The Great Barrington Declaration has been a hidden secret during this whole pandemic. This declaration was signed by 44 doctors from Universities and national institutes. Universities like Stanford, Oxford, and Tel Aviv. This declaration was signed in October, 2020 but has been hidden from the public.
A little background from their site.
“The Declaration was written from a global public health and humanitarian perspective, with special concerns about how the current COVID-19 strategies are forcing our children, the working class and the poor to carry the heaviest burden. The response to the pandemic in many countries around the world, focused on lockdowns, contact tracing and isolation, imposes enormous unnecessary health costs on people. In the long run, it will lead to higher COVID and non-COVID mortality than the focused protection plan we call for in the Declaration. “Great Barrington Declaration, https://gbdeclaration.org/
This declaration starts by saying
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.Great Barrington Declaration, https://gbdeclaration.org/
Right off the bat we see that in late 2020 there were a sizable number of credible doctors shouting concerns. But what concerns were they?
Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
They weigh this concern against the risk of death by the virus.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. 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.
A natural remedy has always worked for viruses.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
They have a different approach to the one Dr. Fauci chose. Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates both said there is nothing we can do until a vaccine is had. Is this why these 44 doctors were silenced, shadow-banned by big tech?
Instead of strict lockdowns, these doctors and concerned professionals felt another way was less damaging to society overall.
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.
Have you ever heard of Focused Protection? Why has the voice of these doctors and scientists been silenced? Their main goal was not to vaccinate the world, but to protect the vulnerable.
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.
So it was within the capabilities for us to do that in 2020, why didn’t we? In all cases of corruption, you just need to follow the money. But, I digress. By using this focused protection, “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.” They even offer up the protective actions needed by the healthy.
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.
It all comes down to reaching herd immunity, which we have now done. The COVID virus is now a thing of the past. The only people now becoming sick with COVID are those getting more boosters, which according to their purpose will produce the spike proteins in their body. The spike protein causes your immune system to become overworked and leaves you susceptible to other diseases and even COVID as the PCR test would conclude.
In their FAQ section, these doctors share some amazing insight:
How Dangerous is the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease?
It is important to distinguish between the risk of infection and the risk of death. Anyone can get infected, but there is more than a thousand-fold difference in the risk of death between the oldest and youngest. For old people, COVID-19 is more dangerous than the annual influenza. For children, the COVID-19 mortality risk is less than for the annual influenza.
How can you say that the mortality risk to children is low?
To scientifically answer that question, we must look at the only major western country that did not close schools during the height of the pandemic. That is Sweden, who kept day-care and schools open for children ages 1 to 15. Among its 1.8 million children in this age range, there were exactly zero deaths from COVID-19 during this time-period, and only a handful of hospitalizations. During this time, symptomatic children were told to stay home, or sent home if they came to school, but there were no masks used or physical distancing at school.
Do you believe in herd immunity?
Yes. Herd immunity is a scientifically proven phenomenon. To ask an epidemiologist if they believe in herd immunity is like asking a physicist if they believe in gravity. Those who deny herd immunity may also wish to join the flat-earth society.
Is the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a ‘herd immunity strategy’?
No. Those making such claims in the media have either (i) not read the document, (ii) do not understand the basic principles of infectious disease epidemiology, or (iii) are willfully distorting the public health message for political purposes. For COVID-19, all strategies lead to herd immunity, making it nonsensical to denote one specific approach as a herd immunity strategy just as it does not make sense for airplane pilots to talk about a “gravity strategy” for safely landing a plane. The Declaration advocates a strategy that minimizes mortality until herd immunity is reached. That is done by minimizing the number of older high-risk people in the group that get infected while maximizing them among those that are still uninfected when herd immunity arrives.
Antibodies fade after COVID-19 infection. Does that mean natural immunity fades? How strong will vaccine induced immunity be?
That the antibody response fades over time after COVID infections was already known from a large body of literature.
However, it is also true that antibody response is not the only response our immune systems have in response to infection, and these other immune responses (e.g. the production of specific T-cells) appears to be quite long lasting. You can see this in the fact that that despite an estimated 750 million worldwide to date after 10 months living with the virus, we have seen only a handful of reinfections. If the virus is like other corona viruses in its immune response, recovery from infection will provide lasting protection against reinfection, either complete immunity or protection that makes a severe reinfection less likely.
Vaccine immune responses tend to less strong than natural immune response, but there are exceptions to that rule. Even after a vaccine is approved for use, we will have to wait a long while (probably at least ten months and longer) to see how long lasting and complete the immunity provided by the COVID-19 vaccines will be. Focused protection is the right way to manage the epidemic while we wait for the vaccine and after.
What is the role of vaccines in focused protection?
If wisely used, COVID-19 vaccines are an important additional tool for focused protection. The key is to vaccinate older high-risk people as well as their care givers, such as hospital and nursing home staff. Those who have already had COVID-19 do not need to be vaccinated.
This declaration was written on October 2nd, 2020 and signed on October 24, 2020. To date 900,000+ doctors, scientists, lawyers, and everyday people have signed the declaration.
The only question that remains, “Is anybody listening?”
That’s a tough question because for the most part anyone who talked about this declaration was shadow-banned by Big Tech. But every dog has their day.
Entered in a court in Missouri on October 21, 2022 is litigation by the State of Missouri vs Joseph R Biden Jr, et al . The background states “Plaintiffs allege Defendents have colluded with and/or coerced social medial companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information.”
Plaintiffs move for the following government officials to be deposed as a part of their limited preliminary injunction discovery. These include: NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki.
The reason for asking to talk with Jen Psaki under oath is that she “attested to her personal knowledge of the participation of high-level White House officials in pressuring social-media platforms and reinforced the public threats of adverse legal consequences to social-media platforms if they do not increase censorship of views disfavored by federal officials. On May 5, 2021 Psaki stated at a White House press conference “the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations, and elections.
Insofar as Dr. Fauci is concerned, “Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Fauci is directly involved with multiple socia media censorship campaigns against COVID -19 misinformation. Plaintiffs argue that “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” that contradicted Dr. Fauci’s views was censored on social media.
The first example is Dr. Fauci’s efforts to discredit any theory that COVID-19 was a result of a “lab leak.” We now know COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak and a lab that was funded by Dr. Fauci to perform gain of function experiments in hazardous material to humans. Plaintiffs conclude that “Dr. Fauci had funded risky ‘gain-of-function’ research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Dr. Peter Daszak.” “Dr. Fauci and Dr. Daszak could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused COVID-19 pandemic and killed millions of people worldwide.”
The documents have now been filed by the State of Missouri. If our court system is not completely corrupt, Dr. Fauci will get his day in court. If our court system is corrupt…. God save us.
United States District Court Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division Case No 3:22-CV-01213
The Great Barrington Declaration