Rethinking the Ethics of the Covid-19 Pandemic Lockdowns
Miller and Moss Conclude "Never Again"
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
As our leaders and policymakers finally muster up the courage to do a re-evaluation of decisions made during the pandemic crisis, the issue of lockdowns will be high up on the list to discuss. Many come to the quick conclusion that lockdowns should not have occurred, and where they were implemented, they did not work. To make matters worse, time stamped examples stand as the counter-strategy including Sweden remaining open and the Great Barrington Declaration. Both brazenly bucked the false global public health narrative.
Very few papers written on the topic including this essay by Miller and Moss address the presumption of lockdowns, that is, some people could escape from contracting COVID-19. The whole reason to lockdown is to protect at least some people from getting a contagious illness. With SARS-CoV-2 infection, that presumption was foolhardy, and sadly, never challenged. The world should have adopted a much safer and conservative presumption, that is, EVERYONE will get COVID-19. It’s just a matter of time. So preparation with the McCullough Protocol and other measures should have been the primary focus, and none of the foolishness of social distancing, masking, and lockdowns. If we presumed we would all get sick, then why bother with it all?
Miller and Moss make some excellent points including the failure of the vaccines almost certainly triggered very sharp views against lockdowns. It is true that most of the protests against lockdowns occurred after the release and rapid failure of the poorly conceived shots. Vaccine failure eroded public trust and the entire bundle of “lockdown, wait in fear, and be saved by a vaccine” became nonsensical to most as they scrambled for treatment with the McCullough Protocol and other similar early ambulatory regimens.
Subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth at a time when you need it the most.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
Dr. McCullough, when you say “never challenged” you must mean within the HHS agencies. Here is my understanding: Trump had two camps advising him one of which ... Atlas, Bhattacharya, Alexander ... opposed the lockdowns vigorously. Post election, of course all discussion was over. Why Trump caved in to Fauci and Birx ... I have not bothered to understand. Why Trump will not repudiate the shots is another mystery.
It is almost sitcom material that lockdowns continued after the shots were deployed. First by Hazan and, subsequently, by workers in Israel, it was discovered that the virus took up residency in the gut of folks immune suppressed by the shots, which cannot clear the infection. So the pathogen became your roommate in lockdown and your gut became a reservoir of viruses like the cave bats in China (the early supposition!). Exhaling the bats as they flew out of one’s microbiome and inhaling them as they are captured in your mask seems like a good model of re-infection ... common among the vaccinated but NOT among the one-and-done NI citizens.
I was out and about throughout the pandemic as most of the time I was an exempt occupation.
No covid here. I think the many vitamines and suppliments helped. My wife was in and out of hospitals for the 2 years of on/off lockdowns and she did not contract covid either. I pass this along in case it helps the thinking of others.