By Neenah Payne
The Great Barrington Declaration was released to the public on October 4, 2020. It argued for focused protection for vulnerable elderly and ending the lockdown for everyone else – allowing children to return to school normally. It was signed by many doctors and scientists and now has 939,000 signatures.
The Declaration was created by:
- 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
- Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
- 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.
Fauci Colluded To Censor The Great Barrington Declaration
Dr. Francis Collins was then the Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Anthony Fauci was then the Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Dr. Collins didn’t invite these esteemed scientists to meet with him to discuss their Declaration which was quickly gaining global support. Collins saw these doctors as “fringe” although they are professors at Harvard, Oxford, and Standford. So, instead, Collins emailed Fauci on October 8 to tell him to create a quick and devastating takedown of the Declaration!
‘There needs to be a quick and devastating take down’: Emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts who penned the Great Barrington Declaration which called for an end to lockdowns.
- The emails show Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a ‘devastating takedown’ of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD)
- AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the GBD, which largely abandons lockdowns in favor of herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal
- In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of ‘three fringe epidemiologists’ that ‘seems to be getting a lot of attention’
- Collins adds that ‘there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises.
I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?’
- Fauci later sends Collins multiple op-eds trashing the GBD in Wired and The Nation Magazine
- Jay Bhattacharya — one of the authors and a DailyMail.com contributor — tweeted that he was the subject of a propaganda attack by his own government
Dr. Anthony Fauci and the head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) colluded on a way to discredit an alternative plan to deal with COVID from a group of experts, released emails reveal. The emails, some of which were tweeted out on Saturday by Phil Magness, senior research faculty and interim research and education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), show Fauci and Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a ‘devastating takedown’ of the Great Barrington Declaration.
This week, emails released through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Institute for Economic Research revealed what I see as worrisome communication between Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and others within the National Institutes of Health in the fall of 2020.
At issue was the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter written in October 2020 and eventually signed by thousands of scientists. It argues that Covid-19 policy should focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable, and largely re-open society and school for others. At the time, Americans would have benefited from a broad debate among scientists about the available policy options for controlling the Covid-19 pandemic, and perhaps a bit of compromise. The emails tell us why that isn’t what we got.
An email written by Collins, the director of the NIH, which was addressed to Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and several others read:
Collins appeared on television this week to confirm that the email was authentic, and that he stood by the message. At the time, he believed the Great Barrington Declaration idea of focused protection would result in more deaths than the alternative view of one-size-fits all restrictions. Collins also confirmed that he believed the three authors of the declaration were “fringe” scientists.
October 2020, when Collins wrote that email, was a time fraught with uncertainty. Positive results from Pfizer’s ongoing vaccine trial were still four weeks away. Many Americans were fatigued with ongoing restrictions, either imposed by governments or self-imposed. And two dueling documents — the Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow Memorandum — were released and garnered thousands of signatures. The declaration argued for focused protection and permitting many people to return to normal life. The memorandum favored prolonged one-size-fits all restrictions.
At the time, I did not take sides, and urged public dialogue between scientists who held both views. We needed “a Covid policy response that engages with people who hold views and perspectives different than our own,” I wrote then.
What concerns me about the NIH director’s email and his interview on television is that he appeared unwilling to have this dialogue. Collins’s day job does not make him arbiter of scientific truth, the Pope for all scientists. On questions of unprecedented pandemic policy, he is surely entitled to his opinion — as we all are — but his is just one opinion of many.
When it comes to lockdowns or school closures, the answer to the question of whether the benefits exceed the harms and, if so, under what conditions, is far from certain, and scientists will continue to study this for decades. As a good scientist, Collins should have recognized the massive uncertainty around these policies.
Collins’s response to a memo signed by thousands of scientists should not have been to call for an immediate and devastating take down, but to use his pulpit as NIH director to hold a series of public discussions and dialogues. In a world where scientists were trapped in their own homes for months, a series of dialogues — even virtual ones — made available for the broader scientific community, policy makers, and the public would have benefited us all…
Had Collins, a man who has contributed greatly to science, chosen dialogue instead of contributing to animosity and combativeness, we might have been in a better place today.
Wall Street Journal How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate 12/21/21
They worked with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration.
In public, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins urge Americans to “follow the science.” In private, the two sainted public-health officials schemed to quash dissenting views from top scientists. That’s the troubling but fair conclusion from emails obtained recently via the Freedom of Information Act by the American Institute for Economic Research.
The tale unfolded in October 2020 after the launch of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement by Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called “focused protection” of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declaration—if they were able to learn about it. We tried to give it some elevation on these pages.
Most Important First Amendment Legal Case
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s lawsuit against Anthony Fauci for censorship is the most important First Amendment legal case in modern times and will certainly end up at the Supreme Court. He said the case “determines the scope of the First Amendment in a virtual world”.
How do we recognize truth? In some ways, we know truth by comparing it to what isn’t truth. But what happens if the public square is suddenly void of truth, with all potential solutions carefully filtered out so that the only information you interact with is highly curated but far from honest? The result of such “purification” is stagnation, and stagnation brings with it death: death of ideas, curiosity, comedy, and truth. That’s the cost of censorship and the price to be paid within a totalitarian regime.
Dr. Bhattacharya explains that his legal case is based on the fact that there was a coordinated propaganda campaign to silence critics of the government’s COVID policies.
Freddie Sayers discusses Jay Bhattacharya and Jenin Younes’ lawsuit against the US federal government.
At a House Energy Committee hearing prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) spoke to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya about alleged suppression of him by the federal government.
Everybody wants to forget about the pandemic, this bizarre period of aberrations. But the assessment of what played out and whether the many harsh policy decisions were called for has only begun. One of the saddest aberrations was infringements on freedom of speech. Few have experienced that more than Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford. As one of the initiators of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), he was actively silenced by the government, which, it turns out, orchestrated a censorship campaign by way of the social media companies.
The GBD promoted focused protection instead of sweeping lockdowns: Shield the elderly and let the young go to school. The signatories opined, on evidential grounds, that lockdowns were more harmful than the disease. They based their proposition on the fact that there is an extremely steep age gradient in the risk of dying from covid. There were early signs that this view was held by thousands of doctors. But the ruling class was not amused.
People like Francis Collins, head of the NIH, wanted to take down the declaration, and its initiators were ostracized and censored. ”My life is fundamentally transformed”, says Jay Bhattacharya. At one point, he says, one hundred of his colleagues circulated a silent petition to try to get the president of Stanford university to silence him. ”I have had lots of practice in how to forgive other people.”
Since the summer of 2022, a lawsuit has been underway in which the Biden administration is accused of breaching the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. Jay Bhattacharya is one of the plaintiffs. “The evidence of this is remarkable. Government officials have coerced social media companies to censor ideas and certain people”, Jay says.
Among the evidence is a testimony from Anthony Fauci, the highest ranking health official in the White House at the time of the censorship. “There is a censorship network in the government and a dozen agencies. You could call it a ministry of truth”, Jay says, referring to a term in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. “It’s been shocking to see the American government behave in this way.”
According to Jay, the censorship may actually have led to more deaths than almost any other single policy, because harmful errors were not corrected in time. Jay thinks the lawsuit will go all the way up to the Supreme Court. “I don’t see how the government can win this.”
A Win For Science
In this episode we also talk about
- What the GBD did and did not propose.
- How the declaration has been vindicated.
- The Swedish pandemic model (”the best in the world”).
- How leaders in almost the whole world were hypnotized by the draconian Chinese measures.
- The continuous excess deaths (primarily caused by extended lockdown harm, according to Jay).
- That more power to WHO is a ”terrible idea”.
Dr. Bhattacharya’s Substack is The Illusion of Consensus.
Censorship: First Sign of Dictatorship
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger is a former member of The Research Ethics Review Committee at the World Health Organization. She explained in 2022 in the video below that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the WHO, and his team are not doing science. Since the Koch Postulates were not used, it has not even been established that there is a COVID virus! The authorities were lying and the world’s media is being paid to report what Big Pharma wants. Since the money comes from our taxes, we are financing the vaccine campaign and the death of people.
Dr. Stuckelberger pointed out that scientific debate is not allowed. Instead, there is censorship which is the first sign of a dictatorship. Those in charge censor doctors and effective treatments. They go to pharmacies and remove the whole stock of Ivermectin that works really well. They block people from doing good data collection. They publish their own data that has a complete conflict of interest. The people in charge want to annihilate any thinking. She is calling on people to wake up! Don’t believe the government! Take back your health!
She explained that science is in a very difficult place now because it is corrupt. Dr. Stuckeberger points out that Article 21 of the WHO Constitution allowed it to change the definition of a “pandemic” and of a “vaccine” – as was done in 2020 for COVID. It’s a crazy-making dimension as the WHO, in effect, says as Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland “Words mean whatever I say they mean’” . When Alice replied “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Humpty Dumpty set her straight with “The question is which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Few people would choose to be governed by Humpty Dumpty. Yet, the WHO is creating just such an insane world now. Note, however, that when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Dr. Stuckelberger said that in 2005, the WHO International Health Regulations respected national sovereignty. However, when she attended an unusual WHO meeting in November 2021, the plan under discussion was how to use the WHO Constitution to override the sovereignty of each nation. Dr. Stuckelberger warned that the World Health Organization’s agenda now is to set up the WHO as a global government. She says the plans of the globalists are so evil that she questions if those people are even human!
Fauci Will Testify Before Congress January 8 and 9
Fauci will appear before the House Select Subcommittee On COVID in January 7 and 8 regarding his role in the public health response to COVID-19. The transcribed interview will involve seven hours of testimony per day and attendance by two personal lawyers and two government lawyers. Fauci also agreed to testify later in 2024.
With his Sunday retort “What happened on January 6th, Senator?” it appears to critics that Dr. Anthony Fauci has openly expressed what many of them suspected — that he is a partisan political player. Fauci’s comment was made in response to Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s tweet that Fauci should face prosecution for denying under oath that the U.S. helped fund gain of function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. As Doug McKelway reports, the comment has supercharged the animus between Fauci and his Republican critics.
NY Times: Why Many Americans Turned on Anthony Fauci 8/20/22
….there has been a growing willingness by mainstream observers, and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to admit that the public health response to Covid-19 was in many ways a failure. It failed the million Americans who died. And it failed the living by being bumbling and incoherent. …
Dr. Fauci became the face of American public health’s incoherent response to the pandemic….
In 2021 he would say that his foes were “really criticizing science, because I represent science,” implying that the only possible reason to criticize him was animus toward science….It was this that became so destructive to trust: the idea that science is a force that demands things of the public yet relieves leaders of accountability….
There’s something appealing about the view that science floats loftily above us all, accessible to a select few with years of rigorous training in its methods. But, as romantic visions often do, it fell hard to earth. The follow-the-science logic we have lived under during Covid demands wartime sacrifices from the public while rationalizing sloth from leaders and institutions in mobilizing tools to relieve the burden. It became an easy out for bureaucratic turf protection, lost dynamism and institutional fecklessness. “Follow the science” became a failure to lead, a way to shift the onus of responsibility from presidents, Congress, health authorities, and school boards onto the public.
New York Times: Dr. Fauci Looks Back: ‘Something Clearly Went Wrong’. 4/24/23
Fauci may have perjured himself when he testified before Senator Rand Paul and denied NIAID or NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison.
The video below shows that the NIH funded the gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China although the research was illegal. Even if legal, the research should be done only in a Bio 4 safety lab and the Wuhan lab is a Bio 2 safety lab. Del Bigtree, host of The Highwire, says, “I’d hate to be Fauci now going before any congressional hearings. Things are really stacking up in an ugly, bad way for that guy!”
Breaking news from the non-profit U.S. Right To Know shows an early draft of a 2018 Ecohealth DARPA proposal dangerously omitting key points of their gain-of-function coronavirus research. Was this the blueprint that created the conditions for the pandemic?
For More Information
Neenah Payne writes for Activist Post
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.