Ex-NIH Director Collins Accused of Distorting Mask Study to Defend COVID Record, Author Claims Perjury

Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford medical professor, is gearing up for his confirmation hearing to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding his predecessor, Francis Collins. Collins, who previously labeled Bhattacharya a “fringe epidemiologist” for opposing COVID-19 lockdowns, might be facing legal issues himself.

Collins’ legal team has been vocal about what they call “material misrepresentations” about COVID measures and Collins in the final report of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The report criticized the federal government’s lack of evidence for “broadly requiring masking.” Paul Thacker, a former Senate investigator, shared a letter highlighting this issue, pointing fingers at Collins’ statements.

Collins recently resigned abruptly from the NIH, raising eyebrows about possible prosecution for allegedly lying to Congress. Thacker accuses him of misrepresenting a systematic review of mask research and omitting key conclusions. This review, initially published in 2007 by Cochrane and updated multiple times since, suggested masks “probably make little to no difference” against COVID or influenza.

Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane review, criticized Collins’ lawyers for their “misleading” statements about the review. Jefferson’s letter to the subcommittee was made public, adding fuel to the fire. Collins has not responded to inquiries about these allegations, leaving many questions unanswered.

Republicans in Congress have also been considering criminal referrals against former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci. They allege that Fauci misled about funding gain-of-function research in China, which might have led to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. This debate revolves around the NIH’s shifting definitions of such research.

An external watchdog accuses Fauci of lying about adherence to public records laws. Despite losing some taxpayer-funded benefits, Fauci has retired as the highest-paid federal employee in history. His career remains a contentious point for many.

Meanwhile, COVID policy decision-makers seem to be landing comfortably in new roles. Patrizia Cavazzoni, who led the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, recently joined Pfizer as chief medical officer. Before her departure, she hinted at wanting more family time, but her move raises questions about the revolving door between regulatory agencies and industry.

The FDA and CDC recently canceled several advisory committee meetings on upcoming vaccines, sparking speculation. Health and Human Services also suspended a contract with Vaxart for an oral COVID vaccine, an action attributed to previous administration oversight issues. This illustrates ongoing flux in government health policy.

Cavazzoni’s move to Pfizer isn’t unique, as other former FDA commissioners have joined regulated companies. This revolving door is seen by some as a conflict of interest. Philip Krause, who once held a top position at the FDA, criticized the agency’s handling of COVID vaccines and its politicization.

Collins’ letter, sent through his lawyers, praised his own “landmark discoveries” and his receipt of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He argued that the subcommittee was biased and selectively used evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. The letter claims inaccuracies in the report’s portrayal of evidence and interviews.

Cochrane’s editor-in-chief countered claims about their mask review, stating it was “widely misinterpreted” as saying “masks don’t work.” Despite internal investigations, no changes were made to the review’s conclusions. This ongoing debate about mask efficacy remains a hot topic.

Thacker argues that Collins misrepresented the review’s findings by suggesting they supported mask-wearing. He draws a parallel to drug prescriptions, emphasizing the potential harm without proven benefits. This perspective echoes concerns about public health decisions.

Thacker mentioned that Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, would decide on potential prosecution against Collins. Jordan has also been targeting tech companies for their role in suppressing COVID debate and information. These actions highlight ongoing scrutiny over pandemic-related policies.

The subpoenas issued to tech giants like Google, Amazon, Apple, and others seek details on their compliance with foreign censorship laws. Jordan’s focus is on communications with countries that enforce stringent censorship, such as the EU, U.K., Australia, and Canada. This move aligns with broader efforts to address tech companies’ influence on public discourse.

Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission chairs are pursuing similar investigations. These efforts aim to ensure transparency and accountability in how tech companies handle sensitive information. The intersection of health policy and technology continues to be a significant area of concern.