When science becomes politicized, people can’t help but distrust it. One side says one thing and claims it is based on science, while the other side claims the opposite and says it is based on science. Who to believe?
I have written elsewhere of Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction. It states that if something is true, then its opposite must be false. God, for example, cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
The same goes for science. A scientific fact cannot be its opposite. It doesn’t add up. I can’t have asthma and not have asthma at once, even if someone says I can. It’s no wonder so many people are confused. They should be.
The Great Barrington Declaration, which argues against COVID-19 lockdowns, was allegedly signed by over 15,000 public health officials and scientists, including Michael Levitt, a Nobel Laureate from Stanford. The document was released on Oct. 4, 2020, according to Blaze Media.
The GBD stated, “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health … Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
“As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all — including the vulnerable — falls,” the declaration continued. “We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity— i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable — and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.”
This was the opposite of what top U.S. public officials were pushing at the same time.
Dr. Francis Collins, the retiring National Institutes of Health director, reportedly noticed the GBD and emailed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, urging him to launch a “quick and devastating” dispute of the GBD’s claims that a “focused protection” of the most vulnerable populations should be instituted. In other words, stop the lockdowns.
Newly released emails, available on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis website, indicate that Fauci was prepared with ammunition against the GBD.
According to the emails, Collins instructed Fauci, along with NIAID Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Clifford Lane, to “take down” the anti-lockdown declaration.
On Oct. 8, 2020, Collins reportedly sent an email that read, “This proposal from three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention — and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,” Collins continued.
The “three fringe epidemiologists” that Collins was referring to were professors Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard. These professors argued that society should reopen immediately, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.
In response to the email, Fauci reportedly sent an article from Wired which disputed the GBD itself and the idea that there was any “scientific divide” regarding herd immunity. One line in the article, which effectively operated as a fact-check, read, “Aside from the three lead signatories, there is little about the Great Barrington Declaration that feels convincingly scientific.”
According to the email archives, Fauci wrote, “Francis, I am pasting in below a piece from Wired that debunks this theory. Best, Tony.”
The emails show that in response, Collins reportedly sent one word: “Excellent.”
The Western Journal reached out to the NIH for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
Who should the average citizen believe?
One clue on which way to go is to gauge which side seems to push fear over reason. COVID is nothing to be trifled with, and it has killed many. Fear of death is a deep-rooted instinct. When provoked, it can lead to irrational behavior. Just look at what happens when a child believes a monster that eats children is in the house.
Could it be that Fauci and crew, including the Joe Biden gang, are pushing fear so people will willingly stay hunkered down in their homes, keep their kids out of school and sacrifice human contact for the perception of safety? How many times have you seen a person walking outside alone with a mask on? How about driving a vehicle alone with the windows rolled up? Is this rational behavior?
Perhaps we should use reason to subdue fear.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states, “Older adults are more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19. More than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in people over age 65. The number of deaths among people over age 65 is 80 times higher than the number of deaths among people aged 18-29. The risk of severe COVID-19 increases as the number of underlying medical conditions increases in a person.”
What? Is the CDC contradicting Fauci and crew? Something doesn’t make sense.
To visualize numbers like this, look at this chart created by The Heritage Foundation. Doesn’t this look like a ready-made case for the GBD’s “focused protection”? Why would Fauci and crew be against it?
The questions abound.
At the end of the day, however, the pandemic can be seen as an opportunity to restore common sense in America. Somewhere along the way, it was lost — probably in our education system.
If individuals were allowed to ask questions, weigh the evidence for themselves and make a decision regarding their own health, it would go a long way in restoring common sense. It might even be a panacea for much that ails America.
UPDATE, Dec. 21, 2021: Following the publication of this story, The Western Journal received the following comment from a National Institutes of Health spokesperson: “Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci have spoken publicly about the Barrington Declaration strategy since it first came out in October 2020, saying it was dangerous and unsupported by scientific evidence. The WHO and many others have said the same.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.