Great Barrington Declaration – a Meeting in Manhattan

Broadway stars doing a pop-up show in October 2020 to remind folks of their existence.  Photo: CBS New York 

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

There are now many statements by medical experts opposing government handling of the 2020 coronavirus. At we have covered some of these, such as the ones by Germany’s Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, Ireland’s Dr Dolores Cahill, and the US’s Dr Rashid Buttar who is part Kiwi. I discuss them in my book Grass Court: How To Use Law To Deal with the Pandemic.

A few days ago, I heard that a group of three epidemiologists had provided a new statement challenging the pandemic rules. The public was invited to attend a lecture about it, at the Metropolitan Republican Club on East 83rd St, NYC.

I grabbed a train thither on Amtrak, and came home by bus on Greyhound, to New Hampshire.  Neither carrier was taking “social distancing” too seriously, thank God. And Manhattan was not looking as boarded-up as some reports would have you believe. (I‘m guessing 15% boarded up, which is still awful, of course.)

The speaker was Jeffrey Tucker, author of the new book Liberty or Lockdown. He was listed on the program as “Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research” as well as the author of The Market Loves You. I think his real gig is as a theatre man, as he is particularly dismayed by the closure of Broadway.

The number of attendees at the lecture was about 50, with the typical age being under 45. The speaker graciously went around the audience beforehand to greet all comers, and he gave his book to all for free.  I think some folks were there as part of an association that studies the wonderful 1850 book by Frederick Bastiat, frugally entitled Law.

Tucker’s opening line was warmly welcomed. To wit: “The light is going out all over civilization, as though by a dimmer switch.” He made it clear that the suffering being caused by the lockdown is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

Let me now state the contents of the Great Barrington Declaration, dated October 4, 2020 — although these were not detailed in the talk.

“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. … 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….”

The three epidemiologists who signed it recommend focusing on the vulnerable. They are: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard, Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, with expertise in mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Professor Jay Bhattacharya, of Stanford, a physician focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Thirty-five experts co-signed it.

In the lecture, Jeffrey Tucker discussed “social distancing.” He said he had heard of that oxymoronic (or is it just moronic?) phrase back in 2006.  This had to do with a 14-year-old girl named Laura Glass who created, for a school assignment, a computer simulation of ways to keep people from spreading disease.

The relevant threat in those days (2006-2007) was the avian flu. Tucker mentioned that the Laura Glass story was covered recently in an article by Lipton and Steinhauer, entitled “The Untold Story of the Birth of Social Distancing,” in the New York Times.

At that point there was a bit of rumbling in the room that prompted hm to say “Yes, I know how you feel about the New York Times. (No, ‘twas not I who had rumbled — honest!) He also said he had received invitations to be interviewed, from various outlets such as The Guardian, in response to which he hit the delete button. “Delete, delete, delete.” Oh, the delight of delete!

I’ll quote from page 183 of Tucker’s book, Liberty or Lockdown:

“Back in February it had been mandatory in my local grocery to use only shopping bags brought from home. Plastic bags were illegal.  Then the virus hit. Suddenly the opposite was true. It was illegal to bring bags from home as they could spread disease. Plastic bags were mandatory. As a huge fan of plastic bags, I experienced profound Schadenfreude.  It’s amazing how the prospect of death clarifies priorities.

“Before the virus, we indulged in all sorts of luxuries such as imagining a world purified by bucolic naturalness.  But when the virus hit, we realized that natural things can be very wicked….

“And then, when government put everyone under house arrest and criminalized freedom itself, we realized many other things, too…. I’m detecting enormous levels of public fury beneath the surface.  It won’t stay beneath the surface for long.”

And thereby hangs the tale. How to get the fury to coalesce. This is what I think about all the time. I am sure that what is needed is a way to get the citizens who seem to adore the Covid restrictions to become aware that real genuine doctors are yelling “Stop!”

I catalog again some of the main complaints:

#1. The reports of case numbers are NOT TRUE. It was announced months ago that CDC had permitted, or actually instructed, doctors to list Covid-19 as the cause of death on the death certificate, based on an assumption (without proof) that the patient had Covid.

I saw a comment on YouTube about this, written by Claude Charette. He said: “On the bright side, no one has died from old age, heart attacks, seasonal flu, pneumonia, cancer, parachute malfunctions, or motorcycle head-ons with trucks for at least 6 months now!”

#2. The PCR test CANNOT WORK as a diagnostic tool.  It picks up “body parts” (I mean microscopic stuff like DNA) that have no relevance to a virus. The man who won the Nobel prize for inventing the PCR – polymerase chain reaction – said “Don’t ye be using it for diagnoses!”. That was Kary Mullis, who had also spoken out in non-Nobel ways about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV.

Dr Mullis died in August, 2019. (I’m not saying anything!  I‘m not saying anything!)

#3. The standard public-health routine known as quarantine means that ONLY THE SICK should be kept indoors, not the whole population. Granted, you may keep an animal in quarantine when it arrives into the country until you ascertain if it is ill and thus a danger.

But the stay-at-home order of March 2020 was not meant to prevent untested persons from mixing until they were declared safe. It was meant to …um…um…  Does anyone know?

#4. The recovery rate from Covd-19 is well over 99%. You get sick, you recover. An 85 year-old-may die from it, but then God takes everyone eventually. I recall when pneumonia was known as “the old man’s friend.”

#5. The CURES, such as Ivermectin, which has had excellent recorded results in Australia, are suppressed. You can GET IN TROUBLE just for alluding to them.

Come on, People, get real. The pandemic is an economic exercise in shutting down all businesses except the ones that have been chosen to have a future.  The government’s ruling could not possibly be about a purported desire to care for citizens. If it were, all suggestions from the floor would be welcomed, not treated as wrong-headed or disloyal.

The professional challengers mentioned above, including the three (or, in total, 38) who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, would be feted and thanked.

The light is going out all over civilization, as though by a dimmer switch. Action is needed.


Leave a Reply