 to continue the conversation.Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.The conversation offered listeners a candid look into McKernan’s journey — from early breakthroughs in genome sequencing to founding Medicinal Genomics, where he advanced cannabis research, pushing back against significant legal and regulatory pressures.Kevin and Bryce then pivoted to the validly of the COVID-19 PCR tests used to drive case counts and death tolls, and raised his many concerns about mRNA vaccines. He explained the crux of the issues including frame-shifting, RNA degradation, DNA contamination, and the discovery of SV40 sequences associated with manufacturing changes — all of which he breaks down for benefit of the non-scientist. This segued into Bryce issuing a public mea culpa for the ultimately incorrect and harmful stances taken during the viral panic. They also touched on regulatory failures, liability protections, and potential health risks from unvetted vaccine production processes, including inflammation and cancer. The conversation emphasized the importance of scientific transparency over institutional dogma and featured contributions from Kevin’s collaborator Jessica Rose.Timestamps00:00:31 — Welcome and host introduction00:01:00 — Introducing Kevin McKernan and his career background00:01:40 — Early career in pharma marketing before the Human Genome Project00:02:07 — Founding Agincourt Biosciences; acquisition and spin-offs00:03:40 — Evolution from Sanger to next-gen sequencing; cost breakthroughs00:06:49 — Launching Medicinal Genomics inspired by cancer patients and cannabinoids00:09:06 — Personalized medicine vs. pandemic-era management00:11:25 — Legal and logistical challenges sequencing cannabis00:12:19 — Sequencing the first cannabis genome (2011) and later improvements00:13:45 — Entering COVID debates via flawed PCR testing00:15:03 — Using crypto to fund peer review, ensuring independence00:17:05 — How prohibition stunted cannabis breeding and diversity00:21:01 — Professional backlash from vaccine research00:24:23 — Discovering vaccine DNA contamination while troubleshooting RNA-seq00:25:02 — “PCR Gate”: Corman-Drosten paper flaws and case inflation00:29:31 — PCR amplification, CT thresholds, and false positives00:32:40 — Infectiousness cutoff at CT 32 and misinterpretation of results00:35:57 — Lessons from pandemic missteps and calls for accountability00:40:47 — Frame-shifting in mRNA vaccines creating unintended proteins00:46:06 — Regulatory neglect around aberrant protein products00:49:21 — RNA integrity issues and template switching00:54:21 — Codon optimization leading to chimeras; later Moderna fix00:59:30 — From trials to mass production: PCR-to-plasmid transitions01:02:09 — Manufacturing changes violating “process is the product” principle01:08:24 — Independent confirmations of excess DNA, including FDA interns01:09:39 — Outdated FDA limits for DNA in lipid nanoparticles01:12:26 — Hidden SV40 sequences; parallels to early polio vaccines01:15:09 — DNA presence undisputed, but effects underexplored01:18:03 — DNA-induced cGAS-STING activation and cancer concerns01:19:26 — Call to sequence all vaccines; outdated contamination limits01:22:02 — How liability shields enable unsafe practices01:26:50 — Fraud case efforts to revoke manufacturer immunity01:37:50 — Future of mRNA tech: potential if transparency restoredintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels speaks with acclaimed science writer and best-selling author, Matt Ridley. Topics include who is “winning” the debate over COVID-19’s origins, the state of modern science, the ethics of de-extinction efforts, and the fascinating premise of Ridley’s latest book, Birds, Sex and Beauty.Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.The conversation begins with Ridley’s perspective on the origins of COVID-19, where he argues that a lab leak in Wuhan remains the most plausible explanation. He cites the institutional bias, centralized funding, and fear of reputational harm inherent to academic science as barriers to legitimate inquiry. Ridley contrasts science as an institution, which he views as increasingly corrupt and conformist, with science as a philosophy, which thrives on skepticism and decentralized exploration. He calls for reforms that would empower independent thinkers and “maverick ideas” rather than enforcing consensus through funding monopolies.The conversation then turns to de-extinction efforts, particularly those led by Colossal Biosciences. Ridley argues for the revival of extinct species such as the great auk and woolly mammoth, stating that humanity has a moral responsibility to restore what it has destroyed. This leads to a deeper discussion with Bryce about the ethical complexities of animal suffering, genetic experimentation, and the potential erosion of public trust following the COVID-19 pandemic.In the third and final segment, Ridley outlines the premise of his new book, Birds, Sex and Beauty. Bryce and Matt discuss Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, female mate choice, and the evolution of beauty in birds — from the peacock’s tail to the bowerbird’s colorful displays. Ridley explains how these traits reflect aesthetic preference rather than pure survival advantage and draws intriguing parallels to human evolution, elevating the importance of sexual selection — vs. Darwin’s theory of natural selection, a.k.a. “survival of the fittest” — in how creativity, humor, and intelligence may have