A major surgical society has invited a former FDA commissioner to headline its clinical congress, introducing him with a bio that lists the bestsellers and the endowed chairs and mentions none of the pandemic-era claims, the accusations leveled at colleagues, or the circumstances of his departure. The hosts read the introduction in full, then read what it leaves out — and use it to make a broader point: the most dangerous thing happening in medicine right now isn't any single false claim, it's the speed with which discredited records are being smoothed over and their authors welcomed back onto main stages.

From there the conversation turns to a widely shared magazine essay arguing that public health should make common cause with the MAHA movement, and to the Substack defense of that essay written by the hosts of a podcast built around cross-divide conversation. The hosts read both at length and take them apart, drawing a distinction they say the "dialogue" camp collapses: how a physician talks with a vaccine-hesitant patient in an exam room is not the same act as platforming movement leaders who have invoked Nuremberg trials and Holocaust imagery against doctors. One is medicine. The other, they argue, launders danger into an intellectual parlor game.

The episode closes on what is being done to scientists in the meantime — a researcher detained at an airport, a retired NIH scientist taken from his home in handcuffs, an 85-year-old former agency director facing hearings whose stated purpose was imprisonment — and on the quieter counter-story: the people who have left the anti-vaccine movement, and the patient, unglamorous outreach that actually changed their minds.

Topics Include

• A surgical society's sanitized introduction of a former FDA commissioner — and everything the bio omits

• The medical-error-as-third-leading-cause-of-death statistic and its origins

• Why records should still be cited after someone leaves power

• Headlines: reported White House pressure on HHS over childhood vaccines; new data on flu vaccine effectiveness against pediatric mortality

• The Atlantic's "Public Health Needs MAHA" essay and the rebuttals from Science-Based Medicine and others

• "Name one hit" — what MAHA has actually delivered on pesticides, food, and chronic disease

• Podcasting as an end in itself: the "Why Should I Trust You?" roster and the ethics of platforming

• Violent rhetoric in the anti-vaccine movement: Nuremberg framing, Holocaust comparisons, and fundraising off both

• Reactionary centrism and the demand that the people who were right apologize to the people who weren't

• Public health didn't lose trust — it was politicized

• Fauci: the noble lie on masks, the decision to take the Fifth, and the campaign against him

• Scientists detained, arrested, and blamed for origins they had nothing to do with

• How deconversion actually happens — Vaxopedia, a five-minute conversation with a nurse, and the parents who changed their minds

About the Show

We Want Them Infected is hosted by Dr. Jonathan Howard, a neurologist and psychiatrist in New York City, and Wendy Orent, a science writer specializing in the evolution of infectious disease. The show covers medical misinformation, public health policy, and the people shaping both.

The views expressed are those of the hosts and guests.

What happens when government scientists decide they can no longer stay silent?

In this episode of We Want Them Infected, Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent welcome Dr. Jenna Norton and Dr. Sylvia Chou—two former NIH scientists who helped organize and sign the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter raising concerns about political interference in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health.

The conversation explores why hundreds of NIH employees came together to publicly challenge policies they say undermined scientific integrity, disrupted clinical research, and created a culture of fear within one of the world's leading research institutions.

Dr. Norton and Dr. Chou discuss the events leading to the Declaration, the difficult personal decisions they faced, and what they believe has changed one year later. They also examine the broader implications for public trust, scientific independence, and the future of federally funded medical research.

Whether you agree or disagree with their conclusions, this episode offers an inside perspective from scientists who experienced these events firsthand.

• The origins of the Bethesda Declaration
• Why NIH scientists chose to publicly dissent
• Allegations of political influence over scientific research
• Grant terminations and their impact on ongoing clinical trials
• How censorship concerns affected researchers inside NIH
• The culture of fear described by current and former NIH employees
• The challenges facing early-career scientists
• Scientific integrity versus political priorities
• Why the authors say courage and transparency matter in public health
• Reflections one year after the Bethesda Declaration

• Scientific institutions depend on open debate and independent inquiry.
• Research funding decisions can have lasting consequences for patients and public health.
• Whistleblowing often comes with significant personal and professional risk.
• Public trust in science requires transparency and accountability.
• The future of biomedical research depends on protecting scientific integrity.

