October 4, 2020, three public health scientists launched The Great Barrington Declaration1
— a public health proposal that calls for focused protection of the
most vulnerable while letting the rest of the world resume normal life.
The declaration has since garnered more than 920,000 signatures by
doctors, scientists and other health professionals who agree with its
premises. The founding trio include:
- Martin Kulldorf, Ph.D., a biostatistician, epidemiologist with
expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and
vaccine safety evaluations, and a professor of medicine at Harvard
University
- Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., professor at Oxford University, an
epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and
mathematical modeling of infectious diseases
- Jay Bhattacharya, MD, Ph.D., professor at Stanford University
Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and
public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and
vulnerable populations
In the video above, Jimmy Dore interviews Kulldorf and Bhattacharya
about the declaration, and the recent revelation that Dr. Anthony Fauci,
director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID) and his former boss, now retired National Institutes of Health
(NIH) director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash the
declaration from day one.2
Focused Protection
The Great Barrington Declaration points out some key basic facts.
First of all, it stresses that pandemic measures such as lockdowns
"cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately
harmed." Second, it highlights the fact that the risk of death from
COVID is not equal to all.
"We know that
vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher
in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is
less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza."3
Furthermore, as natural immunity within a population grows, the
overall risk of infection declines. So, allowing those at low risk for
complications and death to live normally, and potentially get sick but
recover, actually helps protect those at greatest risk.
By having everyone isolate at home and avoid contact with others,
herd immunity is postponed and the pandemic prolonged. "Our goal should
... be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd
immunity," the declaration explains, adding:4
"The most compassionate approach that balances the
risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are
at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up
immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting
those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be
the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of
example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and
perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation
should be minimized.
Retired people living at home should have groceries
and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should
meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and
detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational
households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and
capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be
allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand
washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to
reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be
open for in-person teaching.
Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be
resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from
home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.
Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities
should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish,
while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the
vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."
Fauci's False Consensus
As noted by Bhattacharya in the interview above, while Fauci tried
his best to create the illusion of scientific consensus — that most all
scientists agreed with lockdowns, masking, social distancing and so on —
there were and are just as many if not more who disagree.
The Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by more than
920,000, including 46,412 medical practitioners and 15,707 scientists.
"We posed a significant problem for them," Bhattacharya says, "because
they couldn't dismiss us as fringe." Well, Collins certainly tried. In
fact, in an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:5,6,7,8
"The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists
who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention ...
There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its
premises ..."
"Don't worry, I got this," Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins
links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection
solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The
Nation, titled "Focused Protection, Herd Immunity and Other Deadly
Delusions."
When They Can't Win an Argument, They Slander
As noted by Bhattacharya, Fauci and Collins had nothing in terms of
actual science. They could not defend lockdowns or anything else based
on science alone. So, they turned to propaganda, PR and smear tactics.
"Focused protection is based on longstanding basic principles of public health that we have followed for decades," Kulldorf says. "Lockdowns
is a new experimental thing. So, the problem for Dr. Fauci and Collins
is that they don't really have any good public health arguments. Collins
is a geneticist and Fauci is an immunologist, so their experience with
epidemiology and public health is limited.
You can see that in this email where Fauci was
quoting Wired magazine as a take-down of The Great Barrington
Declaration. They didn't really have any good public health arguments.
There were no arguments to keep the schools closed.
So, the only thing that remains then is to use
slander, or smearing, or mischaracterizing your opponents, and that's
what they did. They called focused protection a 'let it rip strategy,'
even though it's the very opposite [of that]."
The very same tactic has been used to shut down all other
counternarratives as well, be it evidence showing that masks don't work,
that the COVID shots cause harm, or that vaccine passports are moot
since the shots don't prevent you from getting infected or transmitting
the virus and therefore cannot protect others, cannot confer
vaccine-induced "herd immunity" and cannot end the pandemic.
COVID Jab Risk-Benefit Analysis
Unfortunately, Dore, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya all claim that the
COVID shot is beneficial, or at least can be for some, and is saving
lives. Kulldorf goes so far as to say that "older people who have not
had COVID should certainly — a no-brainer — take this vaccine."
While I respect their expertise, I strongly disagree with such
statements. Importantly, they are not comparing the effectiveness of and
protection you get from the shot, to the protection and effectiveness
of preventive measures and aggressive early treatment.
I have never seen any professional make this recommendation and
compare it to the alternative of optimizing vitamin D levels and
providing early treatment, ideally on the first day. They are comparing
it to doing nothing, which makes no sense as it should be compared to
another intervention.
If you don't take the shot, your risk of getting COVID is not 100%.
If you take the shot, however, you're 100% exposed to its risks, which
are significant. Seeing how we have several different early treatment
protocols with demonstrable effectiveness, reducing the risk of death
even among the seriously ill by 80%, why take an experimental shot that
can devastate your health, if not acutely, then over the long term?
Now, I'm not indifferent to the clearly delicate position they're in.
It's at least possible (although far from certain) that their
enthusiastic pro-jab stance is a concession to avoid the anti-vax label
in order to be able to engage in the larger conversation about other
pandemic measures. If they failed to take this position they would
likely be even more censored.
It's easy for the establishment to attack and smear those who express
concerns about the COVID jab. It's more difficult to sink the
reputations of those who agree that the jab is "fantastic" but have
concerns about other measures.
That said, Bhattacharya does point out some basic data — published by
the World Health Organization — to clarify for whom the benefit of the
jab might outweigh its unknown risks:
- A 53-year-old has a 0.2% mortality rate from COVID, i.e., they have a 99.8% chance of surviving the infection
- For every seven years of age above 53, the mortality rate doubles,
so a 60-year-old has a 0.4% risk of dying from COVID, a 67-year-old
risk's is 0.8% and for a 74-year-old, it's 1.6%
- For every seven years of age below 53, the mortality rate is halved,
so a 46-year-old has a 0.1% risk of dying from COVID and it dwindles
into statistical zero for teens and children
- 80% of COVID deaths in the U.S. occur in people over 65
- The average age of COVID death is above the national life expectancy
Why Vaccine Mandates Make No Sense
As Dore points out, the facts simply don't support vaccine mandates.
"I don't see how you can be for mandates after you have this
information," he says.
- The COVID jabs do not prevent transmission, and vaccinated people
have just as high or higher viral load as the unvaccinated, making them
just as contagious, or more so
- Even if the jab reduces symptoms, they do not prevent you from contracting the virus
- With Omicron being so highly contagious, the consensus seems to be
that just about everyone will be exposed and contract it, thereby
producing herd immunity
"If everyone's going to get it, what does it matter who you get it
from, a vaccinated or an unvaccinated person?" Dore asks. "So, how can
they justify a mandate?"
COVID Jab Mandates Are Cruel and Unethical
According to Kulldorf, the establishment pushing for vaccine mandates
are ignoring basic public health science. They're also acting
unethically. Demanding that a 25-year-old who already had COVID take the
experimental jab that won't provide them with a clear benefit is
medically unethical.
Meanwhile, elderly people in underdeveloped countries that might
benefit aren't able to get it and that, too, Kulldorf says, is
unethical. Bhattacharya agrees, saying "it's a cruel thing we've done
with the mandates." People who risked their lives during the first year
of the pandemic, when little was known about the infection, are now
being fired because they don't want a shot they don't need.
Doctors, nurses, first responders, truckers, grocery store clerks —
they all worked through 2020 and were exposed on the frontlines. Those
who recovered and have natural immunity are now being discarded like
yesterday's trash for no good reason.
Naturally immune health care workers, for example, would normally be
invaluable. Now they're being fired and replaced with workers who have
fragile and temporary protection at best, which is beyond irrational if
you're trying to prevent outbreaks.
