Dr. Martin Kulldorff has been fired from his position as Professor of Medicine at Harvard University. A victim of the college’s brutal Covid vaccine mandate, the Great Barrington Declaration author tells his story in City Journal.
I am no longer a Professor of Medicine at Harvard. The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired. This is my story — a story of a Harvard biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist, clinging to the truth as the world lost its way during the Covid pandemic.
On March 10th 2020, before any Government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning”. Across the country, universities, schools and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.
Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world — all will suffer.
Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool.
What were the results during the spring of 2020? With schools open, Sweden had zero Covid deaths in the one-to-15 age group, while teachers had the same mortality as the average of other professions. Based on those facts, summarised in a July 7th 2020 report by the Swedish Public Health Agency, all U.S. schools should have quickly reopened. Not doing so led to “startling evidence on learning loss” in the United States, especially among lower- and middle-class children, an effect not seen in Sweden. …
That spring, I supported the Swedish approach in op-eds published in my native Sweden, but despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media. My attempts to disseminate the Swedish school report on Twitter (now X) put me on the platform’s Trends Blacklist. In August 2020, my op-ed on school closures and Sweden was finally published by CNN — but not the one you’re thinking of. I wrote it in Spanish, and CNN–Español ran it. CNN–English was not interested.
I was not the only public health scientist speaking out against school closures and other unscientific countermeasures. Scott Atlas, an especially brave voice, used scientific articles and facts to challenge the public health advisors in the Trump White House, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and Covid Coordinator Deborah Birx, but to little avail. When 98 of his Stanford faculty colleagues unjustly attacked Atlas in an open letter that did not provide a single example of where he was wrong, I wrote a response in the student-run Stanford Daily to defend him. I ended the letter by pointing out that:
Among experts on infectious disease outbreaks, many of us have long advocated for an age-targeted strategy, and I would be delighted to debate this with any of the 98 signatories. Supporters include Professor Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University, the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist. Assuming no bias against women scientists of color, I urge Stanford faculty and students to read her thoughts.
None of the 98 signatories accepted my offer to debate. Instead, someone at Stanford sent complaints to my superiors at Harvard, who were not thrilled with me.
I had no inclination to back down. Together with Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, arguing for age-based focused protection instead of universal lockdowns, with specific suggestions for how better to protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives.
With the Great Barrington Declaration, the silencing was broken. While it is easy to dismiss individual scientists, it was impossible to ignore three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from three leading universities. The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified — and even grew slanderous. Collins, a lab scientist with limited public-health experience who controls most of the nation’s medical research budget, called us “fringe epidemiologists” and asked his colleagues to orchestrate a “devastating published takedown.” Some at Harvard obliged.
A prominent Harvard epidemiologist publicly called the declaration “an extreme fringe view,” equating it with exorcism to expel demons. A member of Harvard’s Centre for Health and Human Rights, who had argued for school closures, accused me of “trolling” and having “idiosyncratic politics”, falsely alleging that I was “enticed… with Koch money”, “cultivated by Right-wing think tanks” and “won’t debate anyone”. (A concern for those less privileged does not automatically make you Right-wing!) Others at Harvard worried about my “scientifically inaccurate” and “potentially dangerous position”, while “grappling with the protections offered by academic freedom”.
Though powerful scientists, politicians and the media vigorously denounced it, the Great Barrington Declaration gathered almost a million signatures, including tens of thousands from scientists and health-care professionals. We were less alone than we had thought.
Even from Harvard, I received more positive than negative feedback. Among many others, support came from a former chair of the Department of Epidemiology — a former dean, a top surgeon and an autism expert, who saw firsthand the devastating collateral damage that lockdowns inflicted on her patients. While some of the support I received was public, most was behind the scenes from faculty unwilling to speak publicly. …
For scientific, ethical, public health, and medical reasons, I objected both publicly and privately to the Covid vaccine mandates. I already had superior infection-acquired immunity; and it was risky to vaccinate me without proper efficacy and safety studies on patients with my type of immune deficiency. This stance got me fired by Mass General Brigham [hospital system] — and consequently fired from my Harvard faculty position.
While several vaccine exemptions were given by the hospital, my medical exemption request was denied. …
If Harvard and its hospitals want to be credible scientific institutions, they should rehire those of us they fired. And Harvard would be wise to eliminate its Covid vaccine mandates for students, as most other universities have already done.
Most Harvard faculty diligently pursue truth in a wide variety of fields, but Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Might there be any countries for which the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
Wouldn’t that be most countries outside Europe?
I suppose the questions might be:
Does the conflict lead to increased exports?
Does the conflict lead to opportunities to take advantage of a distracted West?
Well, how about those that will benefit form selling Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)? According to the Beeb world propaganda radio, most of the plant for processing LNG is in eastern England, with pipelines across to Belgium & the Netherlands. Apparently even Australia is a potential source, also Canada, as well as the middle east. So, it’s likely that a fair bit will arrive here by sea, then converted to gas and exported to the mainland.
