The complete Senate voted on Tuesday night to confirm the selection of President Donald Trump to run the National Health Institute (NiH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
The Party’s vote followed after the approval of the Senate of the Committee on Health, Education, Work and Pensions, which are also Vote along the sides To improve Bhattacharya, which led to today’s vote in Senate.
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. He was one of the co -author of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published in October 2020 by a group of scientists who advocated a widely widespread locking and promoting the effectiveness of natural immunity for people with low risk, unlike vaccination.
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. (Getty Images)
Bhattacharya questioned the Senate Assistance Committee earlier this month for various questions relating to his potential role of director of NIH. However, for most of the hearing, he was forced to defend the president’s decision to reduce certain research funds on the 15% limit to indirect research costs, Also known as objects and administrative costs, scattered by NIH.
Bhattacharya explicitly would not say that he did not agree with the cuts or that if confirmed, he would step to stop 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.
“I think the transparency about indirect costs is absolutely valuable. This is something universities can repair together, working together to make sure it will be clear where that money goes,” Bhattacharya said of indirect costs that go to universities, hospitals and research clinics from NiH.
Trump abolishes politics from Era Biden by declaring a “integral” part of a scientific process
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)
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 Pensions with hearing on his nomination for the director of the National Health Institute (NIH), on the Capitol Hill in Washington DC, March 5, 2025. ((Photo Jim Watson / AFP) (Photo Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images))
Click here to get the Fox News app
Before his confirmation, Bhattacharya, along with several other scientists, including Trump’s choice at the helm of the Food and Medication 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) aims to encourage scientific discourse by publishing peer reviews of distinguished studies from other magazines that do not make their peer reviews publicly available.
