Mary Shelley wrote of her “Frankenstein”: “There is something at work in my soul, which I do not understand.” Let me first confess I never attended medical school—and unfortunately the same can be said of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But I am guessing that if a modern-day Shelley decided to use Kennedy as a prototype in a reconfigured Frankenstein 2025, she might take to heart the worm that spent significant time in his brain. And she might write: “There is something at work in my mind, which I do not understand.”
Sadly, for the American people, whether it is something distorting his soul or his mind, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with his many anti-vaccination compatriots, has brought chaos and destruction to us all.
For those who live alongside me in Great Barrington, the once-designated “Best Small Town in America,” we share a larger burden to tell others of the dangers these folks pose. Because those who share RFK Jr.’s irrational desire to make immunization less possible and less available chose to name their manifesto “The Great Barrington Declaration.” Kennedy plucked several of the most influential endorsers of The Great Barrington Declaration to help him dismantle our incredibly successful vaccination program. Some of them are now ensconced in Washington, D.C., actively replacing the competent medical professionals and researchers upon whom we relied. Kennedy and Dr. Jay Battacharya are now ending cutting-edge medical research and dismantling the very public health initiatives designed to protect as many Americans as possible.
The organizers declared:
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
As COVID-19 ravaged the world and chaos reigned, some imagined The Great Barrington Declaration as just one of many good-faith attempts by vaccine skeptics to urge an alternate approach to social distancing, mandatory immunization, school and work closures, and masking. But we have learned an awful lot since then and have had a chance to evaluate their advice. Still, regrettably, all these years later, those responsible for The Great Barrington Declaration are unrepentant and making a coordinated public relations effort to assert that they were right all along:
The Berkshire Eagle followed up on Kulidorff’s claim in a piece entitled “Was the Great Barrington Declaration right, after all?” The Eagle writes:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, one of the three scientists who drafted it in October 2020, argues it was. He says that exactly four years later, time has proven the anti-lockdown paper to be spot-on. Kulldorff took to social media last week to say that both experience and research has proven this document right, given the destruction wrought by a COVID-19 policy that did more harm than good with school shutdowns and social distancing efforts …
Kulidorff is the victim in his story:
The fallout for Kulldorff — and others who went against government COVID dictates — was swift and politically loaded. The Eagle reported on how Bhattacharya even feared for his safety at one point. Even Great Barrington town officials, at the time, tried to distance the town from the document and its scientists. For the pro-vaccine Kulldorff, the damage of the controversy has continued. In March, he says that Harvard Medical School fired him — after he had worked there for decades — for asking for an exemption to their COVID shot rule due to his immune disorder. Other colleagues, he told The Eagle, were given exemptions for various reasons. Kulldorff is now working as a private consultant and doing research …
Kulldorff talked to The Eagle about some of what he believes vindicates the declaration’s stance. Research out of Sweden, he said, which did not lock down citizens and schools, nor have mask mandates, had the lowest ‘excess deaths in the western world.’ Excess deaths are how many more people died from all causes during the pandemic compared to deaths during a normal time.
But the story is far more complicated and goes far beyond personalities. The reality is that The Great Barrington Declaration made claims and urged policies that went far beyond its touted “Focused Protection.” In fact, The Great Barrington Declaration makes clear its opinion that the emergency measures enacted to prevent unnecessary exposure were dangerous:
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
They go on to add:
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach, that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection …
[Emphasis added.]
Dr. Bhattacharya quickly launched an aggressive public relations campaign. He and Eran Bendavid wrote in The Wall Street Journal “Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?” with the subtitle “Current estimates about the Covid-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude”:
If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.
Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate — 2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed … But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million … Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism … a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million.
[Emphasis added.]
All of this deserves our critical attention because, thanks to Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., these are the people now in charge of determining if and when and who will have access to life-and-death vaccines. Not only did the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration actively oppose attempts to control the spread of COVID, but Drs. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya went on the offensive, attacking the reputation and good-faith efforts of immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In a December 12, 2022 opinion piece for Newsweek, they wrote:
Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him. Here are the key issues: Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity … While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young …
What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune — all low-risk populations — causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.
School closures. Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.
Masks. The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection … Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit …The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health.
[Emphasis added.]
According to many in the scientific community, The Great Barrington Declaration got it wrong and its assumptions and conclusions were dangerous. Those critical of the Declaration published a response in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the risks posed by COVID-19 and effective strategies to combat them. Here, we share our view of the current evidence-based consensus on COVID-19.
