World’s leading experts in the fields of Public Health and Medicine disagree with MLG's actions

By Bruce Gillen

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

490 Old Santa Fe Trail Room 400

Santa Fe, NM  87501

Dear Governor Grisham,

The continued shutdowns, the required social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks are unwarranted.  This comes from some of the world’s leading experts in the fields of Public Health and Medicine.  To name a few they are: 

  • Dr. John Ioannidis, a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences

  • Professor Sucharit Bhakdi is a Thai-German specialist in microbiology.[1] He studied at the Universities of BonnGießenMainz and Copenhagen, and at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg. He is a retired Professor of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and from 1991 to 2012 was Head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene

  • Dr. Martin Kulldorff, is a world-renowned biostatistician in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Harvard Medical School. His research centers on developing new statistical methods for disease surveillance, including methods for disease cluster evaluation and the early detection of disease outbreaks. His methods are used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US and almost every country in the world.

  • Dr. Michael Levitt, is the professor of structural biology at Standford University and received a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013 for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems

  • Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Senior Fellow by Courtesy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Professor of Medicine at the Stanford University Medical School, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor by Courtesy of Economics, Director of the Program on Medical Outcomes, Director of the Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, Core faculty member at the Center for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research

  • D. Sunetra Gupta (born March 1965) is a British-Indian infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. She has performed research on the transmission dynamics of various infectious diseases, including malariainfluenza and COVID-19, and has received the Scientific Medal of the Zoological Society of London and the Rosalind Franklin Award of the Royal Society.

In addition to these experts, Dr. David Nabarro who has worked for the Secretary-General of the United Nations and now most recently the Director-General of the World Health Organization to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, has come out against lockdowns as a means for controlling the spread of the Coronavirus. He has appealed to global leaders imploring them to “stop using lockdowns as your primary control method” for the coronavirus. He is clearly bucking the advice given early on in the pandemic, when governments around the world ordered the shuttering of businesses and schools and severely limited travel.  Dr. Nabarro now says that the main product of coronavirus lockdowns worldwide was the creation of more poverty. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he explained to members of the press. See reference here:

Furthermore, when you compare states and nations who have locked down with those who didn’t, one is unable to discern that lockdowns have improved or prevented anything.  Some of the states and nations with the strictest lockdown measures have continued to have some of the highest positive test rates (as opposed to case rates, i.e. actual symptomatic infections). Overall the lockdowns have been an absolute failure at preventing the spread of Covid and related deaths and have only served to create greater human misery and loss of life due to despair.

This is certainly the case in NM.  Your lockdowns are creating greater poverty, wrecking lives and livelihoods, endangering children and the elderly.  Deaths from despair are up in NM along with child abuse.  Those are deaths and child abuse cases that your policies have actually caused.  While you claim you are following the science you are neither in line with science from some of the leading medical experts in the world as I have referenced above, nor with guidance from the World Health Organization.  

Why do these experts I listed above say to end social distancing, mask wearing, and lockdowns?  It’s because the science does not support that we are in the middle of a dangerous pandemic. While positive tests (as opposed to actual infections) are on the rise, the mortality rate has remained flat as shown in the graph below and over 90% of those deaths were due to other causes not from Covid, but with  Covid which is a huge difference.  That fact comes from both the CDC and is repeated by the medical experts I referenced above. Over 90% of the “Covid” deaths were from people who had significant co-morbidities and quite likely had nothing to do with the cause of death yet is still recorded as a Covid death thus inflating the death statistics.   Anecdotally, we have all heard stories of family members or friends who died from an accident or a heart attack or other cause only to find to their surprise a death record stating death from Covid.  

The World Health Organization has published a peer reviewed article referenced here:  Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.20.265892 , by John P A Ioannidis.  This article points out that the median mortality rate for infected individuals under age 70 is 0.05%.  The seasonal flu mortality rate is 0.1%.  The conclusion is this, that the inferred infection fatality rate is significantly lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic. The experts I referenced above all have said that the scientific data indicates that Covid-19 is akin to the seasonal flu and as such warrants no control measures such as lockdowns, school closures, mask wearing and social distancing other than protecting the most weak and vulnerable among us which as human beings should never include social isolation.  It has become internationally accepted that this virus is not as dangerous as originally thought and there is no basis for shutting down anything.  This fact resonates with another way to look at the data. If you take the total deaths published by the CDC from all causes year to date in 2020 and compare that with total deaths in 2019, 2018 and 2017 one is unable to find the extra deaths from Covid-19 in 2020.  We will finish out 2020 with a total death number that will fall under those in 2018.  Granted all the death statistics are not in for 2020, but as the trend stands now, there is no evidence of excess deaths in 2020. 

