Approximately 16,000 doctors have come together opposing lockdown measures in various countries, as well as the possibility of a second lockdown that multiple governments are currently considering.
They believe lockdown measures are not only completely unnecessary, but also have a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
Many of these signees are some of the world’s top doctors and scientists, and they’ve been speaking out against lockdown measures since they first began months ago.
One of them is Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, who has criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.
According to him, “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing.”
Just yesterday I wrote about Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University who recently gave an interview stating “there is more harm from the lockdown than there is from COVID.”
He’s one of many experts who feel this way, and explains why. In that article I put more examples of renowned doctors and scientists from around the world who do and have opposed lockdown measures.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us.
Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19?
I assert that the answer is simply, no – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history (source)
It’s called “The Great Barrington Declaration” and it states the following:
“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 jjab. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.”
By Arjun Walia, Guest writer (excerpt)