There was much excitement among the Covid-Reset Dissenter community this past week as the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) against lockdowns circulated. For many, it was a relief to have epidemiologists from prestigious universities like Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford finally speaking out. People are exhausted after months of increasingly stringent measures, and any glimmer of hope is cherished.
Some view Ivy League participation as a plus in terms of bringing new people on board; that such expert voices are needed to add legitimacy to the struggle. There are those who feel any move away from existing draconian policies, even if it involves setting aside one’s principles or beliefs about this event, is worth it to get a toe in the door. There’s a level of desperation in the air. Given how artificial intelligence tracks and predicts behavior, I suspect the elite have taken that sentiment analysis into account with regard to timing.
To my way of thinking, if the elite let you get a toe in the door, you might want to think twice about going through it. The institutions paying the salaries of the three primary signers are not good faith actors. Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford have played central roles in the creation of the social impact human capital bond markets that will roll out post-Covid lock step with Klaus Schwab’s planned Fourth Industrial Revolution.
If you haven’t read the declaration yet, I encourage you to stop and do that now. It’s just a bit over 500 words.
I realize Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta have been giving interviews for months. For the purposes of this piece, however, I’m asking folks to humor me and set aside things they have heard or read from the primary signers on issues relating to lockdowns, testing, masks, etc. Please concentrate on what is actually laid out in these 518 words. They were carefully chosen, and that’s what they’ve asked people to sign on to.
Here’s the link.
If you were to sign, these items are among the things you’d be agreeing to:
1. We did in fact experience a legitimate global health emergency.
2. Using PCR as a diagnostic test for Covid is valid.
3. We should seek to constrain targeted groups of healthy people – focused protection.
4. It is acceptable to socially isolate elders, including from family members.
5. Advancing the current childhood vaccination program is a priority.
These are crucial topics I think should have been discussed, but were left out.
1. Tech-based contract tracing undermines civil liberties.
2. Biometric health passports used to control population mobility and access to work and education are repressive.
3. Vaccine mandates should be opposed.
4. Population level bioengineering using mRNA vaccine platforms and biosensors should be opposed.
5. Investigations should be made into corrupt public health contracts.
6. Mask wearing by healthy individuals damages health and mental health.
7. Asymptomatic transmission is rare.
8. The Covid Reset shift to telemedicine has been harmful.
I also have reservations about the term “focused protection,” which feels strangely vague and specific. When I looked into the use of that term in a medical context, several references came up around childhood pneumonia vaccines. Focused protection could mean anyone, and it feels likely a future health event will target children. What would isolation from family members, which was advanced by Gupta for elders for up to three months, look like if “focused protection” targets were children?Technocrats, Great Barrington, and Bermuda Grass – Why Settle For Reform When A Radical Solution Is Needed?