been shaped in humans. As a unifying concept, Ridley emphasizes the importance of honesty in science as a foundation for restoring public trust. He cautions against “just-so stories” in evolutionary biology — narratives that sound plausible but lack testable evidence — and urges scientists to embrace uncertainty and intellectual humility.Timestamps00:31 – Introducing Matt Ridley02:50 – Lab leak theory gaining public traction despite resistance from scientific elites03:49 – Comparison of a lab accident to industrial disasters; the moral duty to investigate05:10 – Preference for natural origin but insistence on scientific honesty and transparency07:15 – Analogy to plane crashes: avoiding investigation to protect reputations is unacceptable09:23 – Distinguishing science as a philosophy of inquiry vs. a corrupted institution10:55 – How decentralized science historically fostered breakthroughs and dissent12:16 – Warning against scientific monopolies and parallels to Lysenkoism17:38 – Discussion of censorship and stigma surrounding lab leak proponents19:29 – Attacks on Ridley’s climate reporting used to discredit his COVID origins work26:25 – Introduction to de-extinction and Ridley’s involvement with Revive and Restore32:09 – Balancing hype and credibility in Colossal’s projects35:16 – Ethical issues in genetic experimentation and animal welfare42:52 – Darwin’s struggle with sexual selection and aesthetic beauty45:25 – Female choice and the “sexy sons” hypothesis47:27 – Bowerbirds’ artistic displays as evidence of aesthetic evolution50:42 – Why most birds lost penises: female control and evolutionary trade-offs53:06 – “Just-so stories” and the limits of evolutionary storytelling56:23 – Human parallels: sexual selection and the evolution of art, humor, and intelligenceintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels talks with Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter, Lewis Kamb, of public health research group, U.S. Right to Know. Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.Kamb discusses his investigative reporting—from exposing Boeing’s 737 MAX failures at The Seattle Times to serving as NBC News’ first national FOIA reporter. He explains how the Freedom of Information Act—“the people’s subpoena”— has been used to expose the secrets of some of our country’s most powerful institutions.Kamb’s recent investigative work on COVID-19 origins includes uncovering a classified 2020 Defense Intelligence Agency analysis suggesting SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well unearthing several NIH emails from 2016 that show semantic side-stepping of gain-of-function classification in order to approve EcoHealth’s chimeric virus experiments.The conversation concludes with thought-provoking discussion of the pitfalls of FOIA and whether the process, in practice, lives up to the intent.Timestamps00:00:37 – Introduction of Lewis Kamb.00:01:12 – Kamb discusses the Boeing 737 MAX investigation.00:03:11 – Nickels asks about Kamb’s FOIA expertise.00:03:41 – Kamb explains FOIA as the “people’s subpoena.”00:05:58 – Tips for effective FOIA requests.00:06:29 – Overview of U.S. Right to Know.00:08:39 – Kamb on USRTK’s FOIA litigation strategy.00:10:07 – FOIA delays and agency differences.00:15:10 – Transparency promises left unfulfilled.00:19:01 – Shift to COVID origins and the DIA report.00:20:14 – DIA’s early lab-origin assessment.00:28:21 – 2014 gain-of-function moratorium.00:30:37 – NIH deliberations on EcoHealth proposal.00:33:10 – Links to pandemic origins.00:36:43 – NIH oversight vs. FAA-Boeing failures.00:39:29 – Daszak’s “typo” in progress report.00:42:17 – Discussion of the DEFUSE proposal.00:45:00 – NIH’s delayed moratorium defense.00:50:55 – Future investigations into labs and intelligence agencies.00:52:03 – FOIA’s flaws and need for reform.00:58:04 – Closing remarks.intro and outro music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels interviews Roger Pielke Jr., Professor Emeritus from the University of Colorado Boulder and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pielke is a political scientist specializing in science and technology policy, with a focus on climate, energy, and the politicization of science.The conversation explores Pielke’s academic journey, the creation of his Substack The Honest Broker, and the challenges he faced with academic marginalization at the University of Colorado. They also draw parallels between weather modification/geoengineering and gain-of-function virology research, emphasizing the need for transparency, risk awareness, and international regulation. Additional themes include congressional testimonies, the politics of scientific publishing, cancel culture in academia, and the importance of honest brokering at the intersection of science and policy.Timestamps00:00:31 - 00:01:13: Introducing Roger Pielke Jr.00:01:14 - 00:05:45: Roger explains the name “The Honest Broker”00:05:45 - 00:13:16: Academic career and his role in the climate debate.00:13:16 - 00:17:16: Roger discusses the sports governance center he started.00:17:16 - 00:21:47: Decision to leave academia.00:21:47 - 00:26:06: How he was marginalized at University of Colorado00:26:06 - 00:30:33: Do universities elevate mediocrity?00:30:33 - 00:33:22: Cultural clash in policy research at Colorado.00:33:22 - 00:39:05: Recent congressional hearing on weather modification and geoengineering00:39:05 - 00:43:31: Chemtrails conspiracy and government transparency issues.00:43:31 - 00:52:57: Parallels between geoengineering and gain-of-function virology.00:52:57 - 01:09:58: Journals, peer review, hearings, and closing remarks.intro and outro music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels speaks with biotech pioneer Kevin McKernan, tracing his career from the Human Genome Project and DNA sequencing innovations (via companies like Agencourt, acquired by Beckman and ABI) to “fringe” pursuits like sequencing cannabis and psilocybin genomes for their therapeutic potential.Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Kevin discusses his early work building genomic tools, before turning to the controversies that have defined his recent research.McKernan explains why the misuse of PCR tests during COVID (“PCR-gate”) created misleading data about the spread of the virus, how he uncovered plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA vaccine vials—including SV40 sequences that were never disclosed to regulators—and what it all means. Bryce and Kevin also discuss the broader implications of faulty vaccine production: the unacknowledged regulatory failures, conflicts of interest, weaponized retraction campaigns against whistle blowers, and the personal cost of challenging the profit-driven scientific status quo.Beyond vaccines, McKernan speaks to overlooked biosafety risks in labs and offers a nuanced take on mRNA as a platform—useful in some contexts but warped by subsidies and liability shields.The conversation is both deeply technical and unflinchingly candid and delves into how competing incentives in biotech impact trust, safety, and accountability in science. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In his first interview since returning from a 10-month hiatus, Bryce Nickels of Science From the Fringe, speaks with Michael Nevradakis, senior reporter at the Defender, Children’s Health Defense’s online news platform. Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.From his home in Greece, Nevradakis recounts his early doubts in March 2020 about Anthony Fauci and the emerging COVID-19 policies. Spotting parallels to the manipulative tactics he saw during Greece’s financial crisis, he accurately predicted extended lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the rise of digital identification. Nevradakis also discusses Senator Rand Paul’s scrutiny of Fauci’s communications, the Fauci-backed “Proximal Origin” paper which pushed a natural spillover theory despite virologists’ private skepticism, and damning emails revealing Fauci’s orders to delete official government communications—which could amount to criminal offenses such as perjury and violations of The Federal Records Act.Nevradakis also discusses his recent article on the surprising appointment of a dangerous gain-of-function advocate as the new acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The conversation ends with sobering thoughts on holding public health leaders accountable, whether the will exists to follow through on the former, and a preview of Nevradakis’s upcoming reports on these developing stories.Timestamps00:00:32 - 00:01:08: Introduction to Michael Nevradakis00:01:09 - 00:05:17: Transition from PhD lecturer to journalist00:06:09 - 00:12:36: Early skepticism toward Anthony Fauci and COVID measures00:13:37 - 00:15:44: Discussion of Senator Rand Paul’s probe into Fauci’s communications and COVID origins00:15:52 - 00:18:10: The Proximal Origin paper and Fauci’s influence00:20:02 - 00:23:39: Biden’s preemptive pardon for Fauci00:25:50 - 00:27:23: Fauci’s instructions to colleagues to destroy public records00:29:39 - 00:34:32: Should Fauci be held accountable?00:34:32 - 00:40:48: Concerns over the appointment of a proponent of dangerous gain-of-function research as acting director of NIAID00:40:52 - 00:43:39: Closing thoughtsfeatures music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Bryce Nickels speaks with Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist and strategic advisor on biotechnology for the Norwegian think tank, Langsikt, who has become a prominent voice in Norway in the debate surrounding the origins of COVID-19. Sigrid describes her involvement in the COVID origins discussion, and the conflicts that arose with established virologists. The conversation covers scientific integrity, the intersection of science and politics, the challenges of communicating complex scientific issues to the public, and the implications of emerging technologies like AI. features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Bryce Nickels interviews Lee Jussim, a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, about cancel culture in academia, the pressure to conform to political views, and the negative effects of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They discuss Lee's research measuring political extremism in academia as well as his recent analysis of the impact of DEI rhetoric on perceptions of racism. Bryce and Lee also discuss the challenges posed by the lack of political diversity in academic settings.features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Bryce Nickels and Kevin Bass critically evaluate the accuracy of statements made in Zeynep Tufekci's New York Times Op-Ed, "Trump’s Pick to Lead the NIH Gets Some Things Right."Summary: On November 27, 2024, Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya was nominated as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That same day, Zeynep Tufekci published an