Trump’s choice for the director of Nih -a cleans the first obstacle before voting for the final confirmation
The Committee of Senate for Health, Education, Work and Pension (assistance) voted on Thursday morning to improve the selection of President Donald Trump to run the National Health Institute, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
The vote was strictly in line with party lines, 12 votes for and 11 against, but given that the Committee had an additional Republican member in most, Bhattacharya sailed to the goal with the support of the GOP. Bhattacharya is now referring to the entire Senate for the upcoming vote to be a certificate that will be the last obstacle before becoming the next director of NIH.
Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Expressed concern about Bhattacharye’s confirmation, saying that he was afraid that Bhattacharya would not do enough to help reduce prescription drugs. Sanders and other Democrats also expressed concern about the way Bhattacharya would approach a medical study in NIH, especially considering that Trump has just imposed the restriction of objects and the cost of administration associated with NiH for research.
Doctor, Stanford Professor of Medicine and Older Colleague at the University Institute for Economic Policy Research, Bhattacharya was a leading vote during the Coidd-19 pandemic against measures and seats of the vaccine.
Jayant Bhattachary, candidate for President Donald Trump for the director of the National Institute of Health, speaks at his hearing for certificate before the Senate Health Committee, Education, Work and Pensions at Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo Andrew Hardik/Getty Images)
Bhattacharya examined the Senate Assistance Committee about a week ago because of the various questions related to his potential role of director of NIH; However, much of the hearing was forced to defend the president’s decision to put 15% restriction on the indirect expenses of research Scattered with nih.
Bhattacharya explicitly would not say that he did not agree with the cuts, or that if confirmed, he would step into stopping them. Instead, he said he would “follow the law”, at the same time exploring the impact of reduction and providing any researcher who does the job that improves the health outcomes of Americans needed resources.
The White House pulls David Weldon’s nomination for CDC director
In addition to solving questions about Trump’s cuts, Bhattacharya also exposed what he called a new, decentralized vision for the future Research in nih -u Which he said would be focused on accepting different ideas and transparency, focusing on research topics that have the best chances to take directly to the health results of Americans. Bhattacharya added that he wanted to resolve the research portfolio of the Agency about other “frivolous” efforts that he said they were doing little to use directly to health outcomes.
“I think basically what matters is: do scientists have the idea of making the scientific field in which it is located?” Bhattacharya said last week during the testimony of the certificate. “Do they have an idea that ends up addressing Health needs Americans? “
Jayant Bhattacharya testifies during the US Senate of the Committee on Health, Education, Work and Pension with hearing on his nomination for the director of the National Health Institute (NIH), on the Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 5, 2025.
Bhattacharya was the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a document published in October 2020 by a group of scientists who advocated alternative approach to handling a pandemia of the covid-11. She was mainly claimed against wide locks and promoted the effectiveness of natural immunity to the low -risk virus, which suggests that the vaccine may not be the best way to act for everyone.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Prior to his certificate hearing, Bhattacharya, along with several other scientists, including Trump’s choice to run the food and medicine administration, Dr. Marty Makary, launched a new research magazine focused on the impetus of scientific discourse and the fight against “door” in the community of medical studies. The magazine entitled Journal of the Academy of Public Health (JAPH) conducts a new approach aimed at subjection of scientific discourse by publishing peer reviews from other magazines that do not make their peer reviews publicly available.