SARS-CoV-2 spreads through contact (via larger droplets and aerosols), and longer-range transmission via aerosols, especially in conditions where ventilation is poor. Its high infectivity, combined with the susceptibility of unexposed populations to a new virus, creates conditions for rapid community spread. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is several-fold higher than that of seasonal influenza, and infection can lead to persisting illness, including in young, previously healthy people (ie, long COVID). It is unclear how long protective immunity lasts, and, like other seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is capable of re-infecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of re-infection is unknown. Transmission of the virus can be mitigated through physical distancing, use of face coverings, hand and respiratory hygiene, and by avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. Rapid testing, contact tracing, and isolation are also critical to controlling transmission. WHO has been advocating for these measures since early in the pandemic.
[Emphasis added.]
It is important to note that no one chose lockdowns and closures and social distancing and masking lightly. It is clear in retrospect, now that we can see how so many of the authors and advocates of The Great Barrington Declaration have found support from, and employment in the Trump administration, that their political, social, and economic bias toward laissez-faire capitalism and disdain for liberal intervention on behalf of the less advantaged swayed so much of their thinking. But, as the authors of he Lancet article note, all these aggressive measures were the smart and necessary response to a dreadful, lethal virus spread through the air.
They continue: “In the initial phase of the pandemic, many countries instituted lockdowns (general population restrictions, including orders to stay at home and work from home) to slow the rapid spread of the virus. This was essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission following lockdown. Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems …
This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable. This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.
Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of healthcare systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future …
Effective measures that suppress and control transmission need to be implemented widely … Continuing restrictions will probably be required in the short term, to reduce transmission and fix ineffective pandemic response systems, in order to prevent future lockdowns. The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions …
Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.
[Emphasis added.]
Considering the power anti-vaxers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the supporters of The Great Barrington Declration now have, the stakes for us all are considerable. The reality is the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration were wrong in so many critical ways. The virus didn’t restrict itself to infecting the elderly.
Unfortunately, in Truskmumpia these days, there has been a marked lag in gathering and publicizing statistics about COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, but we know that all sections of our population were at risk. This might underestimate total fatalities, but here are the CDC’s latest numbers of casualties for which COVID was listed as the cause of death:
Remember what Dr. Bhattacharya told us: “a 20,000- or 40,000-death epidemic is a far less severe problem than one that kills two million.”
As for the natural immunity promised by The Great Barrington Declaration, as of December 14, 2024, there were more than 103 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States. And people continue to die from COVID even now:
As for the critical importance of vaccines, well, the data is convincing. As early as 2020, statistics revealed that those who were vaccinated were far less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID. Here are some relevant studies.
In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose.
“Latest CDC Data: Unvaccinated Adults 97 Times More Likely to Die from COVID-19 Than Boosted Adults”:
As of early December, unvaccinated adults were about 97 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people who had received boosters, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data … The CDC says that, as of Dec. 4, the weekly COVID-19 death rate among unvaccinated adults was 9.74 per 100,000 population, and the rate was 0.1 per 100,000 population for people 18 and older who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose.
“COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness, February 1, 2024”:
People who received the updated COVID-19 vaccine were 54% less likely to get COVID-19 during the four-month period from mid-September 2023 to January 2024. Updated COVID-19 vaccine boosts waning immunity. The virus that causes COVID-19 is always changing, and protection from infection or COVID-19 vaccination declines over time. Receiving an updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine can restore and provide enhanced protection against the variants currently responsible for most infections and hospitalizations in the United States.
You might be shocked to discover the toll COVID-19 is still taking on our communities, that 400,000 Americans were hospitalized with COVID and 50,000 died during the very short period of September 29, 2024, to June 7, 2025. By the way, have you heard Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. acknowledge this continuing tragedy? Here is the most recent CDC data:
What was it that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told us: “Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” In its study of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations from 2020 to 2024, the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote:
About 234,000 children under age 18 were hospitalized with confirmed cases of COVID-19 from fall 2020 to spring 2024, according to AAP analysis of data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) … The largest peak was in winter 2022 during the omicron surge, with 6,527 child hospitalizations the week of Jan. 15. In the final week of the report, April 27, 2024, 310 children with a confirmed COVID-19 case were admitted, among the lowest levels reported during the pandemic.
[Emphasis added.]
The authors of The Great Barrington Declaration never accounted for the grave danger we face and our children face from Long COVID. As pediatrician Kimberly Giuliano, M.D., of the Cleveland Clinic notes: “We really don’t know where long COVID comes from … Kids can also experience long COVID symptoms.” Dr. Giuliano says the most common ones seen in children include: fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and mood swings.
