Academia has finally arrived and found the courage to remind public health policymakers of fundamental principles essential to protecting the health of all citizens. Ideology and politics have no place in science. Yet, public health officials and academic institutions have suppressed their colleague’s observations and misrepresented critical pandemic data. As a result, opportunities to share insightful perspectives were lost and fear dominated. Media complied as it hyped both that fear and myopic doctrine, while revealing an incredible lack of curiosity.

On Oct. 4, three epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford met in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to present and sign a declaration for a focused protection pandemic strategy. The declaration represents a proper blending of ethics, viral research, and reclaims traditional public health methods. Five days after the declaration was released, it gained signatures from 6,252 medical and public health scientists, 13,016 medical practitioners and 177,039 members of the general public.

The website appears to be carefully vetting the signatures of the declaration since there have been saboteurs of the website, apparently to discredit the level of professional support. However, science is not forced consensus or controlled by bureaucrats. It needs to be free to follow the evidence.

Public health institutions on the international, national, state and local levels have betrayed a critical trust when they lost sight of their primary purpose to advocate for the health of the entire population. Instead of prioritizing a goal of reducing total harm during this pandemic, they chased metrics of questionable value and misallocated resources. Policy directives have been promoted on weak observational evidence while higher quality research that demonstrated critical viral characteristics lingered in preprint status; especially when it did not confirm existing policy bias.

History will judge our academic and public health institutions’ response during this pandemic harshly. During a time when our country needed unity, we received harmful and divisive policy mandates.

The Great Barrington Declaration represents a much more reasonable and overdue approach to respond to this virus. In March, COVID-19 was endemic in all 50 states, and the opportunity for containment was over. Viral age-severity differentials were obvious. We appealed to our public health authorities and political leaders to consider a more targeted approach to mitigate viral transmission to our most vulnerable. We did not receive a formal response to our suggestions. What we did receive were OSHA and OHA inspections of our facilities and protocols.

Our communities have waited too long for our public health institutions to follow the science over speculative modeling. The Focused Protection approach is unanimously supported by the Board of Directors at Evergreen Family Medicine. Critics of the declaration have suggested that it does not provide enough details of implementation.

My response to them is to follow Sweden’s policies. As of this past Thursday, according to, Sweden had fewer deaths per capita than the U.S. and approximately half the number of deaths per 1 million residents (584) than New Jersey (1,838), New York (1,719), Massachusetts (1,403), Connecticut (1,273), Louisiana (1,228), Rhode Island (1,085) and Mississippi (1,059). Sweden’s population is more than 10 million people, but the nation has experienced fewer than two deaths per day from COVID-19 for the past 10 weeks.

If you agree with the declaration, please sign it to encourage your public health officials and politicians to “follow the science.” The link to the declaration and 30-minute interview by an outstanding video journalist with the three politically diverse scientists can be found here:

The link can also be found on the Evergreen Family Medicine website at: under the COVID response tab.

Dr. John Powell, M.D., is a family medicine doctor at Evergreen Family Medicine in Roseburg.

React to this story:


(22) comments


The more I think about this column, the angrier I become. Here we have all of the CREDIBLE epidemiologists and infection control experts pleading with people to wear masks, avoid crowds, wash hands, and maintain social distances.

Then we have this guy, a physician for crying out loud, spouting this irresponsible and ineffective theory, playing into this whole herd immunity nonsense, as if he was Ammon Bundy.

Well this physician is entitled to his opinion of course. But that the News Review should publish it in a place where county commissioners and state senators are running around without masks and blabbering about "freedom" to make your own choice about wearing a mask is unconscionable.

Rant over.

Robert Heilman

Personally, I found this to be very poorly written, nearly incomprehensible in fact. I did figure out that this doctor seems to favor "herd immunity' but his vague and abstract manner of writing was definitely a hindrance to effectively getting his point across.


Agreed.. Hard to find his points in the word salad.


Dr. Powell: "Ideology and politics have no place in science."

Pres. Trump: "Fauci is a disaster," and the other scientific advisers are "idiots," while he (Trump) is a "very stable genius," who had a MIT prof as an uncle, so he, Trump has a natural ability in science, and the doctors are all amazed at how much he knows.

TL/DR version: Trump has no place in science. Or the White House.

