{"id":35188,"date":"2024-03-21T23:02:34","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T23:02:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/evaggelatos.com\/?p=35188"},"modified":"2024-03-21T23:03:40","modified_gmt":"2024-03-21T23:03:40","slug":"a%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%bb%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%ad%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%82-%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%b8%ce%b7%ce%b3%ce%b7%cf%84%ce%ae%cf%82-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%87%ce%ac%cf%81%ce%b2%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%bd%cf%84-%cf%8c%ce%bb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/evaggelatos.com\/?p=35188","title":{"rendered":"A\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03c4: \u00ab\u038c\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u00bb"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
21\/3\/24<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Fired Harvard Professor: \u2018All the Basic Principles of Public Health Were Thrown Out the Window\u2019<\/h1>\n

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, told \u201cThe Defender In-Depth\u201d podcast, \u201cIf we don’t have this freedom of speech, then gradually, science is going to dwindle down \u2026 Academia would go there also and society as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n

By\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. <\/a> <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\"defender<\/div>\n
\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D.<\/a>, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration<\/a> said Harvard University\u2019s decision to fire him<\/a> for non-compliance with the university\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine mandate is just one example of the consequences faced by anyone who questioned the official COVID-19 narratives.<\/p>\n

In an appearance on \u201cThe Defender In-Depth\u201d podcast, Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, said his firing is part of a broader trend of censorship and intolerance toward people who express diverging views in the broader fields of science, medicine and academia.<\/p>\n

Kulldorff is one of the five individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Biden administration alleging key administration officials and government agencies coerced social media platforms to remove content, in violation of the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

Kulldorff discussed the latest developments in the suit \u2014 Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al.<\/a> \u2014 whose plaintiffs also include the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.<\/p>\n

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments<\/a> on an injunction, previously granted by lower courts, barring the administration and certain federal agencies from communicating with social media platforms for the removal of content.<\/p>\n

He also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic response of his native Sweden, which bucked the global trend by eschewing lockdowns<\/a>, vaccine and mask mandates<\/a>, making the country the target of global pressure and widespread media criticism. Yet, Sweden now demonstrates better public health outcomes than most other countries.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Wuhan<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\u201cThe Wuhan Cover-Up\u201d by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.<\/div>\n
Order Now<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u2018Never a consensus in the scientific community\u2019 for lockdowns<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kulldorff said Harvard was \u201cnot happy\u201d with him when he co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020. However, it was Kulldorff\u2019s decision not to get a COVID-19<\/a> vaccine that ultimately led Harvard to fire him.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe had a disagreement about infection-acquired immunity,\u201d Kulldorff said. \u201cI was fired because I didn\u2019t want to take the vaccine because I didn\u2019t need it. I had better immunity from having had [COVID-19] already, and so, there was no medical reason for me to do it. And there was certain risk, because with every vaccine and drug<\/a>, there\u2019s some risk.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet, many of his colleagues at Harvard and other institutions \u201csort of kept quiet\u201d and \u201cwent along with it,\u201d Kulldorff said. He attributed their cooperation to the federal funding many scientists and researchers receive from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey sit on the biggest pile of medical research money in the world,\u201d Kulldorff said. \u201cSo, it\u2019s pretty scary for a scientist to speak up against their wishes, because you risk losing the resource funds that you depend on to support your family, and also to support the other people that work in your laboratory.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, in personal contacts with fellow epidemiologists, Kulldorff said \u201cThe majority were arguing for focused protections over better protecting the older people, by letting kids go to school and so on. So, there was never a consensus in the scientific community, at least not in the epidemiological community, for these lockdown measures.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kulldorff said that during the pandemic, \u201call the basic principles of public health were thrown out the window.\u201d His former institution, Harvard, was no exception, \u201cgoing to online teaching before there was any government incentive or push to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n

This, Kulldorff said, \u201cset the stage, and a lot of other colleges and even high schools and elementary schools sort of followed Harvard\u2019s lead\u201d in locking down.<\/p>\n

