Why I have asked for my name to be removed as a signatory to The Great Barrington Declaration.

Why I have asked for my name to be

 

removed as a signatory to The Great

 

Barrington Declaration.

I now believe it is part of the problem, not the solution.

Jonathan Engler

Like Jessica Hockett's post the other day (here) this isn’t likely to make me any new friends and is highly likely to result in me losing some of my existing ones.

Well, so be it. I am not going to stand by while one humongous lie is allowed to become established just because people find the entire truth unpalatable, nor because of some misguided desire to coalesce behind “consensus” for tactical reasons.

(Maybe my recollection is mistaken, but I am pretty sure that allowing a manufactured “consensus” to drown out all other viewpoints was what got us into much of the mess we are now in.)

I just sent the email below to gbdeclaration@gmail.com (the only address I could find at their website).

However, whether or not I receive a response is largely irrelevant as I don’t think the names (other than those on the main page of their website) are publicly viewable.

Regardless, I thought I’d send and then publish this anyway as a record of my thinking and as a public declaration of my own, especially as I did sign the GBD and encouraged others to do so.

---

Hello,

Please could you remove my name from the signatories to The Great Barrington Declaration.

When I signed this document, I believed the story that there was a novel virus around which was causing a novel illness, and that some sort of protection for some people was deemed desirable.

However, I am now firmly of the belief that the pandemic construct was staged. Any and all harms observed and reported can be explained by a combination of: mistreatment, maltreatment, non-treatment, neglect, abuse and data fraud.

The key tools used to stage the event were propaganda, data fraud (of several varieties) and the mass rollout of a fraudulent test.

Without these:

• nothing out of the ordinary would have been noticed at any time

• the status quo observed before the “pandemic” was declared (a total lack of excess mortality or reported clusters of unusual illnesses despite widespread presence of whatever it was which turned “covid tests” positive) would have continued uninterrupted

The “pandemic” - such as it was - was created by the response to the misguided and false perception of a novel virus in circulation.

There is no epidemiological model - other than one twisted and tortured beyond reasonableness - which can explain a number of key observations about what happened in spring 2020, notably:

• unnoticed pre-pandemic presence of the putative pathogen (as measured by the same tests to track its progress later)

• lack of ripples and clusters of excess mortality

• waves of deaths congruent with administrative and political actions

• vastly differing “pandemic outcomes” between countries and other regional units sharing administrative boundaries.

“Focused protection” would, in practice, have meant more testing, more isolation and more dystopian treatment generally of those “testing positive”. Since the pandemic narrative essentially emerged because of the maltreatment of the most vulnerable which was only able to happen because of their isolation and the resultant lack of witnesses, the strategies espoused in the declaration would not have improved matters, and probably would in fact have made them worse.

Hence my analysis of the “pandemic” (here) and what ought to have been done (ie nothing out of the ordinary) - is totally antithetical to that espoused in your declaration. Your document can only act to embed a heinous lie in the consciousness of humanity, priming us all for regular re-runs of the disaster which has befallen us.

To quote from my own summary of the covid “event” (which ought not to be reified by the use of the word “pandemic”):

Lab leak” and “zoonotic spillover” theories are the two constituent parts of a deliberately engineered false dichotomy. By permitting argument between these two choices alone, the question as to whether we actually had a pandemic at all—and what therefore caused the myriad harms—is avoided. Yet BOTH theories have the same endpoint: the sustenance of the “Pandemic Preparedness Industry” which, flush with a hugely successful “Covid” episode will no doubt delight in the prospect of lucrative reruns.

The oft-repeated references to “the next pandemic”— even by some apparent “Covid dissidents”— is a foreshadowing of their intentions, because, remember, as they say:

“Any rogue lab can engineer these viruses now.”

After all, as we have argued, the actual escape of something from a lab is not required to generate a “pandemic”; the mere seeding of the narrative of escape, rollout of testing and resultant social contagion is all that is needed.

I believe that the GBD has – even if unwittingly so - become part of the machinery which is:

• distracting people from seeing the true nature of the events of 2020

• embedding the “pandemic” trope into our mindset

• creating / maintaining a state of permanent fear - likely to be self-fulfilling – over the likelihood of another “engineered virus” causing  “the next pandemic”

In my view, the only way to prevent “the next pandemic” is to demonstrate to people the utter ridiculousness of the story they have been told about the past few years.

Declarations which fail to challenge the central lie of that story are unhelpful and counterproductive to that aim.

For that reason, I disassociate myself from the GBD.

Kind regards

Dr Jonathan Engler (United Kingdom)

MB ChB LLB

Source: Jonathan's Substack