Contrary to the assumptions made by Dr. Bhattacharya, there is a higher percentage of children with COVID now developing Long COVID than the 15 to 18 percent we have seen in adults:
In a study titled “Post–COVID-19 Symptoms and Conditions Among Children and Adolescents — United States, March 1, 2020–January 31, 2022,” the CDC found the following: “During March 1, 2020–January 31, 2022, a total of 781,419 patients aged 0–17 years with COVID-19 and 2,344,257 patients aged 0–17 years without COVID-19 were identified …”
The study reports:
The median age of both patients with and without COVID-19 was 12 years … Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely than were those without to develop the following assessed post-COVID symptoms: smell and taste disturbances … circulatory signs and symptoms … malaise and fatigue … and musculoskeletal pain … Patients with COVID-19 were also more likely than were those without to develop the following assessed post-COVID conditions: acute pulmonary embolism … myocarditis and cardiomyopathy … venous thromboembolic event … acute and unspecified renal failure … type 1 diabetes … coagulation and hemorrhagic disorders … type 2 diabetes … and cardiac dysrhythmias …
Statista only has a breakdown of COVID deaths by age as of June 14, 2023, but it was apparent by 2023 that while COVID, understandably, was killing the most vulnerable, the elderly, people of all ages were dying:
As for their fierce desire for us to adopt Sweden’s herd immunity COVID policy and Dr. Bhattacharya’s nasty attacks on Dr. Fauci for not following Sweden’s lead, well, Nele Brusselaers’ study in Nature magazine, “Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden,” reveals problems with the policy and the unnecessary pain experienced by the Swedish people:
The Public Health Agency was systematically incorrect in their risk assessments, and ignored scientific evidence on suppression strategies, airborne transmission, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread, face masks, children and COVID-19, ‘long-COVID’ … and insufficiently implemented and adapted their pandemic response plan, which was constructed for an influenza pandemic. It seems misinformation or incomplete information were communicated deliberately by the authorities to the public, facilitating the spread of the virus in the society … Although the Public Health Agency took an autocratic lead in the handling of the pandemic, this agency lacks competence in politics, economy, social and behavioural sciences, ethics, and others —competences, which were not complemented sufficiently elsewhere.
[Emphasis added.]
Dr. Martin Kulldorff made the case to The Berkshire Eagle that Sweden’s so called success in limiting excess deaths proved their point. But even if you credit the validity of that statistic, a far more holistic analysis reveals that beyond governmental claims and the decision not to shutdown, like everyone else, the Swedes suffered mightily during the epidemic. In fact, Sweden, too, experienced many of the problems the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration attribute to how we handled the epidemic.
The authors of “Psychological impact of COVID-19 in the Swedish population: Depression, anxiety, and insomnia and their associations to risk and vulnerability factors” write:
The purpose of this study was therefore to examine the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health and wellbeing during the ongoing pandemic in Sweden … Our findings show significant levels of depression, anxiety, and insomnia in Sweden, at rates of 30%, 24.2%, and 38%, respectively. The strongest predictors of these outcomes included poor self-rated overall health and a history of mental health problems. The presence of COVID-19 symptoms and specific health and financial worries related to the pandemic also appeared important.
Conclusions: The impacts of COVID-19 on mental health in Sweden are comparable to impacts shown in previous studies in Italy and China. Importantly, the pandemic seems to impose most on the mental health of those already burdened with the impacts of mental health problems. These results provide a basis for providing more support for vulnerable groups, and for developing psychological interventions suited to the ongoing pandemic and for similar events in the future.
I have recently written about the dreadful impact two of Donald Trump’s henchwomen, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Norm and Attorney General Pam Bondi, have had by dismantling constitutional protections of due process. You can read about what they have done in “Equal opportunity stupidity” parts one, two, and three.
But what has happened to our heathcare and medical research is just as frightening. In a few short years, captained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the fringe minority has moved from savagely criticizing those public servants who have tried to protect us to seizing power from them. Donald Trump has appointed one of the founders of The Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Jay Bhattarcharya, to head the CDC’s National Institute of Health (NIH), and Kennedy appointed another, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, as one of eight people to replace the 18 qualified experts he just recently replaced at the critically important Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Another Declaration supporter, Dr. Cody Meissner, has also been appointed to ACIP.
Nature magazine, in its article titled “Who is on RFK Jr’s new vaccine panel — and what will they do?,” explains:
Critics fear that anti-vaccine leader’s picks for crucial committee will be a ‘disaster for public health’ … An emergency-room doctor, critics of COVID-19 vaccines and an obstetrician who advises a supplement company are among the advisers handpicked by vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the head of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to provide advice on vaccines to the federal government.
Kennedy announced his new roster for the influential Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on 11 June — just two days after he fired all 17 of its previous members and accused the ACIP of ‘malevolent malpractice’. The ACIP advises US public-health officials as to who should receive approved vaccines, and when. Those recommendations are then often used to guide whether public and private health-insurance programmes will pay for the vaccines.
Kennedy has pledged that the ACIP will re-evaluate the vaccine ‘schedule’ for children — the list of which vaccines children should get and when they should get them. This week’s shakeup of the committee is ‘a major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines,’ Kennedy said in a post on the social media platform, X.
The committee is scheduled to meet June 25 to discuss vaccines for Covid-19, cytomegalovirus, HPV, flu and other diseases. According to the Federal Register, recommendation votes are scheduled for multiple vaccines, including for the Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines at no cost to those whose parents or guardians may not be able to afford them.
I will have more to say about those responsible for The Great Barrington Declaration in the weeks to come, but I want to highlight the great significance of our collective failures to truly confront the dangers of COVID-19 and how important it is to learn these lessons for the epidemic surely to come. We are still learning about the aftereffects of coming down with COVID and the price being paid by those with Long COVID. Here are the results of two recent studies:
Medical Net News reported on a recent study titled “Association of SARS-CoV-2 With Health-related Quality of Life 1 Year After Illness Using Latent Transition Analysis,” in which “researchers conducted a 12-month-long longitudinal registry study of more than 1,450 patients reporting COVID-like symptoms (with approximately 25% COVID negative) to illustrate long COVID’s impacts on their health-related quality of life (HRQoL).”
They explained:
‘Long COVID’ is an umbrella term that describes COVID-like health problems that develop or persist for weeks, months, or even years following initial infection symptoms. These conditions are often debilitating and result in significant HRQoL costs. Estimates from prior research suggest that up to 36% of all COVID survivors experience some form of long COVID, highlighting its substantial public health burden and emphasizing the need for an improved understanding of its risk factors and recovery trajectories.
Unfortunately, long COVID is a relatively novel condition, with most of the existing literature focusing on symptom prevalence in clinically confirmed acute SARS-CoV-2 (COVID+) patients. The impacts of long COVID on various areas of HRQoL, including social, cognitive, physical, and mental, remain unknown. HRQoL is a critical metric for monitoring patient recovery and guiding interventions, particularly in chronic conditions such as long COVID.
Furthermore, previous research has neglected SARS-CoV-2 negative (COVID-) patients, even those reporting chronic long COVID-like symptoms. This lack of between-group comparisons (COVID+ vs. COVID-) makes it unclear whether long-term deficits are unique to COVID-19 or reflect recovery patterns from undiagnosed respiratory illness …
The authors emphasize the importance of clinical monitoring and care for all individuals recovering from COVID-like illnesses, not only those with confirmed COVID-19, and recommend that healthcare systems prepare for prolonged rehabilitation needs across a broader patient population.
BMC Neurology is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on neurological disorders. On June 14, 2025, they published “Long-term neurological and cognitive impact of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis in over 4 million patients.” The authors explained:
Neuropsychiatric symptoms emerged early in the COVID-19 pandemic as a key feature of the virus, with research confirming a range of neuropsychiatric manifestations linked to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the persistence of neurological symptoms in the post-acute and chronic phases remains unclear. This meta-analysis assesses the long-term neurological effects of COVID-19 in recovered patients, providing insights for mental health service planning. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, and CENTRAL, up to March 22, 2024. Studies evaluating the prevalence of long-term neurological symptoms in COVID-19 survivors with at least six months of follow-up were included. Pooled prevalence estimates, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was assessed.
This is what they found:
The prevalence rates for the different symptoms were as follows: fatigue 43.3% … memory disorders 27.8% … cognitive impairment 27.1% … sleep disorders 24.4% … concentration impairment 23.8% … headache 20.3% … dizziness 16% … stress 15.9% … depression 14.0% … anxiety 13.2% … and migraine 13% …
They concluded:
Neurological symptoms are common and persistent in COVID-19 survivors. This meta-analysis highlights the significant burden these symptoms place on individuals, emphasizing the need for well-resourced multidisciplinary healthcare services to support post-COVID recovery.
Sadly, as far as I am concerned, The Great Barrington Declaration lives. And because those who brought it to life have now ascended to powerful positions in Truskmumpia and will surely set public health policy, we will lose lives because of it.