Similarly, Harvard later imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate<\/a> \u2014 which it finally ended on March 5. \u201cThere was no public health reason to mandate vaccines for students\u201d in particular, Kulldorff said, because most of them \u201chad COVID, so they have superior immunity. But even those few that haven\u2019t [caught COVID-19] face minuscule risk from COVID.\u201d<\/p>\n

Children \u2018will never fully recover\u2019 from school closures<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kulldorff cited his native Sweden as an example of a country that bucked the trend and kept schools \u2014 and society more broadly \u2014 open during the pandemic.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you look at the elementary and high school students, we know that the test results went down<\/a>\u201d in countries that closed their schools, Kulldorff said. \u201cThe kids were hurt by this, and they will never fully recover from the damage that we did to them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sweden was the only major Western country that kept schools open for ages 1-15, according to Kulldorff who said test results in Sweden have shown \u201cno comparable drop \u2014 it\u2019s just as normal, slightly going up.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among 1.8 million children who went to school in Sweden throughout the virus wave during the spring of 2020, \u201cthere were exactly zero COVID deaths and only a few hospitalizations,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Public health outcomes in Sweden also were positive for other population groups. \u201cSweden has low COVID mortality, less than the average in Europe [and] the lowest excess mortality<\/a> in the Western world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kulldorff said Swedish authorities were able to resist global pressure to impose lockdowns and mandates because they \u201chad very strong support from other epidemiologists in Sweden\u201d and \u201cvery strong support by the public\u201d for their approach.<\/p>\n

He noted that Sweden\u2019s then-prime minister, Stefan L\u00f6fven, had a working-class background, having begun his career as a welder. Noting that lockdowns favored \u201cthe upper class,\u201d Kulldorff said L\u00f6fven\u2019s background might have made a difference as he could \u201cunderstand what the effect these lockdowns had on regular people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Science will \u2018dwindle down\u2019 without freedom of speech<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yet, in other countries, including the U.S., dissenting views were silenced, Kulldorff said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose of us who tried to speak up were either silenced or, after they couldn\u2019t silence us anymore, we were slandered,\u201d he said, noting that after the Great Barrington Declaration was published, Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D.<\/a>, then the director of the NIH, called for \u201ca devastating published takedown<\/a>\u201d in response.<\/p>\n

\u201cWith scientific or other logical arguments, they have two options: They can sort of silence it by ignoring it or censoring it, which was done, or they can attack it through slander and smears,\u201d Kulldorff said. He said postings he made on Twitter and YouTube critical of mask mandates and school closures, were removed by those platforms.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey didn\u2019t want the science to be known, the true science, and the true principles of public health,\u201d Kulldorff said.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Your support helps fund this work, and CHD\u2019s related advocacy, education and scientific research.<\/div>\n
Donate Now<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

That\u2019s why Kulldorff joined the Missouri et al. v. Biden et al. (now known as Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al.) lawsuit. He said the central argument the plaintiffs are making in this case \u201cis that the federal government should not be allowed to coerce social media to censor people like myself.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey actually censored accurate, correct scientific information from scientists at Harvard and other places. And to me that\u2019s pretty astonishing,\u201d Kulldorff said.<\/p>\n

Kulldorff said that during Monday\u2019s Supreme Court hearing, \u201cThere were clearly some justices who seemed to be very sympathetic\u201d to the plaintiffs\u2019 position, and \u201cseemed very concerned about the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

But other justices argued that \u201cthe government should be allowed to coerce social media to censor\u201d in some instances.<\/p>\n

By June, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on whether or not to uphold the injunctions lower courts previously granted in this case. Kulldorff said the case will then return to the lower courts and is expected to \u201ctake years\u201d to resolve, proceeding \u201cin tandem\u201d with Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al.<\/a> \u2014 a similar lawsuit in which Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a> is a plaintiff. The two lawsuits were consolidated<\/a> in July 2023.<\/p>\n

\u201cI thought we were in agreement, as a country, as a society, that freedom of speech is important, that it is the foundation for us,\u201d Kulldorff said. \u201cIt saddens me greatly that that\u2019s not the case.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we don\u2019t have this freedom of speech, then gradually, science is going to dwindle down<\/a> \u2026 Academia would go there also and society as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n

Watch \u2018The Defender In-Depth\u2019 here:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n