EXPOSED: Did Peter Hotez & LA Times Reporter Michael Hiltzik Intend To Smear A Supporter Of The Stanford Pandemic Policy Conference?

(article was updated on October 13)

Below is Jay Bhattacharya's X thread from October 7, 2024, that exposes the shameful way the scientific establishment weaponizes the media to crush dissent. It provides evidence of a coordinated plan between Peter Hotez and LA Times business reporter Michael Hiltzik to use Hiltzik's column to punish Dr. George Tidmarsh for inviting Hotez to participate in the Stanford Pandemic Conference, held on October 4, 2024.

Journalist Alex Berenson, one of the panelists at the conference, also had an unpleasant exchange with Hiltzik regarding the event, which he details here.

---

---

The Stanford Pandemic Conference last Friday was an enormous success. Experts who supported early school closures reasoned together with those who didn't. Experts who oppose the lab-origin theory of covid reasoned with people who support it.

Empaneling civil discussion on the vital issues of the day -- topics on which experts differ -- should be a key function of universities. I am proud that Stanford has embraced its motto, "Let the winds of freedom blow."

And yet, there has been a subculture of scientists and journalists -- none of whom attended the conference -- who have taken it upon themselves to denigrate and dehumanize anyone who attended or supported the conference.

Why such an outrageous reaction? Many of these scientists favored destructive policies like school closures, mandates, and gain-of-function work that, in retrospect, look like they caused disaster. They fear an honest appraisal of these ideas.

One of the key instigators of this campaign to dehumanize and ostracize people like me is Peter Hotez. Hotez falsely denigrated the conference as anti-science. On my part, I would have loved to see Dr. Hotez speak at the conference.

On August 26th, Dr. George Tidmarsh, a conference organizer, funder, and moderator, reached out to Dr. Hotez to invite him to speak at the meeting.

There followed a back and forth with Dr. Tidmarsh politely inviting Dr. Hotez to speak, and Dr. Hotez decrying "misinformation" on topics not covered at the conference. Here's a typical email from Dr. Hotez on the eve of the conference.

Dr. Tidmarsh, in response, offered to promote Dr. Hotez's book at the conference.

Finally, Dr. Tidmarsh, on the morning of the conference, told Dr. Hotez that he would bring up his concern about vaccine misinformation in the panel on misinformation that he was moderating.

Yesterday, Dr. Tidmarsh received an email inquisition from LA Times finance columnist Michael Hiltzik, grossly mischaracterizing the email Dr. Tidmarsh had sent Dr. Hotez as a "threat." Dr. Tidmarsh's goal was to voice Dr. Hotez's concern to the panelists.

Very clearly, Dr. Hotez had leaked Dr. Tidmarsh's offer to Michael Hiltzik, a financial reporter at the LA Times who did not attend the conference. Hiltzik had written an earlier hit piece attempting to get the conference canceled.

Hiltzik is now threatening (if I may paraphrase him) to write another vapid hit piece about the conference, which featured much robust scientific discussion from many points of view. Is it good journalism to report about an event that the "journalist" did not attend?

The goal is transparent: to make sure no one ever organizes another conference at a prominent university where critics of lockdowns, lab leaks, or censorship are invited to speak. But if these policies are defensible, what do they have to fear from civil academic discussion?

---

UPDATE: As of October 13, 2024, Michael Hiltzik has not written a new column about the conference or about Dr. Tidmarsh’s exchange with Peter Hotez.