[NOTE: as of August 10, 2021, over 850,000 doctors and public health scientists worldwide have signed this 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.
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.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
Where’s the science behind COVID-19 and the push–no, demand that everyone get the vaccine?
Here it is, and it is devastating and pure evil. If you care about anyone, including yourself, take a few hours and follow the science (true science) of these true and sincere medical and other professionals in the videos below.
Dr. David Martin on the origins of COVID-19 and who is behind it. An hour and 20 minutes, but powerful.
Geneticist Alexandra Henrion-Caude on what m-RNA really does to one’s DNA.
Dr. Peter McCullough on the truth about the COVID vaccines that are not vaccines at all.
Below is the 3rd excerpt from the chapter, The Plague.
The Negative is the Positive. The bellwether for determining the presence of the COVID-19 virus has been the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test. The late Dr. Kary Mullis developed the test and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his contribution. He made it clear that it was not to be used as a diagnostic tool. In fact, he stated, “with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
On December 14, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a memo warning that using high cycle thresholds during the PCR test, “will result in false positives.”
WHO further warned, to use a high cycle threshold (CT) value would result in detecting nothing of value and will only produce false-positives for Sars-Cov-2. The WHO release further stated:
Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFUcarefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.
. . .The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.
Commenting on cycle thresholds, Dr. Mullis said, “If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
Dr. Fauci has also stated publicly, a cycle threshold over 35 will only detect “dead nucleotides” and not a living virus.
Yet, in America and around the world, testing laboratories have been using the PCR test with CT values over 35 and into the low forties.
In late August, 2020, The New York Times, which was keeping track of the number of COVID-19 cases, reported, “In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus . . .”
Masks: Duped into Submission. In a July 26, 2020 blog post, this author stated:
First (and you can argue all you want), face masks (no matter what type) have been proven time and again, through multiple tests, research, epidemiologists and the medical profession, DO NOT prevent COVID-19 or the spread of any other virus. Virus organisms are much smaller than the smallest pores of any mask. To create a mask that would prevent the spread or inhalation of a virus, would also prevent oxygen intake. Get it! The smallest pore (opening) on the most “effective” mask is 3 microns (micron = one millionth of a meter). A bacterial organism is 3 microns insize, the COVID-19 virus is 1/10th of a micron. The N-95 mask is rated to filter 95% of particles that are 3/10ths of a micron or larger. In other words, they do not screen out COVID-19 virus. It is like using 6” x 6” construction wire on your screen door to keep out mosquitos.
I concluded the post with this warning:
Folks, THIS IS NOT about public health and the mask. This is behavioral and social engineering for the next step in mastering the public to comply with the socialist agenda. If you do not think so, you are not paying attention. Remember the mantra since day one of the pandemic. We are never going back to “normal.” There is no going back to pre-COVID America. COVID is never going away.
In the early outbreak of the virus, Dr. Fauci, infectious disease expert, was interviewed on the widely viewed CBS 60 Minutes on March 8, 2020. He was asked about the advisability of people wearing masks in public. Dr. Fauci stated that if you are sick, then wearing a mask makes sense so you do not infect others. However, he added, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask” if you are healthy. He was asked if he was sure about that because a lot of people were depending on his opinion. He reiterated that he was sure about it: Healthy people should not wear masks.
At this juncture, common sense and medical science would support his position.
Six months later, he waffled on his position.
“Very early on in the pandemic,” he noted, “… there was a shortage of PPE [personal protection equipment] and masks for health care providers who needed them desperately since they were putting their lives and their safety on the line every day. So the feeling was that people who were wanting to have masks in the community, namely just people out in the street, might be hoarding masks and making the shortage of masks even greater. In that context, we said that we did not recommend masks.”
Then, on NBC Today (January 25, 2021), when asked about the CDC possibly recommending the wearing of two masks, Fauci responded, “It makes common sense.”
A few days later, he back tracked on his position. “There are many people who feel, you know, if you really wanna have an extra little bit of protection ‘maybe I should put two masks on.’ There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s no data that indicates that that is going to make a difference and that’s the reason why the CDC has not changed their recommendations.”
The truth is, there is no scientific study that has demonstrated that masks of any type are effective in the prevention of the spread or infection of the COVID-19 virus or any virus. The only purpose is to make people feel better and to stroke their fear factor to a manageable level. In reality, it just keeps the artificial and unwarranted panic alive. Numerous medical professionals have stated clearly, masks are useless in defending one against a virus or in preventing one from spreading it. What masks do, however, is result in the wearer re-breathing their bacteria-laden exhale back into their lungs, possibly causing a very dangerous and life-threatening bacterial lung infection.
In the October 16, 2020 issue of American Institute for Economic Research, Dr. Roger W. Koops, a chemistry professor at the University of California, Riverside, wrote: “A ‘mask,’ and that term usually refers to either a surgical mask or N95 mask, has no benefit in the general population and is only useful in controlled clinical settings. Further, it has been considered a greater transmission risk than a benefit in the general population. … In the open environment, no one should be wearing face coverings.”
Again, Dr. Paul E. Alexander, a Canadian epidemiologist, wrote in the February 11, 2021 issue of American Institute for Economic Research, “Surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.”
In May 21, 2020 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, five professionals (four with medical expertise) wrote:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
During Thanksgiving week, 2020, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), again released their recommendations for wearing face masks.
To help expand the availability of face masks (including cloth face coverings), surgical masks, and respirators, the FDA is providing certain regulatory flexibility for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency . . . has issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for face masks, surgical masks, and respirators that meet certain criteria. . . .
A mask, with or without a face shield, that covers the user’s nose and mouth and may or may not meet fluid barrier or filtration efficiency levels.Face masks that are not intended for a medical purpose are not considered medical devices. Face masks may be used by the general public and health care personnel as source control in accordance with CDC recommendations. . . .
While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, they do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face. Surgical masks are not respiratory protective devices such as respirators. . . .
Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. The CDC recommends people wear face masks in public settings, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. Wearing a face mask may limit exposure to respiratory droplets and large particles and may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus. . . .
Source control refers to use of cloth face coverings or face masks to cover a person’s mouth and nose when they are talking, sneezing, or coughing to reduce the likelihood of transmission of infection by preventing the spread of respiratory secretions. COVID-19 may be spread by individuals who may or may not have symptoms of COVID-19 (author’s emphasis).
The FDA release continued by stating that face masks that are intended for medical uses “are subject to FDA regulation.” However, because of the urgency of need under COVID-19 they issued a EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). What does that mean? The EUA allows for medical products, devices and medications (such as vaccines) to be used without the approval of the FDA or any proof that they actually work in preventing the disease or its spread.
Translation and bottom line: Masks are useless to prevent the spreading of a virus and do not protect one from getting the virus. There has been no scientific research identified by WHO, the CDC or the FDA that verifies the efficacy of masks of any type in the preventing the spread or ingestion of viral particles.
One interesting revelation, however, came from YouGov.com in a COVID-19 tracking project by economist Brian Westbury, in which he overlaid the incidence of mask wearing with the levels of virus cases from March 20, 2020 to March 3, 2021. YouGov survey data showed that mask wearing compliance stayed in the 80 percent range from August, 2020 to March, 2021. However, the incidence of COVID cases ebbed and flowed dramatically during the same period (see the graph below).
Early in 2021, Dr. Scott Atlas, one of President Trump’s COVID advisors, stated in an interview, the use of masks by the public was ineffective in the prevention of the spread of the virus.
The CDC, Moore noted, found that mask-wearing actually had negative impact on a person’s health.
The consensus of members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons prior to the COVID pandemic “was that the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public in slowing the spread of a virus is unproven, and there’s evidence it does more harm than good,” Moore wrote.
Even the World Health Organization, in an April 6, 2020 release, stated, “wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”
Nevertheless, two months later, WHO reversed its position as the pandemic raged on, but provided no evidence for the policy shift. . . .
Order author-direct copy of the book and get a 25% discount and FREE shipping to the continental 48 states, go here or to: https://www.jamesgaussbooks.com/
The Plague of 2020-2021. Was the coronavirus, aka, COVID-19, an accidental release upon an unsuspecting world? That is the question any thinking human being should be asking and expecting a truthful answer. The truth? It was no accident, but a well- orchestrated release and fanned to a roaring blaze of shear panic by complicit globalist leaders and Marxist media elites. For the United States and the Democratic Party it was perfect timing to aid in the destruction of the re-election hopes of the enormously popular Donald Trump, a person the Democrats had no realistic chance of defeating. However, that was not the primary purpose of its release, it was just an added benefit for the corrupt Democratic Party.
First, let us look at the 54-page document of The Rockefeller Foundation released on May 13, 2010, titled: Scenerios for the Future of Technology and International Development. On pages 18 and 19 it postulates a future scenario of how a pandemic could reshape the dynamics of the world, providing greater control over the populations through the use of mandatory face masks and “biometric IDs.”
Scenario Narratives. LOCK STEP: A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings satempty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s [sic] initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreementsslowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
If we had not the perspective and reality of COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the foregoing would seem like the script for the next horror movie. The certainty, however, is that it was and is the script we are all now living, with the prospect of being totally controlled by an evil and corrupt, anti-freedom Marxist elite. The “script” has been followed almost to the “T” when one realized how COVID-19 has played out and how easy it was for governing authorities and play-along media to whip the unsuspecting public into a turbulent foam of fear and death threats. Now the plan can proceed to the next level of total fear-induced control that will track and dictate the movement of every person.
Never Waste a Good Crisis. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff (2009-2010) under President Obama, and the Democratic Mayor of Chicago, was credited with this proclamation: Never waste a good crisis. However, it had its roots in a Winston Churchill quote toward the end of World War II: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The Democrats have become experts at either creating a crisis or seizing upon an unexpected crisis to introduce or move forward their otherwise unpopular agenda. COVID-19 was no exception and they used every bit of it to their advantage to lie to, deceive and turn the voting public against each other and President Trump.
Again, this was not the main purpose of the pandemic, it was just the cherry on top of the sundae. It was a crisis begging to be used for the sordid purposes of the Democratic Party. Yet, it was not likely the only reason Donald Trump was not re-elected (see Chapter 18).
If the Truth be Told. The primary method of the evil one’s attack, is through lies and deceptions. Satan has been deceiving mankind ever since he deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. COVID-19 has to be one of his greatest successes of the modern era.
The amount of data and the number of medical and scientific people trying to warn the public about the truth of the COVID pandemic worldwide is mind boggling. However, the data and testimonies are being suppressed or scrubbed and the voices of reason have been silenced, or at the very least, been ridiculed and defamed and called purveyors of misinformation.
Some alert and thinking people were on to Dr. Fauci and other’s tactics right from the beginning. First, they did not buy the mask ruse, realizing it was totally ineffective and counter-productive in providing protection from a virus, and it often created other unnecessary health issues for the vulnerable and the healthy alike.
A second revealing clue, for those who were paying attention, was that the “esteemed” Dr. Anthony Fauci—the one commissioned to be the talking head for President Trump, President Biden and the media—too often contradicted himself or sounded like he had no clue what he was talking about week after week.
Early in the pandemic, one tell-tale sign came from New York. As COVID deaths rose, the number of deaths from heart attacks and cancer plummeted by over 80 percent. How was that possible? Was COVID a cure for heart failure and cancer? Of course not. Throughout the U.S., all types of deaths, even murder, were being “coded” as COVID deaths—largely for political and financial reasons.
By April 7, 2021, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) reported 539,723 deaths as COVID-19 or COVID-19 related deaths (January 4, 2020 to April 3, 2021). That number represented 13 percent of the 4,161,167 deaths during that period in the U.S.
However, only 9,037 of the deaths were attributed to influenza alone. This was a bit odd, since the flu was responsible for an estimated 22,000 deaths during the 2019-2020 flu season; 34,000 in 2018-2019 and 61,000 in 2017-2018. Influenza often leads to pneumonia, then death. During the period of 2017-2019, flu and pneumonia deaths averaged 54,858 per year (season). The 9,037 deaths listed previously, however, included all flu deaths, including those associated with pneumonia or COVID-19.
Of the total “confirmed or presumed” COVID deaths reported by the CDC, 95.6 percent occurred with individuals age 50 or older; 80.5 percent for those 65 and older. Only 0.046 percent (251 deaths) occurred in those younger than age 18. This is surprising to medical people, because the flu usually has a much higher death rate among children. This lower rate might be due to the fact that most schools and daycares were closed during much of the pandemic peak.
The key word in the CDC report is “presumed.” There is likely a wide range between “confirmed” and “presumed” COVID-related deaths.
For example, back in early September, 2020, the CDC announced that they could only confirm that six percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19, were actually from COVID-19 alone. If that is true, and we carry that statistic through to the current death total, then 32,383 were strictly from COVID, or over 16 times less than reported. This does not mean that COVID was not a contributing factor in the other deaths, just not the main morbidity contributor.
The worst influenza season in decades was 2017-2018, that took the lives of an estimated 61,000 Americans. The influenza pandemic of 1957-1958 was responsible for an estimated 116,000 deaths. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 reportedly took the lives of 675,000 young and old in America. . . .
Order author-direct and get a 25% discount and FREE shipping to the continental 48 states by clicking here or go to:
James F. Gauss' Blog 