Op-Ed in the New York Times, listing four criticisms of Bhattacharya’s COVID-19 positions under the heading, "Here’s some of what Bhattacharya got wrong about Covid-19."In "Can I Respond To That Please? (episode 4),” Bryce Nickels and Kevin Bass carefully dissect Tufekci’s claims, exposing them as both factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading.They also delve into how Tufekci's Op-Ed reflects a larger problem in the media: journalists eroding public trust in health communication by spreading falsehoods or misrepresenting the views of scientists who challenge mainstream narratives. The conversation underscores the urgent need for accountability in media and ethical reporting on scientific matters to restore public confidence in health communication.recorded November 29, 2024 features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Professor Jay Bhattacharya and filmmaker Vanessa Dylyn discuss her new film Covid Collateral, an investigative documentary about the societal harms caused by the severe lockdowns imposed by western governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The film explores the devastating impact of the censorship of science in a free society.features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya and Rutgers Professor Bryce Nickels respond to scientists that attack members of the public who voice concerns about research conducted in high-containment biolabs in their communities. They highlight this issue through the responses of scientists to community organizers Klare X. Allen and Lorraine Fowlkes from the Roxbury Safety Net.In 2000, Klare founded the Roxbury Safety Net as a movement of people of color who have been excluded from decision-making processes that impact their safety, quality of life, and environment. For over 20 years, the Roxbury Safety Net has promoted environmental justice and community control over development of the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston, MA. In 2002, the Roxbury Safety Net discovered Boston University’s plans to build a BSL-4 lab (later named the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, NEIDL) in the Roxbury/South End neighborhood. Alarmed by the threat posed to the community, the Safety Net immediately began a campaign to Stop the BU Bio Terror Lab. Since then, Stop the BU Bio Terror Lab has operated as a coalition of community residents, scientists, lawyers, students, members of peace and justice groups, and members of the faith community united in opposition to dangerous research being performed at the NEIDL. Members have made numerous visits to City Councilors, hosted countless meetings, organized dozens of protests, spoken at city, state and federal hearings, submitted public comment, and initiated both state and federal lawsuits. These efforts persuaded the city of Boston to implement the strictest local regulations on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management in any city in the United States.recorded October 28, 20240:00 - 0:30: Intro Tess Parks0:30 - 2:25: Welcome and introduction2:25 - 4:00: Jay discusses the lack of public consent for high-risk research and the public's right to have a say in the research conducted in their communities.4:00 - 15:30: Jay and Bryce discuss why high-containment biolabs are often located in large cities. Bryce introduces Klare X. Allen and the Roxbury Safety Net.15:30 - 19:40: Klare X. Allen recounts how she first learned about Boston University's plan to build the NEIDL in 2002 and describes the disrespectful treatment of Roxbury community members.19:40 - 25:35: Jay and Bryce reflect on Klare's comments.25:35 - 26:25: Lorraine Fowlkes of the Roxbury Safety Net speaks at a City Council meeting in San Carlos, CA (March 2023).26:25 - 1:10:20: Bryce and Jay discuss reactions from scientists to Lorraine’s comments after they were posted on X.1:10:20 - 1:24:40: Bryce and Jay explore the need for reforms in science to change the culture that perceives the public as adversaries.1:24:40 - 1:26:40: Sign-off1:26:40 - 1:27:26: Outro Tess ParksClick here to learn more about Klare X. Allen and the Roxbury Safety NetClick here to view the post on X with Lorraine Fowlkes comments that prompted attacks from scientists. Timeline: National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL)* September 2003: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded Boston University $128 million to construct one of two National Biocontainment Laboratories.* February 2006: The federal government announced its decision to fund the laboratory’s construction, which began in March of that same year.* Fall 2008: Construction of the NEIDL is completed.* December 2011: The BU laboratory was granted preliminary approval by The State Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs grants approval for BSL-2 research at the NIEDL.* April 2012: BSL-2 work begins at the NIEDL.* January 2013: The National Institutes of Health concludes that Boston University’s high-containment laboratory “poses minimal risk to the community surrounding the facility,” clearing the way for a final state environmental review.* March 2013: The state secretary of environmental affairs approves Boston University's environmental impact report.* January 2014: BSL-3 work begins at the NIEDL.* May 2014: Boston City Council The Boston City Council voted 8-5 to reject a proposed ordinance banning BSL-4 labs.* December 2016: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approved Boston University to operate a BSL-4 laboratory.* August 2018: The NEIDL begins work with its first Level-4 pathogens, the Ebola and Marburg viruses.* October 2022: Researchers at the NEIDL ignite controversy by announcing they have performed SARS-CoV-2 gain of function experiments.Articles about biolabs in San Carlos, CA:* San Carlos moves to regulate biohazards (March 8, 2023)* San Carlos Bans High-Risk Bio Labs in the City – A Win for the Safety of the Residents (June 6, 2023) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Professors Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Bryce Nickels (Rutgers) are joined by New York Times bestselling author, surgeon, and healthcare expert Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins) to discuss a new film by award winning director Jenner Furst, titled Thank You, Dr. Fauci, which critically examines Anthony Fauci's role in the COVID-19 pandemic. They also discuss Marty's latest book, Blind Spots, which explores how groupthink, self-importance, dogmatism, and careerism in American academic medicine have hindered progress and innovation. Timestamps 00:00 – Intro (Friendlies by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe) 00:32 – Jay Bhattacharya introduces Marty Makary and Bryce Nickels, both featured in the film Thank You, Dr. Fauci, directed by Jenner Furst. 01:05 – Bryce explains the film’s title and where to watch (ThankYouDrFaucimovie.com). 01:57 – Marty discusses censorship of the film. 02:45 – Jay discusses how the film highlights former CDC Director Robert Redfield’s early pandemic sidelining over his belief that COVID-19 resulted from a lab accident. 03:40 – Clips from Thank You, Dr. Fauci featuring Redfield. 06:25 – Bryce and Marty discuss how they wish Jay had more scenes in the film.07:28 – Marty describes platforms censoring the film’s ads. 08:13 – Jay and Marty speculate on why the Biden administration might limit the film’s visibility. 10:20 – Marty recounts his initial doubts about Fauci, beginning when Fauci transported an Ebola patient to NIH for publicity. 14:50 – Marty and Bryce discuss evidence of COVID-19’s potential research-related origins vs. natural spillover 19:50 – Jay, Marty, and Bryce explore the virology community’s possible motivations for covering up a research origin and the culture of scientific hubris.24:07 – Jay shares Simon Wain-Hobson’s proposal for a Hippocratic Oath in STEM, which he discussed during a recent conference at Stanford University.25:38 – Marty discusses why minority communities historically distrust public health officials. 27:38 – Jay and Marty discuss a PBS clip featuring Anthony Fauci and DC Mayor Bowser meeting a vaccine-skeptical resident. 33:35 – Jay critiques Fauci’s fear-mongering, especially regarding COVID-19’s threat to children. 36:38 – Marty recalls the public health community’s reaction in fall 2020 to President Trump’s mask-wearing habits. 37:58 – Marty introduces his book Blind Spots on groupthink in medicine, now a NY Times bestseller. 40:45 – Marty and Jay discuss former NIH Director Francis Collins’s focus on genetic disease causes and the downsides for public health. 50:47 – Jay concludes the podcast. 51:08 – Outro (Friendlies by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe). Resources Click here to watch Thank You, Dr. FauciClick here to purchase Blind Spots Click here to learn more about Dr. Marty MakarySourcesU.S. Senate HELP Committee hearing: COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School (May 12, 2020) Dr. Fauci visits D.C. to battle vaccine hesitancy National Institutes of Health News Conference on Ebola (October 17, 2014) U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations hearing: U.S. Response to Ebola (October 16, 2024) Stanford University Health Policy Conference: Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past (October 4, 2024) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Did lockdowns work to save lives? Professor Jay Bhattacharya and economist Jonas Herby discuss the evidence. In 2022, Herby, Steve Hanke, and Lars Jonung published a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on the topic. Their shocking conclusion was that the real-world evidence did not support the idea that the early lockdowns of March 2020 had saved many lives. While the early computer models predicted that lockdowns were necessary to prevent millions of deaths, in fact, there were only small differences in outcomes between locations that adopted stringent, formal restrictions and places (like Sweden) that did not. Herby and Bhattacharya discuss the limitations of early models and the need for real data in evaluating public health interventions. Finally, Herby reveals the shocking treatment of his scientific work on lockdowns by scientific pre-print outlets, which censored his paper but published substandard criticisms of it, creating an illusion of scientific consensus in favor of lockdowns.Resource: Herby et al., A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality IIFeaturing music by Tess Parks. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

