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.