I’m not sure what the currency is, but spot the cash flow into HMG.
I think that may be the wrong question.
It assumes that the actions of countries are taken for the benefit of those countries, meaning, the people of those countries. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the state power of countries is hijacked by interest groups who use it for their purpose and benefit.
So the more accurate question, I think, may be: are there those for whom the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
I am ever more certain that thinking of countries as monolithic units with a common interest only serves to confuse and muddle any attempt to understand what is really going on.
No…the fact that the EU is the second biggest economy after the USA, and is now an economic basket-case…can’t possibly help the US…..?
….and that the USA has become the largest LNG exporter in 2022, driven by European demand….…can’t possibly help the US…?
…and that the same US just might have had a teensy-weensy involvement in fomenting said conflict?
Just coincidence…LOL….!
A case of the US economy tanking & taking out the European one so that the NWO can be more easily installed.
Quite possibly, there were several scenarios when planning this campaign with Ukraine falling quickly being just one of them. But Moscow were negotiating from day one with not unreasonable demands well short of requesting full capitulation of Kiev.
Without negating the bravery of ordinary ukrainian soldiers, the task set for the russian military was extremely difficult. It had to target military objects, spare civilian lives and infrastructure trying not to alienate Ukrainian population while undertaking full scale military operation. Russia couldn’t just carpet bomb starting with Kiev thus decapitating the country. You also can’t dismiss ruinous errors and corruption on the russian side.
Is Ukraine holding for all this time against Russia a blessing or curse? One thing is certain – more Ukrainians will die. Will they be able to defeat Putin eventually as US wants them to? Not while Russia having nuclear weapons. Repel Russians from Ukraine? Maybe eventually in several years’ time. But was it what Ukrainians voting for Zelenskyy wanted? They wanted the end of Donbass war, but got full scale proxy war between nuclear powers in their country.
The response in Europe in particular to Russia’s Ukraine invasion was swift and highly coordinated.
“Sponataneous” expressions of support for Ukraine popped up on TV screens across Europe and in the UK almost instantly.
As far as I’m aware the sanctions imposed on Russia were not debated and decided in parliaments. They weren’t decisions taken by each individual country. They were decided at some supra-national level. The nominally elected heads of governments of our countries were gathered together and informed of what the “coordinated” response would be. And that was it.
This is the reality of our world. Decisions that have massive implication for our lives and our livelihoods are being decided by a group of people that we don’t really know who they are. We can speculate, but we don’t know.
In summary, the question of whether Ukraine was over estimated or underestimated is interesting, I suppose. But far more interesting is by whom?
I’m genuinely interested in finding out who makes the decisions of the British state (and all the other so called democratic states.)
WEF?
It’s an obvious candidate. But I think that at best the WEF is a rough approximation to the answer because the process by which the WEF reaches its well publicised and seemingly very transparent proclamations is rather opaque.
So when the WEF comes up with some dystopian insanity about the 4th industrial revolution, which really does seem to be reflected in actual policy implemented by many countries, who came up with it? Did Klaus Schwab? Was it a group of oligarchs who use the WEF and Schwab as a mouthpiece and. consensus building organism? Is there a board of WEF grandees that act in representation of a group of major corporations, institutions and perhaps some bigger countries?
Maybe the WEF is more like a system for producing groupthink. It gathers together people with influence, puffs them up telling them they are not just influential in their country or in their industry but on a global scale and then gets them talking to each other about the same things, climate change and controlling this and controlling that. They pepper in platitudes about making the world better and global responsibility to make themselves feel good about it all. And before you know it they’re all marching together like drones in the same direction.
What is undeniable is that the things the WEF says seem to be closely aligned with policy in western countries. How much the WEF leads and how much it follows is what isn’t at all clear.
And Bill Gates.
I agree with what you say…particularly in relation to the ‘spontaneous’ expressions of support…which to be fair just feels on the whole like horrendous one-sided propaganda….which media, anywhere, has discussed Russia other than as the bogey-man? Pretty much tells you there’s an ‘accepted’ agenda…
I know we have to unpick what we can from the media, but I don’t trust Reuters, anymore than I trust any MSM. Reuters has a ‘fact-checking’ partnership with Twitter and Facebook, we all know which way those lean…
They have ties with the WEF, Pfizer, and the Trusted News Initiative…well it’s not trusted by me…
I can’t disagree with any of that.
1) Russia expect good a quick win was the Straw Man of USA & NATO Countries propaganda. Russia made no such claim.
2) The ‘West’ didn’t under-estimate Ukraine, they under-estimated Russia – its willingness and ability to grind on, slowly, militarily and how adept it was at reorganising its economy.
‘… additional explanations. One is that European leaders didn’t expect Russia to respond by cutting off the gas supply…’
‘This seems extremely implausible, as it would imply our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs.’
Dear me!
Earth to Noah Carl. Earth to Noah Carl. On which planet have you been these last few years?
Implausible, because it implies that our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs? Well, indeed. Have you seen the shower of ‘leaders’ we have allowed to infest our governments? Half are pocket-lining, self-serving snakes who are taking orders from Brussels, the other half really are morons who think that being a good leader is promising to wipe everyone’s bum for them, then turning around to random businesses and individuals and saying ‘make it happen, I’ve got other things to do.’ And telling naughty Putin to just stop invading other countries, or else they will call him nasty names (not take him on in combat, of course).
The EU nations responded as one because Brussels instructed them to. This is the same Brussels that, under the authoritarian ‘green’ commissioner Timmermans, is literally telling people they just have to accept they will get poorer and will freeze and sit in the dark – all well awarding themselves a pay rise, natch.
Why is Brussels doing this? Pressure from the US combined with a hare-brained idea that this will help them achieve their ‘green’ plan. Once people see how wonderful it is to take cold showers and play shadow puppets by candle light, they will embrace the green. The one thing these people most definitely do not have is a basic understanding of human affairs. I think they really were shocked when, after telling Putin for weeks they would not pay for Russian gas, Putin turned off the gas. What the hell did they expect? They kept saying that not only would they not pay for it, they wouldn’t buy it after they had filled up their stores for the winter. And then were surprised when he said ‘fine by me’.
Certainly both Putin and the EU underestimated Ukraine’s military capabilities.
‘One of the most curious aspects of the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine was how little effort the Kremlin had put into preparing its own population for what was about to be undertaken. The justification for the operation was made suddenly, over the course of about 10 days. In this it resembled the annexation of Crimea, despite being a much greater endeavour, suggesting that the Russian government wished to present it to the Russian public as a fait accompli.’
RUSI 22 Apr 22
The EU had, arguably still has, a complete blindspot regarding defence capability generally, particularly conventional defence in Europe, since its foreign policy has been dominated from 2005-2021 by a ‘peacenik’. The idea that economic ties between Germany and Russia would guarantee peace derived from the original concept of the EU as a construct to defang the Franco German struggles for supremacy in Europe of the recent past.
The fly in the ointment in all this has been the outstanding efforts of Britain, and, specifically, British Army trainers, as good as any worldwide, with recent combat experience, in training up the Ukrainian Army since 2014.
Swift and accurate target acquisition, using novel techniques, by well trained Ukrainian Forces has given Ukrainian artillery a force multiplying lethality.
If that has caught the world by surprise, it should not have. Montgomery instilled the need for intensive training into the British Army and that priority remains today. Consequently, they are very good at it.
But the British Ministry of Defence has, itself, been surprised by the failure of British and European conventional deterrence; Putin ‘going the full tonto’.
The lack of availability of significant European mechanised forces to protect EU members closest to Russia has contributed to the unmitigated disaster now in train in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, Poland, for example, is now intent upon purchasing 1000 tanks from South Korea, the only country able to supply that volume at relatively short notice.
What is the Ukrainian Army asking for, and they certainly appear to know what they are doing?
Tanks.
Britain’s modern tank numbers? That would be 148, available on a good day i.e. not really.
We have been caught napping, as we were in 1938.
The failure of conventional deterrence is always expensive. It is not yet clear that the political will exists in Europe, or Britain, to put a credible conventional deterrent back together again.
And yet that is the only thing that will guard against further military adventurism in Europe, as Poland, much closer to the action, with a legacy of suffering from just such historical occurrences, understands only too well.
It cannot be repeated too often; to the Russian mind, quantity has a quality all of its own. They, and others like them, will not be deterred by drones and cyber. By the time cutting edge systems can take effect, deterrence will have failed.
Deterrence is the key. If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
This is concerning….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-soldiers-told-ready-war-27791322
Especially as there is some information coming out that the ‘migrants’ being shepherded across the Channel are in fact UN militia currently being trained by the British Army in time for martial law to ensure full compliance with lockdowns, digital ID for rations etc
BE prepared!
https://rumble.com/v1ggt9v-britain-got-no-idea-what-coming-they-are-fast-asleep.html
What a pleasure it is to watch the gullible Brits swallow the ukraine/Russia fictionalised “war” and happily take it in the shorts by paying more for their energy this winter.. Ukraine, the third most corrupt country in the world and the Brits are doing their national duty and standing up for the “poor Ukrainians. Meanwhile zelensky, previously employed as a comedienne has a mega million dollar mansion on the beach in Florida and other properties. But the stoic Brits will do whatever they can to support ukraine against that bad man Putin. Has anyone even bothered to ask why exactly energy bills will be skyrocketing this winter. Anything to do with the US sanctions? Oh and don’t forget to take your next booster of the clot shot, guaranteeing ongoing mutation of the covid virus. The newest bivalent shot doesn’t even cover the current covid variant
but be sure to take it!!!