The second part of Bryce Nickels' two-part conversation with Neil Harrison offering a critical examination of the evidence for the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic began at the Huanan Seafood Market in early December 2019. Click here to listen to the first part of their conversation.In the second half of the discussion, Bryce and Neil discuss why, in late 2021, virologists rushed to convince the public that the Wuhan outbreak began in December 2019, despite extensive evidence and independent confirmations from multiple groups suggesting a more likely start date in October 2019.0:00 - 0:32 Music by Tess Parks0:33 - 2:31 Bryce recaps part one, explaining why the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Market is unsound.2:32 - 7:17 Neil discusses possible reasons why anyone trying to cover up a lab origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, may want place the time of the outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019 (which is not supported by the available evidence), instead of October 2019 (which is supported by the available evidence).7:18 - 15:00 Neil presents evidence supporting an outbreak timeline of October 2019, rather than December 2019. He explains that three separate research groups independently reached this conclusion and notes how the early 2020 outbreak in New York City also supports this timeline.15:01 - 26:10 Neil and Bryce examine how the leak of the DEFUSE proposal by DRASTIC in September 2021 might have influenced virologists to publish unsound studies pushing the December 2019 timeline to downplay a lab origin of COVID-19. The 2018 DEFUSE grant proposal to DARPA included experiments to add furin cleavage sites to coronaviruses. This feature, new to SARS-CoV-2 and absent in its closest relatives, points toward a lab origin rather than a natural one.26:11 - 33:00 Neil outlines why the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from an infected raccoon dog at the Huanan Seafood Market lacks credibility.33:01 - 39:40 Bryce and Neil end by discussing the political landscape surrounding COVID origins and biosafety.39:41 - 40:20 Music by Tess ParksArticles suggesting the epidemic began in Wuhan in October 2019:Li et al., Transmission dynamics and evolutionary history of 2019‐nCoV. J. Med. Virol. 2020.van Dorp et al., Emergence of genomic diversity and recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020.Bai et al., Comprehensive evolution and molecular characteristics of a large number of SARS-CoV-2 genomes reveal its epidemic trends. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020.Kumar et al., An evolutionary portrait of the progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and its dominant offshoots in COVID-19 pandemic. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021.Pekar et al., Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province. Science 2021Articles suggesting the epidemic began in Wuhan in December 2019:Pekar et al., The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. Science 2022See also:Ma J. Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17. Southern China Morning Post. 2020.Retraction Request for Worobey et al., 2022 & Pekar et al., 2022For more information on studies of the New York City epidemic, see:Wikipedia page for COVID-19 pandemic in New York CityPaper by Jeffrey Harris (Department of Economist, MIT): The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York CityReporting by Jim Dolan from 2021: Eyewitness to a Pandemic: Episode 1 - An Invisible Menace Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Part 1 of Bryce Nickels' two-part conversation with Neil Harrison offers a critical examination of the evidence for the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic began at the Huanan Seafood Market in early December 2019. Neil discusses how he became interested in the origins debate and highlights the controversies surrounding it. He also shares his journey to coauthoring a May 2022 paper with economist Jeffrey Sachs, titled "A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus," published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Bryce and Neil go on to question the "dots and circles" method used by Michael Worobey and colleagues in their 2022 Science paper, which claims the pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Market—a conclusion that Neil bluntly describes as "b******t."Click here to listen the part 2 of the conversation.0:00 - 0:32 Music by Tess Parks0:33 - 3:30 Neil Harrison introduces himself and shares how he became interested in investigating COVID-19's origins.3:31 - 11:50 Neil discusses his and Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs' 2022 opinion piece in PNAS, titled “A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”11:51 - 15:30 Neil reviews the prevailing scientific “consensus” on the Wuhan outbreak's timing and location, based on two 2022 Science papers (Pekar et al., and Worobey et al.), which place it at the Huanan Seafood Market in early December 2019.15:31 - 18:30 Neil clarifies that by early 2020, it was evident that the pandemic did not begin at the Huanan Seafood Market.18:31 - 19:45 Bryce and Neil discuss why, in late 2021, some Western scientists began promoting the narrative that the Wuhan outbreak originated at Huanan Seafood Market.19:46 - 22:00 Neil explains why the idea that the virus began at the Huanan Seafood Market persists and is heavily promoted, contrasting it with the substantial evidence of natural origins for SARS-1, which does not exist for SARS-2.22:01 - 38:00 Neil critiques the “dots and circles” analysis by Worobey et al. in their 2022 Science paper, calling it “nonsense” when applied to establish the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in New York City in early 2020.38:01 - 40:54 Bryce challenges