That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

The "GBD" has been discussed here several times and its conclusions shown to be false. It appeared early in the pandemic when how to respond was a subject of intense debate. The idea of trying to isolate only the very vulnerable and let the rest of us be exposed to encourage herd immunity was openly discussed, even within the government. It was, for a while, being suggested by Dominic Cummings.

The "GBD" was sponsored by "The American Institute for Economic Research" a "conservative" think tank. Who actually funded it has been kept secret, but there are suggestions it was by some who would profit from its recommendations. The AIER holds other controversial positions, for instance not regarding climate change as a threat and that the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest should not be stopped. Part, at least, of its funding comes from the Koch Brothers.

Of those listed in the earlier post only the first 3 actually authored the report. All the rest were among the 97,000 names they claim were signatories added later. It must be realised that anyone could, and did, add names. There was no verification done.

The names listed all appear on the first page of the report, presumably to add authenticity. Whether they were added by the actual position holder is unknown.

I don't though doubt that some were. At the start of the pandemic this idea must have seemed attractive to some, but after the scientific community as a whole pointed out its flaws, and the consequences of following it, it very quickly became seen as debunked and valueless.

Some of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have reportedly withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from the declaration. While the exact number and identities of those who have withdrawn their support may vary, there have been instances where signatories have clarified their position or expressed concerns about the declaration's approach.

For example, in a statement published in February 2021, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original signatories, expressed that the Great Barrington Declaration was not intended as a specific policy recommendation but rather as a starting point for discussion. He also clarified that he did not endorse or advocate for an approach of "herd immunity" without protective measures.

I would seriously doubt whether many responsible experts who were attracted to the idea initially would still be in favour of it today.

You only have to read the criticisms here to understand the reaction of the bulk of the scientific community:-

[Link]

Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing "right-wing" objectives? I very much doubt it. They are pursuing monetary objectives and if that involves pumping up right-wing followers I don't suppose they care too much. Brand more obviously to me than Dore who I am less familiar with.

I object to things that don't make sense or don't serve the needs of the people, no matter where they arise. That applies every bit as much to the left, as the right, but you won't see much evidence of left-thinking on here. Not that you will accept that!

That is an evidence-free assertion. Kindly provide the evidence which proves that those criticising were funded by the vaccine industries. More importantly that their motivations in making the criticism were motivated by nothing other than wishing to correct misinformation.

The "GBD" has been discussed here several times and its conclusions shown to be false. It appeared early in the pandemic when how to respond was a subject of intense debate. The idea of trying to isolate only the very vulnerable and let the rest of us be exposed to encourage herd immunity was openly discussed, even within the government. It was, for a while, being suggested by Dominic Cummings.

The "GBD" was sponsored by "The American Institute for Economic Research" a "conservative" think tank. Who actually funded it has been kept secret, but there are suggestions it was by some who would profit from its recommendations. The AIER holds other controversial positions, for instance not regarding climate change as a threat and that the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest should not be stopped. Part, at least, of its funding comes from the Koch Brothers.

Of those listed in the earlier post only the first 3 actually authored the report. All the rest were among the 97,000 names they claim were signatories added later. It must be realised that anyone could, and did, add names. There was no verification done.

The names listed all appear on the first page of the report, presumably to add authenticity. Whether they were added by the actual position holder is unknown.

I don't though doubt that some were. At the start of the pandemic this idea must have seemed attractive to some, but after the scientific community as a whole pointed out its flaws, and the consequences of following it, it very quickly became seen as debunked and valueless.

Some of the original signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration have reportedly withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from the declaration. While the exact number and identities of those who have withdrawn their support may vary, there have been instances where signatories have clarified their position or expressed concerns about the declaration's approach.

For example, in a statement published in February 2021, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original signatories, expressed that the Great Barrington Declaration was not intended as a specific policy recommendation but rather as a starting point for discussion. He also clarified that he did not endorse or advocate for an approach of "herd immunity" without protective measures.

I would seriously doubt whether many responsible experts who were attracted to the idea initially would still be in favour of it today.

You only have to read the criticisms here to understand the reaction of the bulk of the scientific community:-

[Link]

Are Jimmy Dore and Russell Brand pursuing "right-wing" objectives? I very much doubt it. They are pursuing monetary objectives and if that involves pumping up right-wing followers I don't suppose they care too much. Brand more obviously to me than Dore who I am less familiar with.

I object to things that don't make sense or don't serve the needs of the people, no matter where they arise. That applies every bit as much to the left, as the right, but you won't see much evidence of left-thinking on here. Not that you will accept that!

Non sequitur.

That we must constantly examine how the pharma industry is operated is obvious, and regulate as required.

It has nothing to do with video makers deciding to feed open mouths with the propaganda they crave.

They are the drug dealers of the online world.

Actually a sequitur. It also has to do with policy makers with shares in these companies. Still, at least they had our best interests at heart.

It's far from baseless, as you know very well. You are doing your usual thing when faced with criticism you cannot answer. Which is to start using personal insults and attacks on my integrity.

There are many instances of fake names being signed on the "GBD". You will find Mr Banana Rama", "Harold Shipman", and "Prof Cominic Dummings" there.

I already pointed out that one of the three original signatories has backed away from it. To go through all of them is not something I am going to do. It's enough that they aren't verified, some are obviously fake and one of the actual authors is distancing himself.

The report includes some names that appear to be those of "high-profile and qualified individuals". The trouble is none of them have been verified and could be as fake as Mr Banana Rama.

I don't think a list exists, or could exist, of those signatories withdrawing support. The publishers of the "GBD" aren't going to admit it, are they? Who else might without writing to 970, 000 people, most without addresses? I have read reports suggesting withdrawal but more importantly simple logic dictates that any reputable scientist faced with peer reviews as damning as the "GBD" received would revise their position.

The outcome of the lockdowns is known, and being studied to learn lessons for the future.

The outcome of not locking down is unknown, for any direct comparisons, so remains just the usual "greener grass next door" claims of those who think they know better.

Comparing the UK with Sweden, or Florida is a total waste of time. Except for those with a political agenda grasping at straws.

Where is the evidence on the critics of Campbell being funded by the vaccine makers? Or did you forget I asked?

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (18 Jun 2023 11.17pm)