>Gloating and happy to see discrimination at work.
>
>
>Meanwhile more scientists speaking truth. Maybe this one
>ya'll will have an answer to

Answer to what? That’s A LOT TO respond to. You’re essentially flooding people with a torrent of claims, and folding your arms on some “checkmate”.

Honest question: you personally investigated each claim?

>Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus
>cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to
>fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no
>mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear
>that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions,
>and even the media is already having a hard time covering your
>shame.

I mean, everything up to this point is of no value at all.

>You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that
>fade by themselves, despite years of observations and
>scientific knowledge.

Years? As in..... two? Or how many years?

We’re two years into this pandemic. Moreover, this is a rather broad statement.

You insisted on attributing every
>decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false
>propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you
>defeated it, and again and again and again.

I haven't seen any mainstream media in the U.S make this claim.

Perhaps this is true of Israeli media, but so what?

That one government- even most, even all- claims victory, all this would mean is that we can observe that this claim was false. Big whoop.

>You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite
>your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic
>Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

Here’s a problem: I googled this exact phrase and it’s nowhere on page one. Nothing with that exact name comes up, and I spot checked page 26 on a few, and turned up nothing supporting this claim.

And this is the only citation present.

>You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a
>vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing
>that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be
>infected than recovered people.


>You refused to admit that the
>vaccinated are contagious despite the observations.

I haven’t seen this reported to be otherwise here jn the U.S. My understanding is that this is the consensus. More to the point, there are pro vax people in this very post- myself included- fully acknowledging this.

Again, perhaps the Israeli government or others is guilty of this, but even then, it’s hardly some gotcha! Moment.

Based on
>this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination —
>and you failed in that as well.

We saw Sweden’s heard immunity strategy produce middling results, at best

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-14/sweden-a-covid-success-story-or-a-failure-maybe-neither

Thing is, they are now aggressively vaxxed, with an aggressive passport and curfew policy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2022/01/10/sweden-introduces-new-covid-19-rules-the-situation-requires-it/amp/

Further, again, i cant speak to what hes saying in terms if Israel, but here in the US, large numbers of unvaxxed are a demonstrable problem:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Once again, a critical mistake the antivaxx crowd- and this scientist, it seems, is making, is that transmission, in and of itself, is not the biggest problem.

Severity of infection is. The fact that unvaxxed people are significantly more like to have much more severe symptoms bears this out.

>You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens
>of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than
>for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the
>knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

Again, this is preaching to the choir, as far as I know. As far as I’ve seen, the existence of these higher risk groups is often cited as a big reason to get vaccinated!

Moreover, this is stated as if those higher risk groups exist in a vacuum, apart from lower risk groups. That simply isn’t the case.

And those lower risk groups, are more likely to take more risks with this- making them likely to contract, and spread it TO those high risk groups. As i said earlier, severity of infection is a critical issue for the unvaxxed. And those higher risk groups remain at high risk if they're surrounded by unvaccinated people, even those at a lower risk rate.

>You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed
>by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or
>other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander,
>distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and
>people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant
>training for pandemic management (physicists as chief
>government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media
>personnel, and so on).

A quick wiki of the Barrington Declaration turns up a dense mountain of criticism, with plenty of other scientists shooting it down. Much of this makes more sense than the heavy optimism of the Barrington Declaration.

It’s not inaccurate to say that the BD and the criticism shown in the wiki represent a decent summary of any argument you and I would have in this subject.

Anyhow, this is a lot. Below this, i see a handful of claims i have thoughts on, but i iust don't have the time or energy to parse out, read, find sources to provide substance for my thoughts, etc.

But that goes to my jnitial point here. This was a data dump, and a lot to expect anyone to spend any real time forming any semblance of a reasonable response.

Frankly, for that reason, it begs for a flippant rebuke more than thoughtful discourse. My reply to the BD portion sums it ip though: this letter does little to advance the discussion.