Subscribe to We Want Them Infected for thoughtful conversations examining the policies, decisions, and scientific debates that continue to shape public health.

Is the "Make America Healthy Again" movement beginning to unravel?

Jonathan Howard, MD, and Wendy Orent examine a wave of recent public health stories that they argue reveal growing dysfunction within the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. From staffing shortages and agency leadership vacancies to vaccine policy changes and expanding infectious disease outbreaks, they discuss what they believe are the real-world consequences of current federal health leadership.

The conversation also explores new measles outbreaks, cyclospora foodborne illness, influenza vaccine effectiveness, updated COVID vaccine research, child labor debates, NIH funding, scientific independence, and the continuing influence of prominent pandemic-era commentators.

Whether you agree or disagree, this episode tackles some of the most consequential public health debates unfolding today.

• The latest reporting on RFK Jr.'s leadership at HHS
• Why MAHA and MAGA may be increasingly at odds
• The growing measles outbreaks across the United States
• Cyclospora infections and concerns over weakened food safety oversight
• New research on influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing pediatric deaths
• Updated COVID vaccine effectiveness data against hospitalization and severe illness
• The role of herd immunity and population immunity in today's COVID landscape
• The future of CDC leadership and federal public health agencies
• NIH funding, political oversight, and concerns about scientific independence
• Scott Atlas and calls to abolish the NIH
• Continued debate over COVID lockdowns and pandemic policy
• David Zweig, Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute, and education debates
• Child labor laws and their intersection with pandemic-era rhetoric
• Why physician-scientists continue debating the legacy of COVID policy
• Scientific misinformation and public trust
• Current public health threats beyond COVID

• RFK Jr.
• Department of Health and Human Services
• MAHA
• MAGA
• Measles resurgence
• Cyclospora outbreak
• Vaccine effectiveness
• Influenza vaccination
• COVID-19 boosters
• CDC leadership
• NIH funding
• Scientific research
• Public health policy
• Pandemic response
• School closures
• Medical misinformation
• Health policy

"Public health leadership isn't judged by rhetoric—it's judged by outcomes."

"Preventable diseases don't care about political ideology."

"Science requires evidence, not personalities."

• Recent New York Times reporting on HHS leadership
• JAMA studies on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness
• CIDRAP influenza vaccine research
• Scientific American reporting on NIH funding changes
• Washington Post reporting on federal science policy

We Want Them Infected examines public health, infectious disease, vaccine policy, misinformation, and science through evidence-based discussion featuring neurologist Dr. Jonathan Howard and science journalist Wendy Orent.

Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and leave a review to help more listeners discover the show.

In Episode 102 of We Want Them Infected, hosts Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent are joined by Jenna Norton, a public health scientist and NIH program officer who became one of the leading voices opposing what she describes as the politicization of biomedical research.

The conversation begins with a discussion of a recent article by John Ioannidis criticizing "misinformation labeling," prompting a broader conversation about scientific accountability, public trust, and the responsibility to challenge misinformation.

Dr. Norton then shares an insider's perspective on the dramatic changes inside the National Institutes of Health following the arrival of new leadership. She explains how grant cancellations, staffing reductions, halted clinical trials, and increasing political oversight led her and dozens of colleagues to organize the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter expressing concern over threats to scientific independence.

The discussion explores:

• How NIH grant funding works and the role of program officers.
• The culture of scientific collaboration that historically defined the NIH.
• Concerns over political influence in research funding.
• The impact of canceled clinical trials on patients and researchers.
• Why Dr. Norton believes scientific dissent must be protected.
• Her experience being placed on administrative leave after publicly criticizing agency leadership.
• The long-term consequences of politicizing public health research.

The episode concludes with a discussion about proposed federal funding changes, the future of biomedical research, and why protecting scientific integrity matters for every American—not just scientists.