Katherine Vejtasa

Most controversially, the herd immunity strategy outlined in a document called the "Great Barrington Declaration," which calls for allowing the virus to spread among lower-risk, younger people to build up immunity while having “focused protection” on older, high-risk people.

Many leading experts have denounced that approach as leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths as the virus circulates freely. Tom Frieden, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimated last week that the herd immunity strategy would lead to at least 500,000 more deaths.






Here is a thoughtful critique:


The New York Times piece is by John Barry who wrote the book about the 1918 influenza epidemic. The book, by the way, is interesting and available at the library. Mr. Barry is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History."


Next up from the News Review- a guest column extolling the evils of vaccination. /s


Here is a nice comparison of Sweden's and other countries' march of death:


In fairness, that Barrington Bull pucky did contain one germ (ahem!) of truth: “We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity”, it stated. And it is true: for example, rabbits in Australia were infected with a myxovirus; it killed 99% of the population, at which point it reached herd immunity. 1% survived, and reproduced. Of course, with regards to some diseases and some populations, stabilization occurs at zero survivors.

Look: we know that SARS-CoV-2 is not going to kill us all--or even 99%--or even 10%. But achieving herd immunity through infection rather than immunization will cost America a few million lives. Why kill people when a vaccine (actually, maybe a dozen vaccines) loom so close? And when masks, distancing, washing and testing will save lives until then?


This is utterly bogus. Let's compare two exceeding similar countries, Sweden and Norway. Sweden, population 10,343,403; positives 103,200; dead 5918 = 57.2/100,000. Norway, population 5,432,580; positives 16,429; dead 278 = 5.1/100,000. A Norwegian has had less than 1/10th the probability of dying of COVID-19 than has had a Swede. Or an American. This Barrington nonsense is to epidemiology as the Carrington event was to electronics. Barrington:epidemiology::Carrington:electronics


The website promotes something called herd immunity.

Herd immunity with a disease such as COVID-19 requires that 70 percent of the population become immune. With a current population of 330 million, this means 230 million Americans must contract the disease, recover, and become immune. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on whether those recovering from COVID-19 gain long-term immunity.

Case mortality in the U.S. is currently 2.9 percent. Assuming that this death rate applies to those Americans contracting the disease, over 6 million of us must die.

The news Review is irresponsible in printing this guest column.


Allow me to provide a quick summary: You should trust my appeal to authority ... blahblahblah ... mostly old people die so why should the rest of us be inconvenienced ... blahblahblah ... this is science not politics ... blahblahblah ... the federal response in the USA has been a complete cluster so we should follow Sweden ... blahblahblah ... not even going to mention long term disability or questions about reinfection ... blahblah.


You forgot the part: Do what I say because many more people will get sick and the funeral homes and I will make a lot more money.


Oh, Mike, I forgot a lot of things. For example, the Great Barrington Declaration was put out by a Libertarian economic think tank three weeks before an important national election. That, in itself, makes it a political declaration, backed by some academic types, rather than a sincere scientifically thought-out recommendation for the public health of the nation. A Libertarian think tank does not get to call itself non-political any more than if the recommendations came from the Republican National Committee in support of President Trump's re-election.

If the writers of the Barringtion Declaration wanted to make the biggest impact to help America cope with the pandemic they would have waited until the day after the election. That way they could avoid being branded political hacks hiding behind academic credentials. Their findings could have had a much more meaningful impact on the national discussion. But, no. The Libertarian economic think tank decided to come out with their version of an "October Surprise" instead.

Interesting side note: The city of Great Barrington is denouncing the declaration from the Libertarian think tank located there. They intend to continue with covid precautions. It just goes to show, you can't always choose your neighbors.




mworden: exactly. The group behind this also does tobacco denialism and AGW denialism.


"History will judge our academic and public health institutions’ response during this pandemic harshly. During a time when our country needed unity, we received harmful and divisive policy mandates." And we all know why. I believe that one person most certainly will be judged harshly for being the cause. Academic and public health institutions were knee-capped from having any credibility for months while one person's mealy-mouthed agenda did nothing but cause confusion.

And then, there's this:

It seems all herd immunity means is that we lose our beloved elders and worry about what conditions our children will suffer during their lifetime. And if nothing else let us please never again allow our leader to put us in such life threatening harm solely on their own mental incompetence.

Oh yes, and:





Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.