I have re-read the Great Barrington Declaration - you should too.
It affirms my desire to have my name removed.
This article was my most-read ever:
It generated some fascinating comments which are worth perusing.
I realised today that I have never really gone through the Declaration highlighting the particularly problematic parts, so here goes.
The Declaration is reproduced below, with my comments in square brackets.
The Great Barrington Declaration
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.
[“prevailing COVID-19 policies” suggests that some policies are actually needed, ie we need to do something, just not what was being done at that time]
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people.
[No doubt this is part of the problem - the assumption that people need to be and can be “protected” from viruses / pandemic threats. I regard this threat as one of HL Mencken’s hobgoblins]
Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. [Possibly the only thing in the whole document I don’t take issue with.] The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates [nobody intellectually honest can scratch the surface of that topic and not conclude there is something very, very wrong with vaccination policy in general], 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. [Testing and isolation of anybody based on a PCR test was WRONG]
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available [tacit acceptance that there’s something to vaccinate against] will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
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. [“The virus” - really? The “vulnerability to death” is illusory. The vulnerable were simply killed or allowed to die through active or passive “measures”, or died because…..well, elderly and sick people do die….many of their deaths put down to “covid” because of the magic test.]
Are we really pretending “covid deaths” are a real thing - given what we know about attribution policy and testing fidelity. Next they’ll be saying the flu really disappeared through “viral competition” or some such fantasy.]
As immunity builds in the population [this suggests novelty where there wasn’t any], the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity [concept is simplistic and faulty for a highly mutable pathogen anyway, even if one played a more than minor role] – 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 [Nope. You can’t intramuscularly inject your way out of waves of respiratoy infections, even if they actually occurred]. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity [note this includes in their eyes as including being via a vaccine].
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 [implying that those not at minimal risk should not be living 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. [A “response” - again, is deemed necessary, led by public health.] By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity [So staff without “acquired immunity” should do what?] and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. [Because the tests are necessary, meaningful and desirable - really?] Staff rotation should be minimized. [In practical terms this is a word salad of a suggestion.] Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. [Because? What if they don’t want to?] When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. [More - we need to do SOMETHING]. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures [“measures” - again], including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals [err..I don’t think so!].
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. [So those that are vulnerable should not?] 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 [as should everyone - the idea of societal disruptions where huge swathes of people felt they should work remotely was insanity from which we have not and maybe never will recover]. 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 [may they indeed? - how grateful they should be to have your permission], while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
It’s worth me emphasising that my major criticism of this is not that it was written at the time (though some I knew were savvy enough to refuse to sign from the outset), but rather that it has never been withdrawn, qualified or modified in light of new information; nor do any of the authors appear willing to question any of its underlying premises.
Hence it now serves the purposes of the “pandemic preparedness industry” - as I outlined in the article above.
To illustrate the point further, take a look at this tweet today from David Dickson. I have posted the images from it underneath.
I think we can all agree that the above measures look horrendous, inhumane and totally unnecessary. Note the mentions of gloves, face masks, handwashing, testing, precautions and isolation. However, I struggle to see just how a “response” consistent with GBD principles would really have been that different.
And that brings me to the nub of the matter.
Once it is accepted that “a response” to a scary invisible novel pathogen was actually needed, unnecessary harms - or worse - are bound to flow from that.
I was an early signatory. It was of it's time. As a doctor of forty years, mostly working in general practice the language used seemed sane and in keeping with what I then thought I knew! Also, it was such a a relief to find that others across the world saw things as I did. But I've unlearned so much, and agree- it was ballox!
I signed the GBD also. I admit, even though I’m an MD with an immunology background, I was brainwashed by the constant fearmongering. In retrospect it looks (and is/was) nonsensical. Dr B is being touted as a great choice for the NIH Director. Yet he refuses to engage, as far as I know, in any dialogue with either you or Jessica Hockett about the fact that the whole pandemic was faked, as they always are. How does this qualify him if he, like his predecessor, doesn’t promote open scientific discourse?