The GBD author is right that Gain of Function can't give the world Scary Spreading Super-Viruses, but very wrong about 'pandemic' policy (and much else)
She sounds extremely dangerous, basically pushing global communism. And to think she was one of the people some of us ‘trusted’ during the Scamdemic. We live and learn. Great article thanks.
Thanks. I agree her ideas are dangerous and antithetical to what many people would consider to be fundamental rights and liberties.
Sunetra Gupta is anything but naive; on the contrary, I find her exceptionally brilliant, measured, and strategic.
She is also wrong about much and has gone relatively unchallenged in a formal sense (eg, in writing) by those opposed to the gist of the govt narrative.
I suspect that is due in part to her being less prominent on social media - and to COVID dissident academics and leaders of organizations/groups not wanting to take her on publicly for professional reasons or due to other collegial relationships they would prefer not to disrupt.
There is absolutely no evidence that lockdowns, short or long, do anything to stop viruses. The story of the people who were fine when they went to Antarctica and caught cold after they got there for some unexplained reason shows that.
A decade ago, at the nursing home where my mother was at, they had a lot of people coming down with the flu, so they didn't allow anyone to come in from the outside for a week or so until things got better. It seemed to make sense to me at the time, but I'll bet it didn't really make any difference.
> Her assumption is that people catch a pathogen or illness through contact or proximity to other people.
This is the fundamental lie. If this were true, every doctor every flu season - spending countless hours putting tongue depressors into their patients' mouths and saying, "Say ahhhhh" before having "thousands" of virus spewed directly into their face by their patients - would get sick - constantly.
So these are the views of one of the 3 authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. I haven’t seen any comments either in agreement or dissension from her most prominent GBD colleague, Jay Bhattacharya, whose nomination to head NIH is being hailed as restoring trust in medical research and integrity. Until he does comment, one would have to assume his silence means agreement.
Not too clear obviously since he singled out Gupta as someone he agrees with on everything and then essentially contradicts himself.
The only cause for optimism—and this is a fantasy— is that he (and others) actually has come to realize there never was a pandemic (I seem to recall a comment on X a while ago, imbedded within a larger comment when he stated pandemics were a political rather than a biological one but it was just that once ) and therefore no need for any “focused protection “ and most importantly, development of the shot. But he knows if he acknowledges that now he will never be confirmed by the Senate.
So my fantasy is that once he’s confirmed he reveals this.
Of course I also thought the Yankees were going to win the World Series:-)
And as I said it’s somewhat of a fantasy. So to continue the likely fantasy, if his concern that making any public statement re pandemic etc would derail his confirmation, he is telepathically asking us to (wink, wink) trust he will reveal he’s seen the light once confirmed.
Jay Bhattacharya gave a few opening remarks at the conference.
In those remarks, he said, "I think this is the first public conference with a public audience that has - at a major university - with experts representing such a wide range of views. The attacks on the conference early on where, that we were very one-sided, I think you will see during the day that it is not the case. In fact, there is a very, very wide range of of views represented on every single panel and there's - although I don't know if I agree with any single person on everything, other than maybe Sunetra Gupta, but we disagree on some things, um, that's another - that's another matter."
Nobody talked about lockdowns or quarantines when AIDS was in every other news story in the 1980s except to say what a bad idea it was. The link is one example.
What I would like to ask her, Fauci etc is why that was a bad idea for a disease that was 100% fatal and almost entirely spread within a specific group? And why such a good idea now? What changed?
She sounds extremely dangerous, basically pushing global communism. And to think she was one of the people some of us ‘trusted’ during the Scamdemic. We live and learn. Great article thanks.
Thanks. I agree her ideas are dangerous and antithetical to what many people would consider to be fundamental rights and liberties.
Sunetra Gupta is anything but naive; on the contrary, I find her exceptionally brilliant, measured, and strategic.
She is also wrong about much and has gone relatively unchallenged in a formal sense (eg, in writing) by those opposed to the gist of the govt narrative.
I suspect that is due in part to her being less prominent on social media - and to COVID dissident academics and leaders of organizations/groups not wanting to take her on publicly for professional reasons or due to other collegial relationships they would prefer not to disrupt.
There is absolutely no evidence that lockdowns, short or long, do anything to stop viruses. The story of the people who were fine when they went to Antarctica and caught cold after they got there for some unexplained reason shows that.
A decade ago, at the nursing home where my mother was at, they had a lot of people coming down with the flu, so they didn't allow anyone to come in from the outside for a week or so until things got better. It seemed to make sense to me at the time, but I'll bet it didn't really make any difference.
> Her assumption is that people catch a pathogen or illness through contact or proximity to other people.
This is the fundamental lie. If this were true, every doctor every flu season - spending countless hours putting tongue depressors into their patients' mouths and saying, "Say ahhhhh" before having "thousands" of virus spewed directly into their face by their patients - would get sick - constantly.
They don't.
So these are the views of one of the 3 authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. I haven’t seen any comments either in agreement or dissension from her most prominent GBD colleague, Jay Bhattacharya, whose nomination to head NIH is being hailed as restoring trust in medical research and integrity. Until he does comment, one would have to assume his silence means agreement.
Not too clear obviously since he singled out Gupta as someone he agrees with on everything and then essentially contradicts himself.
The only cause for optimism—and this is a fantasy— is that he (and others) actually has come to realize there never was a pandemic (I seem to recall a comment on X a while ago, imbedded within a larger comment when he stated pandemics were a political rather than a biological one but it was just that once ) and therefore no need for any “focused protection “ and most importantly, development of the shot. But he knows if he acknowledges that now he will never be confirmed by the Senate.
So my fantasy is that once he’s confirmed he reveals this.
Of course I also thought the Yankees were going to win the World Series:-)
Can you find that comment you're referring to? It's possible you are remembering his reply to my tweet https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1618732027339218944
I have not seen or heard anything from Jay Bhattacharya indicating he doesn't believe there was a pandemic. Quite the opposite, in fact: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/jay-bhattacharya-and-the-resistance
Yes that’s probably where I saw that.
And as I said it’s somewhat of a fantasy. So to continue the likely fantasy, if his concern that making any public statement re pandemic etc would derail his confirmation, he is telepathically asking us to (wink, wink) trust he will reveal he’s seen the light once confirmed.
It’s all I have to cling to
Or here https://x.com/MdmStakeholder/status/1863337497700495534
Jay Bhattacharya gave a few opening remarks at the conference.
In those remarks, he said, "I think this is the first public conference with a public audience that has - at a major university - with experts representing such a wide range of views. The attacks on the conference early on where, that we were very one-sided, I think you will see during the day that it is not the case. In fact, there is a very, very wide range of of views represented on every single panel and there's - although I don't know if I agree with any single person on everything, other than maybe Sunetra Gupta, but we disagree on some things, um, that's another - that's another matter."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ShSvEbBFU&t=4s
Nobody talked about lockdowns or quarantines when AIDS was in every other news story in the 1980s except to say what a bad idea it was. The link is one example.
What I would like to ask her, Fauci etc is why that was a bad idea for a disease that was 100% fatal and almost entirely spread within a specific group? And why such a good idea now? What changed?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1694834/
The first time I ever heard "tested positive for" was in the early 80s w/respect to HIV.
The second time was in Jan 2020.
She crazy
Not crazy - brilliant and very wrong.