COVID-19
“Focused Protection” instead of COVID Restrictions. Three prominent epidemiologists calling for a new global response to COVID-19
When it comes to COVID-19, one way or another countries around the world are eventually going to achieve herd immunity. The way most countries are approaching the situation currently will stretch out the amount of time it’s going to take. There are good reasons for that. But now that the virus has been with us for close to a year we’ve learned not everyone is at the same risk of a serious outcome. Some leading epidemiologists think it’s time to take another look at the global response to COVID. As businesses close, millions look for work, seniors long for a hug from a loved one, and young people dream of getting back to their favourite sport, a new approach is being recommended.
The first few days of October, a group of epidemiologists headed by Harvard University’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Oxford University’s Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya met to discuss the way governments around the world are reacting to the COVID-19 crisis. As a result of their discussions they posted The Great Barrington Declaration, a call for “Focused Protection”. The declaration outlines a new strategy they hope governments around the world will soon adopt. Coming out of their meeting the three co-signers of the declaration were interviewed by Freddie Sayers of UnHerd. Here’s the fascinating discussion of why these leading thinkers are calling for a different global response to the pandemic.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
“This is the saner approach, the more scientific approach,” the authors tell Freddie Sayers
The Great Barrington Declaration
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. 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.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. 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. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 4th October 2020
To sign the declaration, follow this link
www.GBdeclaration.org
As of Wednesday, October 7 (only 3 days into this campaign) this declaration has been signed by over 3,500 Medical & Public Health Scientists, over 5,600 Medical Practitioners, and by over 84,000 members of the general public.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
45.3% of “COVID-19 deaths” in Greece had no symptoms — exposing the coordinated PSYOP deployed to maximize fear and enforce mass compliance with draconian control measures.
The study titled “Deaths “due to” COVID-19 and deaths “with” COVID-19 during the Omicron variant surge, among hospitalized patients in seven tertiary-care hospitals, Athens, Greece” was just published in the journal Scientific Reports:
Abstract
In Greek hospitals, all deaths with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test are counted as COVID-19 deaths. Our aim was to investigate whether COVID-19 was the primary cause of death, a contributing cause of death or not-related to death amongst patients who died in hospitals during the Omicron surge and were registered as COVID-19 deaths. Additionally, we aimed to analyze the factors associated with the classification of these deaths. We retrospectively re-viewed all in-hospital deaths, that were reported as COVID-19 deaths, in 7 hospitals, serving Athens, Greece, from January 1, 2022, until August 31, 2022. We retrieved clinical and laboratory data from patient records. Each death reported as COVID-19 death was characterized as: (A) death “due to” COVID-19, or (B) death “with” COVID-19. We reviewed 530 in-hospital deaths, classified as COVID-19 deaths (52.4% males; mean age 81.7 ± 11.1 years). We categorized 290 (54.7%) deaths as attributable or related to COVID-19 and in 240 (45.3%) deaths unrelated to COVID-19. In multivariable analysis The two groups differed significantly in age (83.6 ± 9.8 vs. 79.9 ± 11.8, p = 0.016), immunosuppression history (11% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.027), history of liver disease (1.4% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.047) and the presence of COVID-19 symptoms (p < 0.001). Hospital stay was greater in persons dying from non-COVID-19 related causes. Among 530 in-hospital deaths, registered as COVID-19 deaths, in seven hospitals in Athens during the Omicron wave, 240 (45.28%) were reassessed as not directly attributable to COVID-19. Accuracy in defining the cause of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is of paramount importance for surveillance and intervention purposes.
 |
Key Findings:
Massive Overcounting of COVID-19 Deaths
- Out of 530 hospital deaths registered as COVID-19 deaths, only 290 (54.7%) were actually caused by COVID-19.
- 240 deaths (45.3%) were found to be completely unrelated to COVID-19 — patients died with a positive PCR test, but showed no symptoms, required no COVID-specific treatment, and died of clearly unrelated causes.
