Great Barrington declaration
 Great Barrington declaration  (open letter)   | |
|---|---|
| Type | file of unspecified type |
| Founded | 4 October 2020 |
| Author(s) | • Sunetra Gupta • Carl Heneghan • Karol Sikora • Sam Williams |
| Recipient(s) | Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Chris Whitty, Frank Atherton, Gregor Ian Smith, Michael McBride, Patrick Vallance |
| Subjects | Covid lockdown |
| Open letter published in October 2020 during the Covid lockdowns, calling for "targeted interventions to protect those most at risk". | |
The Great Barrington Declaration is an open letter by 25 "prominent scientists" published in October 2020 to protest against the Covid lockdowns, but before the "vaccines" were rolled out.
Contents
Authors and signatories
The declaration was initiated by Professor Sunetra Gupta, Professor of theoretical epidemiology, the University of Oxford; Professor Carl Heneghan; Director, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, the University of Oxford; Professor Karol Sikora; Consultant oncologist and Professor of medicine, University of Buckingham; and Sam Williams; Director and co-founder of Economic Insight; and originally co-signed by 21 other scientists.[1] The open letter was later signed by several hundred thousand citizens and medical professionals.[2] CCM made a big issue of a number of false signatures.[3]
In March 2024 Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University since 2003, announced that he was fired by the university.[4]
Own words
It called for a number of measures, including "clearly stated objective for the overall response to Covid-19", to "consider the complex trade-offs that occur: (i) within any healthcare system; and (ii) between healthcare, society and the economy."[1]
"The unstated objective currently appears to be one of suppression of the virus, until such a time that a vaccine can be deployed. This objective is increasingly unfeasible (notwithstanding our more specific concerns regarding existing policies) and is leading to significant harm across all age groups, which likely offsets any benefits.[1]
The appeal concluded "In light of the above, our strategy should therefore target interventions to protect those most at risk"[1] , especially the elderly and other "high risk groups".
Official narrative
Wikipedia says it was "sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free market think tank associated with climate change denial".[5]
Undermined and smeared by the CCM [6][7][8][9][10](see the Wikipedia article), and parts of the "alternative media"[11]
Official opposition narrative?
While questioning the official narrative and pointing out the cruelty of lockdowns, the letter reinforced other parts of the Covid narrative, notably the idea that the actually was a pandemic caused by a novel virus, and not just increased deaths from COVID-19/Medical killings.
The declaration and the indirect attention it received by condemnation in corporate media sucked up much of the attention space for dissenting voices, closing down other points of view.
The stress on the economic costs of lockdowns probably struck a false chord in a public propagandized by Covid fear porn into believing everybody was going to die, and coming across as callous.
"Focused protection" would, in practice, have meant more "testing", more isolation and more dystopian treatment generally of those "testing positive". This treatment contributed and enabled in no small degree the COVID-19/Medical killings.
None of the main authors have shown any interest to revisit their core assumptions about the nature of the event, including the sinister aspects of the jabs[12] In December 2023, Sikora while writing against lockdowns, did not mention the jabs.[13]
Gupta supported the jab as late as December 2021, while still pointing out the ineffectiveness of masks[14]
Some of the authors (Kulldorf) objected to vaccine mandates.[15]
Related Document
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:A targeted and evidence-based approach to the COVID-19 policy response (an open letter) | Open letter | 21 September 2020 | Karol Sikora Sunetra Gupta Carl Heneghan Sam Williams | An open letter to UK PM Boris Johnson from prominent scientists to hinder a new lockdown and change other failed policies |
References
- ↑ a b c d Document:A targeted and evidence-based approach to the COVID-19 policy response (an open letter)
- ↑ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid
- ↑ https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-lockdown-vaccine-mandate-skeptic-martin-kulldorff-announces-fired-harvard
- ↑ https://bylinetimes.com/2020/10/09/climate-science-denial-network-behind-great-barrington-declaration/
- ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/health/coronavirus-great-barrington.html
- ↑ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-den-of-dissent-inside-the-white-house-task-force-as-coronavirus-surges/2020/10/19/7ff8ee6a-0a6e-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html
- ↑ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/coronacheck-craig-kelly-george-christensen-hydroxychloroquine/12802672
- ↑ https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/espen-nakstad-kritiserer-omstridt-korona-opprop/s/12-95-3424033410
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/11/the-rebel-scientists-cause-would-be-more-persuasive-if-it-werent-so-half-baked
- ↑ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/10/31/wwti-o31.html
- ↑ Sikora https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/21/lockdown-sceptics-are-rapidly-being-vindicated/
- ↑ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/13/karol-sikora-covid-inquiry-qaly-lockdown-wrong/
- ↑ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matters/our-ability-to-block-covid-infections-even-with-vaccines-is-short-lived-dr-sunetra-gupta/articleshow/88228611.cms
- ↑ https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-lockdown-vaccine-mandate-skeptic-martin-kulldorff-announces-fired-harvard