"The vaccine does not stop transmission," Bhattacharya says. "Given that, what logic is there for a mandate? There isn't any. It's just cruel and unethical."
The Bizarre Disappearance of Natural Immunity
Kulldorf points out that we've known about natural immunity for 2,500
years, and there's absolutely no reason to assume that this virus would
be completely different from any other virus and fail to confer robust
immunity after you've recovered.
But even if you were unsure, real-world data confirm that it does
confer immunity. He cites data from Israel, showing people who have
received the jab are 27 times more likely to come down with symptomatic
infection compared to those who had prior COVID infection. So, we know
that natural immunity is far better than the jab.
It's a very curious phenomenon that has occurred, and Bhattacharya
and Kulldorf both admit being very confused by it, and that is that
seemingly hundreds of scientists have sided with narratives that
everyone knows to be false — such as the denial of natural immunity.
Bhattacharya describes being utterly shocked reading a statement
signed by 100 scientists declaring that natural immunity did not occur
after COVID infection. He believes the scientific community was so
caught up in the fear of being "canceled" that they either silenced
themselves or went along with things they knew were untrue.
He also points out that the World Health Organization went so far as
to change the definition of herd immunity after The Great Barrington
Declaration was published. The new definition basically denies the
existence of natural herd immunity and pretends that it can only be
achieved through mass vaccination, which has never been the case.
"It's a weird power we have," Bhattacharya says, tongue-in-cheek. "We released [The Great Barrington Declaration] and we made the World Health Organization stupider."
Blatant Lies Being Told About Children's Risk of COVID
Dore also highlights other blatant lies. Two-thirds of parents are
very reluctant to give their children the COVID jab, so the propaganda
machine is in full swing trying to make parents more afraid of COVID
than they are of the shot. He plays a news clip in which it's claimed
that:
- Since the beginning of the pandemic, more than 8,000 children have
been hospitalized with COVID, a third of those ending up in the ICU
- 146,000 children have died from COVID since the beginning of the pandemic
- COVID is now in the Top 10 causes of death among children
"That's just false," Bhattachary says. The news clip goes on to claim that:
- The shot has been proven safe for children
- That there are "no side effects" in children
- Side effects only occur within the first couple of months after the jab, and
- "Long-term concerns are very theoretical" and would be "rare at the
most" whereas the effects of COVID itself "could be devastating"
"He just said there are NO side effects from the vaccine," Dore says.
"[That's] also a lie!" Bhattacharya commented on the clip calling it
"absolutely shocking, filled with absolute lies." Aside from the lack of
proven safety, they also lied about COVID causing long-term problems in
children. Bhattacharya cites a recent large-scale study that concluded
"long-COVID in children were of short duration."
"They're creating this sense of panic in parents, and it's just evil," Bhattacharya says. "What
happens is the parents then end up making decisions for their kids that
end up harming them, on the basis of this false information."
Aggressive Early Treatment Is Key
I hope you take the time to listen to the full interview, as they
cover far more than I've reviewed here. It's an interesting conversation
and Jimmy is profoundly entertaining as he educates us on the facts. In
the latter half of the interview, they also discuss the issue of
treatment, and the irrational stance that discussing and using effective
treatment will result in people not getting the COVID jab.
Bhattacharya expresses exasperation at this, noting that when a
patient is ill, you have to do everything in your power to treat them.
You can't ignore treatment for fear they might not want a vaccine later.
And you can't not treat people simply because others might decide they
don't want the vaccine because they know they can get treated if they
get sick.
Indeed, the suppression and denial of early treatment is perhaps the
most egregious and deadly lie of all. At first signs of symptoms, you
need to begin treatment. We now know that treating early and
aggressively will prevent the vast majority from needing hospital care
or dying. Early treatment also radically lowers your risk of long-COVID.
At this point, we have several early treatment protocols with
demonstrated effectiveness, including:
Based on my review of these protocols, I've developed the following
summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most
effective.
>>>>> Click here <<<<<