HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ARTICLE
Ye Editor
"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
... 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.
... “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.
... 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. ...
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.
... 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. ...
... 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.
... The very same tactic has been used to shut down all other counter narratives 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.
... 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.
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
... 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?”
... 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.
... Doctors, nurses, first responders, truckers, grocery store clerks — they all worked through 2020 and were exposed on the front lines.
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.
Kulldorf ... 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.
... hundreds of scientists have sided with narratives that everyone knows to be false — such as the denial of natural immunity.
Bhattacharya ... 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.
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.
... “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.”
... 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.
... We now know that treating early and aggressively will prevent the vast majority from needing hospital care or dying."
Monday, February 14, 2022
Authors of Barrington Declaration Speak Out, by Dr. Joseph Mercola
FULL ARTICLE HERE:
