New Fauci emails revealed this weekend by a Freedom of Information Act Request filed last year show the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to Biden, collaborated with another government official, NIH Director Francis Collins, on a secret mission to write a “devastating takedown” of three infectious disease experts’ warnings that lockdowns will cause a net negative public health impact. Recommendation to let herd immunity work as nature has endowed it.
The paper by three infectious disease experts: Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University that made Fauci and Collins hit the roof, was drafted with the sponsorship of the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and is entitled, The Great Barrington Declaration.
According to the proclamation, lockdowns have “devastating impacts on immediate and long-term public health,” resulting in “higher excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger segments of society bearing the hardest weight.”
“Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice,” the declaration’s authors assert. They recommend minimizing social harm while mitigating damage from outbreaks of severe coronavirus by focusing efforts on protecting vulnerable older people and staying out of the way of letting herd immunity do its work to protect us from getting sick: “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all including the vulnerable falls.”
So far, the Great Barrington Declaration has accumulated signatures from 5,000 medical & public health scientists and more than 45,000 medical practitioners, who stand behind the science and the policy prescriptions. Yet social media platforms have been hostile in moderating posts with references or links to the declaration.
And the public learned this weekend that government officials have been collaborating to discredit the declaration in public opinion. The email exchanges between the two hardly sound like the work of scientists curious about getting more information and seeing how to determine whether the claims made in the paper are valid or not.
They seem far more like Washington career bureaucrats hiring out their medical expertise for PR management to support a policy agenda and that they’re committed to that above having a scientific discussion even if it might save lives.
First, on October 8, 2020, Collins brought to Fauci’s attention the work of “three fringe epidemiologists” who were concerned that their research was “getting a lot of attention.”
“A rapid and crushing published takedown of its premises is required,” Collins told Fauci. “I haven’t seen anything like that on the internet yet. Is it already in motion?”
Then they exchange links criticizing the herd immunity approach. Like, dude, they’re the top government scientists! Aren’t the links to them? Why don’t they like having a scientist conversation about it? It feels like it could have just been one of my friends and me Googling. It does not do much for my confidence in the government.
After the emails were published, Bhattacharya wrote in a tweet, “Now I know what it’s like to be the target of a government propaganda campaign. Discussion and participation would have been a better route.”