Now lets look at the positive test results that you are using to justify your draconian measures to get things under control.  The above referenced experts, especially Professor Sucharit Bhakdi take issue with that approach.  He has stated in his book referenced here: Corona, False Alarm?: Facts and FiguresPaperback – October 2, 2020, , that the PCR test is not a valid test for measuring Covid-19 infections.  He also clearly brings this out in the following very worthwhile interview:

. This point was also highlighted in the NY Times article referenced here:

What are the key points being made about the PCR test from these sources referenced above?

  1. The PCR test does not test for the virus.  It tests for viral fragments similar to what is thought to be the Covid-19 virus.  The test has never been standardized to determine the number of cycles it takes to measure a known Covid-19 infection. All the PCR test does is tell you the number of cycles it took for you to turn a sample into a positive.  With enough cycles of sensitivity, 100% of all tests would be positive. 

  2. Most labs run their cycles up to 40 and a few up to 37.  However, with these high of thresholds, the test may only be detecting leftover dead viral fragments that have no connection with a current infection.  Juliet Morrison, a virologist at UC Riverside states “I am shocked that people would think that 40 cycles could represent a positive infection.”  A more reasonable cut-off would be 30 to 35 she added.  The CDC recommends a cut off at 33 cycles and state that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles (see referenced NY Times article above).

  3. A study done on testing in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada found that because their cycles were so high for the PCR test, that up to 90 % of the people testing positive carried barely any virus as reported in the above referenced NY Times article.  In other words, 90% of the 45000 people who tested positive for Covid-19, had no Covid-19 infection.  All were required to be isolated when only 4500 needed to be isolated.  That is criminal.  Is New Mexico any different? 

What are the cycles of sensitivity being run by labs in New Mexico?  Its possible the casedemic in New Mexico is nothing but a phantom resulting from a poor test with the sensitivity thresholds set too high. A better way to get control of this, than ruining people’s lives, would be to standardize all PCR tests to stop at 33 cycles per the CDC guidelines. I suggest you ask your Public Health Director to do some research on this.  You may find the results to be illuminating to say the least. 

So I have shown you from science, that the shutdowns are unwarranted and not recommended, not even by the World Health Organization.  I have also shown you how the PCR test could be causing a casedemic that is nothing but a phantom from a poor test where the cycles of sensitivity are set too high.  Now lets look at masks and social distancing for a moment.  

According to Professor Sucharit Bhakdi in the references I provided above, he states that there is no evidence to support that asymptomatic persons are contagious and are a key driver to the spread of the virus.  Instead we should focus on symptomatic cases.  Why, because asymptomatic people simply do not have enough of the virus to make anyone else sick even if they coughed in their face.  This position is also supported by the World Health Organization. The WHO states that the data supporting transmission by asymptomatic people is weak and inconclusive.   This understanding is also reflected in the following referenced study:

In addition to the weakness of the argument that we need to wear masks to protect us from asymptomatic transmission, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi states that mask wearing in public has never been shown to prevent disease transmission.  However, this is the basis for the mandatory masks and as I have shown there is no scientific merit to a mask mandate.  But, masks can be dangerous for children, the elderly and for those with serious pre-existing conditions.  Furthermore, they cause psychological harm.  Mandatory masks are an abuse against our humanity and especially abusive to children who need to see another person’s face to see what is in their heart.  Masks hinder this very important childhood development need.   

What I have shown you with science, referencing some of the leading global medical experts in public health, medicine, epidemiology and public health policy, is that we have changed the world including the State of New Mexico because of something that is not true.  It is not a deadly pandemic and the casedemic based on the PCR test is a phantom.  This is the science and to quote Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, its time for humans to stop following the pied piper’s call.  It’s time to take off those masks, grasp each other’s hands again, see each other’s heart through our facial reactions and to do no more social distancing.  All of this is utter nonsense.  We do not need a new reality.  We need to begin treating each other as human beings and reject this deeply anti-human agenda perpetrated on a false premise by our governments.  


Bruce Gillen