A Reply to the Barrington Declaration.

by Alison Blunt.

I’ve read the declaration carefully, sent it to my colleagues and they have read it too. We have many serious issues with it, despite sharing the declaration’s grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health aspects of the current policies. The declaration reveals a lack of research that is puzzling to say the least. It’s been meticulously researched for months by both the Citizen’s Inquiries in Germany, the legal and the medical (and many other silenced, highly regarded voices all of the world) that the high fatality rate amongst in particular the elderly, was created through wrong treatment, isolation and fear. There has not been any new unprecedented illness and mortality from a virus this year. There was absolutely no medical need for any of the measures used anywhere. This was a flu that a German government document (by now, nick-named the panic paper), apparently written in March and available for public downloading, admits is not particularly dangerous and therefore, steps needed to be taken to create fear. And the UK government website stated on the 19 March 2020, ‘COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.’ I don’t recall this being announced on any mainstream platform. The declaration unquestioningly mentions the high fatality number and still maintains the fear-mongering in the language used and the measures suggested. A smaller side point to start with, the declaration suggests ignorance of research regarding the correlation between flu jab programmes for the elderly and succumbing to extreme flu symptoms. A huge number of doctors and academic medics have been researching and writing about this for years, despite a lack of funded research from official bodies who’s own funding and existence partly depends on support from the vaccine industry. Much more significantly, the declaration indicates a lack of research re the PCR testing itself. Of both the risks of the invasive procedure (the declaration suggests regular multiple tests for staff in and visitors to care homes) and the lack of effectiveness of the test itself, whatever the understanding of the nature of a ‘virus.’ Thankfully by now, many high profile medics and science academics are being very vocal about this. The cycle number used in many countries is 45 and all professionals familiar with the workings of the PCR tool agree that this number gives meaningless results. As mentioned earlier, one of the striking aspects of the declaration is the shocking lack of informedness regarding the ‘treatments’ used during this whole period that have caused excess mortality in all the countries where they were implemented. It has come to light that the therapies used along with the isolating and ‘social distancing’ measures have been the cause of the excess mortality this year. Spikes of mortality coincide exactly with the start and end of specific treatment experiments in various countries. This part of the declaration is also disturbing, ‘Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.’ This maintains the fear-mongering and panic mode and the language use, i.e. ‘should’ and ‘can be implemented’ indicates that the writers are still under the impression that a level of control is warranted, and this has been shown to be entirely unnecessary by many highly regarded and experienced medical professionals. It would seems that the writers and co-signers of the declaration still hold to a belief that there was a true pandemic. They appear to be unaware of the changes WHO have made to their definition of a pandemic, and unaware of the planned strategies of the WEF and WHO which already years ago stated they would be using pandemic simulations to enact their Great Reset. I don’t speak from a position of naivety or wishful thinking. All the points I’ve raised here in brief are informed by extensive research studying multiple documents, articles and presentations by renowned and experienced and courageous experts in their fields.

I fully support and agree with all of Alison’s observations – Phil Stone.

Phil Stone Says – “Come on people, read and understand the declaration before you add your name to it. If I’d have added my name to that, I’d be contacting the website to get my name removed ASAP.”

Spread the love

One Reply to “A Reply to the Barrington Declaration.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *