Breaking News, Latest News and Trending News

NIH Director Asked Fauci to Do a ”Devastating Published Take Down” of “Fringe” Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford Epidemiologist


A new release of emails shows the outgoing NIH Director asking Dr. Anthony Fauci to carry out a “quick and devastating published takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration. “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,” Francis Collins wrote in an Oct. 8, 2020, email posted on Twitter by researcher Phillip W. Magness.

“There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises,” the NIH chief continued. “I don’t see anything like that on line yet – is it underway?” The three “fringe” epidemiologists are Dr. Martin Kulldorf, a biostatistician, infectious disease expert, and professor of medicine of Harvard University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a public health policy expert, physician, health economist, and a professor of medicine at Stanford University, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an expert in immunology, mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and a professor at Oxford University.


The Great Barrington Declaration was a statement that argued against the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 lockdown policies and recommended a “Focused Protection” strategy for the elderly and those at highest risk. The declaration was signed by 15,316 medical and public health scientists and 45,154 medical practitioners. The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration argued that covid-19 lockdown policies produced devastating effects on short and long-term public health such as; 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.

On the other hand, Focused Protection is based on the risk-based strategies outlined in the many pandemic preparedness plans that different countries had developed during the past decades. Surprisingly, except for Sweden, all countries threw their pandemic plans out the window when this pandemic started. A focused protection strategy would emphasize protecting the elderly at nursing homes, older people living at home, and the immuno-compromised most affected by the disease. As Dr. Paul Alexander of the Brownstone Institute has carefully cataloged, there are more than 400 scientific studies showing that covid-19 lockdowns, masks mandates, school closures, and other government interventions have failed in their purpose of curbing transmission or reducing death.

Rather than engaging an evidence-based scientific debate with the authors, Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci responded to one another by sharing articles from Wired Magazine and The Nation in favor of lockdowns before Francis Collins launched the smear campaign in a Washington Post interview saying, “What I worry about with this is it’s being presented as if it’s a major alternative view that’s held by a large numbers of experts in the scientific community. That is not true. This is a fringe component of epidemiology. This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous. It fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment.”

Since the release of the emails, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, has commented on twitter, “A public debate would have been better. Invitation still open.” And, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya also responded saying, “So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.” Similar to the Rome Declaration now signed by more than 16,000 scientists and physicians, it is hard to argue that the Great Barrington Declaration was a “fringe” scientific belief when thousands of medical professionals have staked their names and their reputations on these beliefs.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.



This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More