Death Certificate Inaccuracy
- Of the 204 certificates listing COVID-19 as the direct cause of death, only 132 (64.7%) were confirmed as such after clinical review.
- Of the 324 certificates listing COVID-19 as a contributing factor, only 86 (26.5%) were found to be truly related.
Hospital-Acquired Infections Misclassified
- Patients infected during hospitalization were significantly more likely to be misclassified as COVID-19 deaths (OR: 2.3, p = 0.001).
Younger Age and Severe Comorbidities Associated with Misclassification
- Patients who died “with” COVID-19 were younger, more likely to be immunosuppressed, have end-stage liver disease, or be admitted for other causes.
Symptoms and Treatments Differed Sharply
Patients who died “due to” COVID-19 were more likely to:
- Exhibit classic symptoms: hypoxia (44.1%), shortness of breath, fever, and cough
- Require oxygen support (93.4% vs. 66.9%) and receive COVID-specific therapies:
- Remdesivir (5-day course: 61.9% vs. 35.2%)
- Dexamethasone (81.7% vs. 40.7%)
Study Strengths
This study went far beyond death certificate coding, implementing a rigorous, multi-source clinical audit:
- Full medical chart reviews: Included physician notes, lab data, imaging, and treatment records.
- Attending physician interviews: Structured questionnaires captured real-time clinical insights from those who treated the patients.
- Dual independent expert assessments: Two experienced infectious disease specialists (each with >2,500 COVID cases) reviewed each case independently for classification accuracy.
This study found that nearly half of all registered COVID-19 deaths during the Omicron wave in Greece were misclassified, with no clinical evidence linking them to COVID-19 as the true cause. Given that similar death coding practices were employed across Western nations, it is reasonable to conclude that COVID-19 death counts were artificially inflated to a comparable degree elsewhere.
This drastic inflation of death counts aligns with what many now understand to be a coordinated psychological operation (PSYOP)—designed to instill fear and maximize compliance with draconian pandemic measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and mass mRNA injection campaigns.
It is this weaponization of fear that has prompted criminal referrals in seven U.S. states, triggering active criminal investigations into top COVID-19 officials for terrorism, murder and racketeering:
BREAKING – The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
|
||||||
|
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
From the World Council for Health Canada
The health of Canadians has been compromised by government-mandated COVID-19 injections. The upcoming federal election is an opportunity to demand change and accountability. As you decide which candidate or party is most committed to defending the health of yourself and your family, please consider the following:
The Injections Were Never What They Claimed
The Canadian government successfully mandated the COVID-19 injections by labeling them “safe and effective vaccines.” These products are still being promoted and administered across the country. However, the truth is:
- They are not vaccines: Click Here
- They are not safe: Click Here
- They do not prevent infection or transmission.
- Evidence shows they increase the risk of COVID-19 disease and death: Click Here
These Products Contain Multiple Mechanisms of Harm
- They cause injury through multiple biological mechanisms: Click Here
- They have surpassed all vaccines in recorded history—for all infections, for all of the past thirty years combined—in causing deaths and injuries: Click Here
- They are chemically contaminated and adulterated with DNA: Click Here
- In Pfizer’s case, fraud is evident: the DNA contamination includes genetic engineering tools derived from the SV40 virus, associated with cancer risks: Click Here
This Election, We Must Demand Accountability
Insist that to have your vote, candidates must:
- Denounce the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
- Support a full halt to their manufacturing and administration.
- Uphold informed consent, scientific integrity, and bodily autonomy.
Your voice is important. Use it to reject censorship, harm, and medical coercion.
‘War On Coal Is Finally Over’: Energy Experts Say Trump Admin’s Deregulation Agenda Could Fuel Coal’s ‘Revival’
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
2025 Federal Election10 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election11 hours ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours agoOttawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours agoReal Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCarney’s budget means more debt than Trudeau’s
-
International2 days agoPope Francis has died aged 88
-
Business2 days agoCanada Urgently Needs A Watchdog For Government Waste
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours agoHow Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust