This is a long overdue piece. The so-called “Great Barrington Declaration” came about in late 2020. It was supposedly a call for “balanced” public health measures.
In reality, it still calls for significant limitations on freedoms. It plays along with the psy-op that there is some virus killing people at all. In short, it works to limit genuine discussion and curiosity on the subject.
It doesn’t really call for a return to normal lives. However, by “appearing” to call for a return to normalcy, it acts as just another voice working to suppress the full truth. Like with most controlled opposition, fact will be mixed with lies in order to obscure the big picture.
The Great Barrington Declaration – 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.
This is the first of several red flags. The document doesn’t address the premeditation or deception behind these measures. Instead, they are criticized for being too heavy handed. There’s overwhelming evidence this was planned, and it’s easily available, even in October 2020.
And how concerned are they really? Epidemiologists and public health “scientists” are the ones pushing this warfare on the public. Perhaps there is some professional courtesy at play by not calling out the full scale of the lies going on.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. 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.
So, these “public health experts” are worried that lockdown measures will result in lower childhood vaccination rates for other things?! That’s an interesting approach. There’s no objection in principle to martial law being used on society, just the means that it’s being done.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
What about the so-called vaccine itself? What kind of irreparable harm will that cause? Is that something that needs discussing? And what “virus” would it be curing?
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.
They claim that their knowledge is growing, but never address the elephant in the room: this “virus” has never been isolated or proven to exist in any scientific manner. It seems that none of them will touch the issue of germ theory being pseudo-science.
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.
Another warning sign: this call doesn’t address the complete lack of necessity for experimental vaccines. Instead, it’s referred to as just another measure. And immunity to what exactly?
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.
Again, the goal is to allow “some people” to live normal lives, but restricting the freedoms of others. They don’t ideologically object to martial law measures, just how they’re implemented.
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.
The Declaration quite clearly “does” support having freedoms removed, and having unelected bureaucrats make those decisions. And perform frequent tests for what? The nasal rape sticks can’t actually determine infection.
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.
Under the terms of the G.B.D., some people should be allowed to return to a normal life. This means that there is still support for reducing others’ freedoms indefinitely.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
While all of this sounds lovely on the surface, the G.B.D. gatekeeps real opposition by helping to gloss over the true scale of this hoax. It seems very doubtful that the people pushing this are unaware of what’s really going on.
Guess what else the G.B.D. doesn’t address? The fraudulent “definition” of a Covid death. This has been brought up on this site, but not many others. The people promoting G.B.D. talk about the science, but never the underlying deceit. There really is no other way to describe this “Declaration” as anything other than as a scam.
They also don’t seem interested in the myriad of businesses who’ve been paid to prop up the narrative via various subsidies. It doesn’t just happen in Canada.
(1) https://gbdeclaration.org/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/following-the-bailout-money-video-compilation/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/big-pharma-reviews/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-science-table-un-who-ihr/
