Ms. Murray, I wonder about the kind of shekels Amy could have won during her professional reports related to the pandemic which included the views of the majority of the scientific community. Perhaps you don't know that although she is an ethnic jew she has been, in occasions, denied entry to Israel because she truthfully reports on the …
Ms. Murray, I wonder about the kind of shekels Amy could have won during her professional reports related to the pandemic which included the views of the majority of the scientific community. Perhaps you don't know that although she is an ethnic jew she has been, in occasions, denied entry to Israel because she truthfully reports on the abuses to the Palestinians by the the Israel theocracy. No need of shekels.
The following is a partial transcript from Wikipedia.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[10][11] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[12][13] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[11][14] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[11][14] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[13] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[10] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial.[15][16][17]"
I respect your absolute belief in the WHO. For me, the WHO and Wikipedia were both discredited a long time ago. I appreciate your fairness in reporting that the Great Barrington Declaraton did receive support from some quarters.
Anna, it is Wikipedia that reported both sides of the issue on the Barrington Declaration. I didn't even have any idea about that declaration. I have noticed that some folks don't like WHO, Wikipedia, Democracy Now, etc. and that's OK with me since we humans have the great advantage of enjoying our own opinions. For my part, I tend to believe in those three entities much more than in any any network news outlet specially Fox News. Thanks for you comment.
Ms. Murray, I wonder about the kind of shekels Amy could have won during her professional reports related to the pandemic which included the views of the majority of the scientific community. Perhaps you don't know that although she is an ethnic jew she has been, in occasions, denied entry to Israel because she truthfully reports on the abuses to the Palestinians by the the Israel theocracy. No need of shekels.
The following is a partial transcript from Wikipedia.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[10][11] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[12][13] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[11][14] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[11][14] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[13] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[10] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administration, British Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial.[15][16][17]"
Julio,
I respect your absolute belief in the WHO. For me, the WHO and Wikipedia were both discredited a long time ago. I appreciate your fairness in reporting that the Great Barrington Declaraton did receive support from some quarters.
Anna, it is Wikipedia that reported both sides of the issue on the Barrington Declaration. I didn't even have any idea about that declaration. I have noticed that some folks don't like WHO, Wikipedia, Democracy Now, etc. and that's OK with me since we humans have the great advantage of enjoying our own opinions. For my part, I tend to believe in those three entities much more than in any any network news outlet specially Fox News. Thanks for you comment.