Here's an interesting quote from Psychology Today: The study referenced is:

Just so you have the correct context, you can read the whole article at:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...vid-19-conspiracy-theories-perfect-storm

Re:Barrington

"After gaining some publicity, this strategy was strongly denounced by many in the scientific community. While it supposedly received 8,000 signatures from public health experts and doctors, news outlets later revealed that some of those signatures were fake."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

It's true there were fake signatures on the Barrington Declaration, but the document itself is not fake, and a lot of the signatures are not fake.
There were some 15,000 signatures, according to reports, from people who indicated they were in the field of health and medical care. Some were in the regular medical field, some in natural health fields.


Individual academics from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, Norrington, Edinburgh, Exert, Sussex, York were among experts from around the world who signed the declaration.

The problem arose because the declaration was put on a website where people could add their names, as long as they provided an e-mail address, a city address, a postal code, and their profession. Thus some people signed using bogus names and titles. Whether to sabotage the declaration, or whether they just wanted to be anonymous, we don't know.

Apparently another 160,000 non professional people also signed.

Not at all surprised the mainline scientists denounced it.
The war is on to lock things down tight and any alternate suggestions or petitions are denounced, with social media quite busy censoring.

Yet, Sweden basically followed the path outlined in the Barrington declaration --
Some say it worked, some say it didn't.
I suppose it depends on whether one looks at the "numbers" that are a bit higher than their locked down close neighbors, or whether one looks at how greatly they failed to even come anywhere close to the fatal numbers the scientists predicted would take place if they didn't lock down. And also how it all pans out in the future. There have been fatalities and damage due to the restrictions that are not reckoned into the equations.

With the Second Wave taking place in different parts of Canada, especially in Ontario and Quebec, do you think there will actually be a Second Lockdown, or do you think they will take a different approach?

It seems that they are doing it in zones rather than province-wide.

Make that, selectively cherry-picked neighbors. Why just the "closest". Other nearby countries locked down strict, and yet their numbers are higher.

If masks prevent disease, and wearing masks are mandated, then
would there be any point in getting the annual flu vaccine?

And yet it's promoted more than ever. Why.

Expect greater numbers of cases as people get injected with the annual flu toxins.

From NIH: "Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively) (Table 5)".

This was done before the induced panic, but presumably using a coronavirus in general.
If they inject poisons, increasing the number of cases, then they can keep the control going on longer before people revolt.


But of more interest is look at the numbers in Table 5.
Would you conclude vaccines prevent disease? While the numbers are significant, still, 37% vs. 27% of not catching any of the viruses is a little, shall we say, revealing? Influenza vaccine is "supposed" to prevent influenza, right? Guess only slightly. There still is a 31% chance of getting it verses 44% if you weren't vaccinated. Looking at it another way, you have a 56% of not getting the flu if you don't inject the poisons into your body! Wonder what percentage it is that you'll have a bad reaction from the known poisions intentionally injected? Don't see how that large risk is worth a 13% maybe improvement in not getting the flu.

If you intentionally allow them to inject known toxic substances into your body, actions known to maim and kill others in the past, can you with a good conscience ask God to protect you?
Should He?


Eating a diet of nuts, grains, fresh fruits and vegetables prepared in a simple manner has no risks, and a large benefit.

You are probably right concerning the "cherry picked" comparisons.
The point is -- the predictions of the scientists who were saying 1/4 or more Swedes would die (some predicted a much higher percentage) if they didn't lock down, most definitely did NOT come true. Sweden did NOT prove a great disaster would happen if a country didn't shut down and make everyone wear masks. They proved there really wasn't much difference between those that locked down and those that didn't.

The whole story of "millions of lives will be saved if we just wear masks" is a bunch of nonsense.

Healthy life style habits are the most effective means to stay healthy.

I just became aware of how they can say how effective measures are:

Predict 50 Billion people would die.
Force them to wear a diaper on their face.
Not many die.
Declare the measures a success since not that many died!
Go around saying how we saved 49.99 Billion people.

A vaccine can even be effective if it doesn?t prevent infection.

Staff writer comment on July 30, 2020 LA Times

Those coronavirus vaccines leading the race? Don?t ditch the masks quite yet

I have to agree, we are talking with those who had the virus, and for the majority it was nothing but the flu or a bad cold. Only the ones with already weakened immune system really need to stay quarantined or locked down to keep from what could be a danger.