Jenna Norton is a health equity and public health scientist serving as a program officer at the National Institutes of Health, where her work has focused on kidney disease, urology, and health disparities within the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She is one of the principal organizers and signers of the Bethesda Declaration, a public statement from NIH employees expressing concerns about political interference in biomedical research and the erosion of scientific independence. Dr. Norton has written publicly about scientific integrity, whistleblower protections, and evidence-based policymaking, emphasizing that she speaks in her personal capacity rather than on behalf of the NIH.

• Scientific integrity at the NIH
• The Bethesda Declaration
• NIH grant funding and peer review
• Clinical trial terminations
• Whistleblower protections
• Public trust in science
• Political influence on biomedical research
• Research ethics
• Health disparities
• Evidence-based policymaking

In this episode of We Want Them Infected, Jonathan Howard, MD, and Wendy Orent return with another "Therapy Time" session, breaking down the latest controversies in public health, vaccine policy, and medical misinformation.

They examine a recent Wall Street Journal documentary on the Great Barrington Declaration and discuss what they describe as the ongoing effort to rewrite the history of the COVID-19 pandemic. The conversation explores the role of public health experts, media narratives, and the consequences of what they view as COVID amnesia.

Jonathan and Wendy also discuss the growing measles outbreaks across the United States, declining vaccination rates, misinformation surrounding vitamin A as a measles treatment, and the broader impact of vaccine skepticism on public health.

Additional topics include RFK Jr.'s influence over U.S. health policy, changes within federal health agencies, the future of vaccine recommendations, scientific funding, medical research, and the ethical questions surrounding global health decisions.

Throughout the episode, they highlight the importance of frontline physicians, researchers, and healthcare workers who continue to combat infectious diseases and advocate for evidence-based medicine.

• The Wall Street Journal documentary on the Great Barrington Declaration and the debate over COVID-era policies

• Why Jonathan believes COVID's impact on young and otherwise healthy patients is being minimized

• The controversy surrounding the idea of herd immunity through widespread infection

• The American Diabetes Association controversy involving criticism of NIH leadership

• RFK Jr.'s role in public health policy and reactions from major medical organizations

• The resurgence of measles and what declining vaccination rates mean for public health

• Misinformation surrounding measles treatments, including vitamin A

• The future of vaccine recommendations at the CDC and FDA

• Concerns over political influence in scientific research and federal funding

• The rise of unproven medical treatments marketed to vulnerable families

• Ethical debates around global infectious disease response, including Ebola

• The healthcare workers and scientists continuing to protect public health

"The people taking care of Ebola patients are the bravest people in the world."

— Wendy Orent

• The Great Barrington Declaration

• The Wall Street Journal documentary on COVID-era debates

• The New York Times reporting on RFK Jr.'s leadership of HHS

• STAT News reporting on RFK Jr.'s health policy promises

• CDC reports on measles outbreaks in the United States

• Reporting on vitamin A toxicity linked to misinformation about measles treatments

• The Guardian reporting on vaccine misinformation studies

• Reporting on NIH funding and scientific research changes

This week on We Want Them Infected, Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent take a step back from the headlines to examine the academics, journalists, physicians, and commentators who helped legitimize and elevate the MAHA movement. They revisit articles, endorsements, and public statements that portrayed figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad as reformers poised to restore trust in science and public health. With the benefit of hindsight, they explore how those predictions have aged, what has happened inside major health agencies, and why accountability matters when influential voices help shape public opinion.

This week on We Want Them Infected, Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent unpack a whirlwind week in public health and pandemic policy. They examine newly released FDA findings showing no definitive child deaths linked to COVID vaccines, challenge claims made by former FDA officials, and discuss the growing controversy surrounding vaccine safety narratives. They also explore the fallout from leadership changes at the FDA, RFK Jr.'s latest public health moves, concerns about scientific collaboration restrictions, and the surprising response to recent hantavirus and Ebola threats. Along the way, they take a closer look at Jay Bhattacharya's evolving stance on infectious disease mitigation and what it may reveal about the realities of public health leadership.