Further challenges to "The Great Barrington Declaration".
What was "focused protection" in practical terms and why was it needed?
This article seemed to hit a nerve - it is by far my most-read piece:
I am unsure whether the positions of the 3 authors in respect of the question as to whether or not there really was something which can justifiably be called a “pandemic” have evolved at all. I suspect not. Either that, or for whatever reason they are unwilling or feel unable to voice it.
Here’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya speaking in a conversation about “the pandemic”. I didn’t listen. I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who did as to whether the central tenet - that we had a pandemic - was ever challenged.
My attention was recently drawn to a number of tweets by David Dickson - which I reproduce - including Dr Bhattacharya’s responses - below.
These lay out better than I could why this is such an important issue, and why I have no patience with people who by refusing to answer - let alone ask - the questions which really matter, are ensuring that the ghastly debacle of the past few years can be re-run at any time of the perpetrators’ choosing.
The thread on X started with Dr Bhattacharya drawing attention to the following official report:
The report’s introduction states that:
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has conducted an investigation into the effectiveness and scientific accuracy of the “We Can Do This” COVID-19 vaccine promotional campaign (“Campaign”) launched by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in partnership with the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), which describes itself as a full-service behavior change research and strategy firm. This nationwide multimedia advertising campaign ran from August 2020 through June 2023 and cost over $900 million in taxpayer funds.
The thread consists of 23 tweets which do tease out some extremely troubling aspects of the propaganda used against the American people.
As a stand-alone critique, it is well-written, and contains some important information.
However, it must be stated that the document, and those promoting it (including Dr Bhattacharya) fail to ask a number of important questions, the absence of which serves to reify the central lie that the covid event was caused by a spreading novel pathogen.
The questions NOT asked were well summarised by David Dickson as a response to the first tweet in the thread. I have reproduced these - together with Dr Bhattacharya’s replies - below.
(In each case click on the image to go to the tweet.)
Two of the 4 pieces of media above are videos - click on the picture to go directly to the tweet to play those. These are the two static images:
David then goes on to link to further evidence that dystopian treatment of the elderly is still ongoing:
(David then links to a 2 hour 45 min video which I have not had a chance to watch yet, but will.)
Overall, this is what I meant by this in my substack post referenced above:
I await a response by Dr Bhattacharya, as I am sure David does too.
The three authors of the GBD are contemptible deceivers of the worst kind. Measured words designed to deceive into influencing us to believe we should protect the vulnerable and elderly with measures now proven to be deadly. But not just deadly to the vulnerable and elderly, ALL of us.
Still no shame as they keep taking the money from the pharma cartel.
I'm very disappointed in Jay Bhattacharya and his colleague at Stanford John Ioannidis - in spite of their laudable opposition to lockdowns - for their support of the vaccines and their failure to support rational early treatment proticols. Ioannidis loves to say there is "no evidence" for early treatment of 'Covid'. He proudly accepts nothing but RCTs as evidence - an absurd position - even though response of an individual patient is perfectly good evidence in a clinical context that a treatment is worth pursuing. Rather than try something that is logical and promising, he would prefer to let the patient die on a respirator. He refuses to condemn Remdesivir, which is an obvious failure on his criteria. The vaccines cannot be supported on his criteria - as he must know - yet he will not say so.