Michael Worobey to apply his “dots and circles” analysis to outbreaks in New York City and Italy to test its validity.40:55 - 40:58 Neil concludes, saying, “I think we’ve beaten that one to death,” reinforcing that the claim of the outbreak's origin at the Huanan Seafood Market is unsound.40:59 - 41:36 Music by Tess ParksFor more information on studies of the New York City epidemic see:Wikipedia page for COVID-19 pandemic in New York CityPaper by Jeffrey Harris (Department of Economist, MIT): The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York CityReporting by Jim Dolan from 2021: Eyewitness to a Pandemic: Episode 1 - An Invisible Menace Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Jay Bhattacharya speaks with Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) about the failures of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for robust debate, transparency, and reform within the CDC. They explore the impact of COVID policies on mental health, the authoritarian tendencies observed in public health responses, and the consequences of vaccine mandates, particularly in the military. The discussion highlights the importance of learning from past mistakes to build a more trustworthy and effective public health infrastructure.video features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Jay Bhattacharya and Bryce Nickels speak with Joomi Kim, a biologist who discusses her motivations for creating a video explaining her decision to vote for Donald Trump amidst a politically charged academic environment. The conversation explores the complex interplay between politics, science, and public perception and the challenges of navigating political divides. The discussion also covered censorship, the impact of COVID-19 on public discourse, and the misrepresentation of political figures in the media. Joomi shares her academic background, her experiences with backlash for her views, and the broader implications of censorship on public health and political discourse. The conversation highlights the need for open dialogue and the dangers of demonizing opposing perspectives.Click here to watch Joomi’s video explaining her decision to vote for Donald TrumpBe sure to subscribe to Joomi’s Substack “Let’s Be Clear” video features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Jay Bhattacharya speaks with Dr. Laura Kahn about her new book, One Health and the Politics of COVID-19, which explores the relationship between human, animal, and environmental health, particularly in the context of infectious diseases like COVID-19. They discuss the historical roots of the One Health concept, the impact of zoonotic diseases, and the implications of human activities on disease spillovers. The conversation also delves into the origins of COVID-19, examining the lab leak theory versus natural spillover, and the need for a broader understanding of health that incorporates environmental factors. They discuss the importance of serological data in establishing the origins of viruses, the challenges of open scientific discourse, and the need for public trust in science. The discussion emphasizes the chaotic media landscape and the necessity of having diverse viewpoints in scientific discussions to foster understanding and progress.To learn more about Laura’s work, click here.To purchase Laura’s latest book, One Health and the Politics of COVID-19, click here.video features music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On October 26, 2024, Science From The Fringe held an X-Space, featuring Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Professor, Stanford University), Bryce Nickels (Professor, Rutgers University; co-founder of Biosafety Now), and special guest Wilk Wilkinson, who moderated a panel on "Evidence-Based Decision Making During a Pandemic" at the October 4, 2024, conference organized by Jay at Stanford University titled "Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past."Help support Science From The Fringe by becoming a free or paid subscriberWilk is host of the Derate The Hate podcast and a leading member of Braver Angels, a grassroots organization promoting civil discourse. Wilk, described on his podcast’s website as a devoted husband, loving father, and committed Christian conservative, has made it his mission to foster dialogue and understanding across ideological divides. His work with Braver Angels is centered on offering practical tools for positive change and bringing people together through meaningful conversation. Wilk’s efforts led him to become friends with former NIH Director Francis Collins. In July 2023, they shared a stage at a Braver Angels event, where Collins admitted that the pandemic mitigation strategies, he advocated for failed to fully consider the negative impact on those living outside major cities like Washington, D.C., and New York. After this admission went viral, Wilk facilitated a private meeting between Jay and Francis, during which Francis apologized for his call to orchestrate a “devastating takedown” of Jay, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, co-authors of The Great Barrington Declaration.video features the song “Voyage De L'âme” by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Synopsis: An October 15 column in the LA Times criticizing a Stanford conference gave Jay Bhattacharya and Bryce Nickels the chance to spotlight Wilk Wilkinson and his efforts to unite opposing voices, including his recent facilitation of a historic meeting between Jay and former NIH Director Francis Collins. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On November 17, 2021, Jay Bhattacharya testified before the US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis in a hearing titled “Combating Coronavirus Cons and the Monetization of Misinformation"During the hearing, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) repeatedly attacked Jay with false accusations, implying Jay was responsible for over 300,000 deaths in India, questioning Jay’s qualifications to speak on mask mandates and school closures, and claiming that Jay "became a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party's Publicity Department in early 2021."This exchange marked a significant low point for Jay, and aside from a brief thread on Twitter following the hearing, he has remained silent on the matter. In this video, recorded on October 9, 2024, Jay and Bryce Nickels revisit the incident, allowing Jay to finally respond to these baseless accusations.video features the song “Friendlies” by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On September 29, 2024, Science From The Fringe hosted its first X-Space, featuring Bryce Nickels (Professor of Genetics at Rutgers University and co-founder of Biosafety Now) and Valentin Brutel (Immunologist and Chief Scientific Officer of Toleris) in conversation with German journalists Aya Velázquez and Bastian Barukar. They explored the "RKI file scandal," discussing the Robert Koch Institute's role and how political influence affected scientific recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The conversation covered the impact of COVID measures on children, the scientific basis for mask mandates, and the crucial role of investigative journalism in uncovering the truth behind public health decisions. The event concluded with a call for greater transparency and accountability in future pandemic responses.To receive new posts or support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Part 2 of a discussion between Jay Bhattacharya and independent journalist Aya Velázquez recorded on September 17, 2024. In this segment, Jay discusses the differences in virus transmission between COVID-19 and monkeypox, the impact of lockdowns and public health responses, and the implications of the lab leak theory. He reflects on the role of academic institutions in promoting freedom of speech and the political divides that have influenced public health responses. Bhattacharya emphasizes the need for lessons learned from the pandemic to prepare for future outbreaks and compares the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 and influenza Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Part 1 of a discussion between Jay Bhattacharya and independent journalist Aya Velázquez recorded on September 17, 2024. In this segment, they discussed the role of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in shaping Germany's COVID-19 policies, revealing the political interference in scientific advice, the key figures involved, and the implications of their decisions on public health. Aya discussed the unveiling of the RKI files, the influence of prominent scientists like Christian Drosten, and the impact of school closures and vaccine mandates. The conversation highlights the disconnect between scientific evidence and political decisions, particularly regarding natural immunity and masking policies, and reflects on the future implications of these revelations for public trust in science and government. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In March 2022, Jay sat down with John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, to discuss several key topics from the pandemic era. They explore early seroprevalence studies, Infection Fatality Rates (IFR), and the concept of precision shielding. The discussion also covers the collateral damage caused by lockdowns and how to restore trust in public health systems.Highlights include:0:38 How deadly is COVID-19?4:53 IFR, seroprevalence, and testing methods.9:06 Precision shielding and personalized medicine.21:22 The effectiveness of lockdowns.28:14 Was there a consensus on lockdown measures?35:04 The feasibility of a zero COVID strategy.41:59 Insights from mathematical modeling.49:39 Advances in treatments and evidence-based medicine.56:44 Assessing the performance of the NIH and FDA.1:01:42 Academic debates and the Great Barrington Declaration.1:14:38 Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of science.1:22:07 Needed reforms in scientific practice.1:30:24 The essential role of art in society. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On July 26, 2021, Jay sat down with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for a wide ranging discussion about the decision to lockdown in March 2020, the science on kids and COVID, the harms from lockdown, the ethics of panicking the population, the reform of public health, and censorship of public speech by big tech companies. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On August 16, 2021, Jay interviewed former Czech Republic President Václav Klaus. In the interview, Pres. Klaus's reflected on his management of the 2009 H1N1 flu and the contrast with the panicked response to COVID-19, the effect of lockdown policies on civil society in the west, vaccine-based discrimination, and the future of western democracies to resist future lockdowns. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe