Search This Blog

Wednesday 4 November 2020

THE BARRINGTON DECLARATION AND COVID-19 LOCKDOWN POLICY. Justifying opposition to damaging and nonsensical government policies.

As the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic crisis continues it is demonstrating two main things.

  1. Conventional medicine has no effective or adequate medical treatment, and the public health advice that is being offered does not extend much beyond social distancing and lockdown policies.
  2. These social distancing and lockdown policies are ineffective; but they are leading to
    • the destruction of the economy, our jobs and livelihoods
    • and to utterly ludicrous social consequences.

So it is not surprising that many people are now questioning the official government response to the pandemic. But: 

  • Are people justified in doing so?
  • Are 'non-compliant' people able to justify their opposition?

In the main most people are unable to justify non-compliance. The main reason for this is that people do not know how to justify what they are doing; beyond their incomprehension, distress, or anger about the stupidity of what they are being asked to do.

  • Moreover, non-compliance is faced with a solid wall of government and MSM criticism, abuse and threat. 
    • "this is the policy"
    • "everyone is expected to comply with the policy"
    • "anyone who does not comply is breaking the law"
    • "the law will be enforced on anyone who does not comply".
  • Indeed, government and the MSM are blaming those who are non-compliant for spreading the virus! It is easier for them to do this than to accept that their policies just aren't working!
  • And the feelings of non-compliant people are either ignored or castigated as they fail to justify what they are doing; they are being selfish, emotionally unstable, and above all, of course, unscientific.

The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD)

The GBD has been produced by infectious disease epidemiologists, and public health scientists from all over the world. It expresses deep concern about the negative repercussions of COVID-19 lockdown measures that are being imposed by governments worldwide, and calls for a global policy change to what they describe as “focused protection”.

So the GBD represents a major justification for everyone who questions and opposes social distancing and lockdown policies on the basis of their ineffectiveness in combating the virus, the personal financial and economic consequences, and the lunatic social consequences.

    First, it demonstrates that the 'science' governments say is leading or informing their health strategy is partial science, the science they have selected to follow.

    Second, it outlines an alternative approach to the pandemic which is also based on science but whose outcome would releases us from the most harmful economic consequences, and the unexplained / unexplainable illogicality of social distancing and lockdown policies.

The Great Barrington Declaration, which can be read here, was made on 6th October 2020 by an international coalition of scientists, doctors and medical professionals in Barrington, Massachusetts, USA. Within the month it had been signed by 10,233 scientists, 27,860 medical professionals, and 504,875 concerned citizens.

So there is an alternative scientific response to COVID-19! So we can answer the diktats of government science with another, kinder, more rational science.

The GBD confirms that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.” This includes postponed healthcare screening visits, worse outcomes for cancer, cardiovascular disease and other pre-existing conditions, as well as having serious effects on mental health. The GBD states that “vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young” and further, that “for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” 

So the crucial distinction is that the science of the GBD recommends measures that would protect vulnerable segments of society, like nursing care staff, and the vulnerable elderly.

Everyone else, with acquired immunity, should immediately be allowed to return to normal life.

  • it recommends that schools and universities to re-open for in-person attendance, including all extracurricular activities
  • it recommends that businesses and restaurants to remain open fully
  • it recommends that art, music, sports and other group events resume
  • it recommends younger, low-risk adults should return to work instead of working from home.
Such a policy would be both easier to understand and to defend. It would safeguard the economy, and social and family relationships. It would not lead to incongruous and absurd social distancing and lockdown policies. It would protect us from controlling, paternalistic and dictatorial government policies, and maintain individual freedom and liberty.

Beyond the GBD
My main criticism of the GBD is that it does not go far enough. The signatories are all members of the conventional medical establishment; and as such even they do not appear to emphasise sufficiently the importance of supporting and strengthening the immune system.
So natural medicine would want to do much more. We would want to devise a supported self-assessment process for each individual - to find out how strong their immune system is likely to be, and therefore, how careful they needed to be to protect themselves. It would include the following broad strategies.

Ideally, all this advice and treatment should be offered within the national health service of each country. Indeed, this should be happening now, but isn't, except for a handful of countries, like parts of India, and Cuba. Why is it not happening?

In the UK, for example, homeopaths, and other natural therapists, are actually 'locked down'! They are considered to be "non-essential health care workers" - another example of the nonsense of lockdown policy. If you are a conventional health worker offering little or no treatment, and apparently with little or no understanding of natural immunity, then you are an essential health care worker. If you are a health care worker that can offer effective treatment for people with the virus, and focus on the importance of natural immunity, you are not.

Yet natural therapists ARE providing this information to their patients. It's just that the government, the conventional medical establishment, and the mainstream media are not telling you about it. They just don't want you to know!


Post Script.

In September 2020, a group of doctors, from Belgium, expressing similar doubts about coronavirus COVID-19 policy, wrote an open letter to the Belgian authorities, and to the Belgian media. The contents of that letter can be found here.

Post Script. November 2020.

The idea that any government is 'following the science' has been further undermined by 50 German medical association who signed a paper opposing tighter restriction to combat the spread of COVID-19. This taken from Children's Health Defense...

            "Fifty German medical associations have co-signed a white paper opposing even tighter restrictions aimed at combatting the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2. In the paper they propose a system more akin to that proposed by the Great Barrington Declaration and oppose the continued use of lockdowns due the damage they cause. German citizens rallied outside the German Parliament building this week to oppose attempts by the German government to enshrine draconian pandemic restrictions in law. Mainstream media reports showed the police taking hard action to break up the demonstration, although social media posts suggested the large demonstration was peaceful."

Post Script February 2021

The ideas of the Great Barrington Declaration have been too much for the conventional medical establishment (CME) to accept, and social media censorship has swung into action. Facebook has summarily deleted the Great Barrington Facebook page - because it posted a comment in support of voluntary vaccine programmes, and they have done so without recourse for review or reinstatement.

Discussion about health issues is not allowed if it runs against the position and interests of the CME.