The “conspiracy theorists” were right again!

This report was drafted by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic of the United States House of Representatives, in the context of a two-year investigation aimed at drawing lessons from the pandemic and preparing the country for future health crises.  

The subcommittee was made up of members of Congress tasked with examining the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and making recommendations for the future.  This subcommittee was chaired by a Republican member, Brad Wenstrup, but involved significant collaboration between Republicans and Democrats. It was set up to examine the handling of the pandemic, identify the administration’s mistakes and propose solutions to respond better to future health crises.

Here is a summary of the main conclusions contained in this final report:

• Origins of COVID-19: The report stresses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably originated from a laboratory accident, specifically at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Gain-of-function research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is said to have been carried out there. There were attempts by the Chinese government and other actors to conceal the true origins of the pandemic.

• Success of Operation Warp Speed: The report describes Operation Warp Speed as a great success (sic), stressing that the vaccines saved millions of lives by reducing the severity of the disease and deaths. It is suggested that this model could be used for future health crises.

On the other hand, the report strongly criticises the handling of COVID-19 vaccine side effects, insisting on the need for transparency, adequate monitoring and fair compensation systems in order to maintain public trust.  The report indeed addresses a few specific points in its criticism of the management of covid vaccination:

• Insufficient transparency on side effects: The report stresses that existing systems, such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), are considered inadequate and lacking in transparency for effectively monitoring and reporting vaccine side effects. It mentions that important safety signals, particularly concerning neurological conditions, may have been missed.

• Lack of accessible data: The report reproaches the health authorities, notably the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for not having transparently shared the data collected on the vaccines. This lack of transparency is said to have contributed to public distrust of the vaccines.

• Vaccine injury compensation systems: The report criticises the American system for compensating vaccine-related injuries, which it considers ineffective, unfair and opaque. It stresses the need for a more robust and transparent compensation programme in order to maintain public trust in vaccination campaigns.

• Demonisation of the discussion on side effects: The report considers that the discussion of side effects and of compensation for vaccine injuries was unfairly stigmatised as “anti-vaccine”. It states that this was counterproductive for public health, preventing an open and honest debate.  

Certain protagonists who were at the helm of various health-related institutions also come in for heavy criticism in the report, which criticises several institutions and their leaders – from Fauci to the WHO, they all get their turn – including:

• The Biden administration: The report questions the Biden administration’s handling of the pandemic, highlighting controversial decisions and communications deemed misleading.
• Public health officials: Criticism is levelled at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for their handling of the pandemic, notably with regard to the promotion of unapproved treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
• The Chinese authorities: The report argues that COVID-19 probably originated from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China, and criticises the Chinese authorities’ handling of the pandemic.

• Fraud and abuse: The pandemic response was marred by widespread fraud, mismanagement and abuse. Billions of dollars intended for economic support programmes, such as the Paycheck Protection Program and aid for small businesses, were diverted or wasted.

The report mentions, for example, that individuals managed to collect unemployment payments to which they were not entitled, using stolen or falsified information. The authorities estimate that billions of dollars were diverted by criminals, including organised groups, exploiting weaknesses in the distribution system.

• Impact of school closures: Prolonged school closures during the pandemic had a lasting impact on generations of American children. The report criticises the groups supposed to protect children’s interests for allowing these closures without a solid scientific basis, which led to significant learning losses and a deterioration in pupils’ mental health.  The closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic had negative consequences for children’s education, notably by widening inequalities. Distance learning could not effectively make up for in-person learning, especially for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds without access to a good Internet connection or adequate equipment.

Pupils also suffered from social isolation, with negative effects on their mental health, including an increase in anxiety and depression. Families, especially mothers, were heavily affected, having to juggle remote working and home schooling, which sometimes led to people giving up work or reducing their working hours.

The report also criticises the lack of clear guidelines for reopening schools, which created an inconsistent response from one region to another. Pupils with special needs suffered particularly from the suspension of support services.

Finally, the report stresses the importance of reopening schools safely and of learning lessons from this crisis to improve the resilience of the education system in the face of future emergencies.

• Freedoms and lockdown measures: The report states that the Constitution cannot be suspended in times of crisis. Restrictions on civil liberties, such as strict lockdowns, generated distrust of public health. The measures taken must be proportionate and based on solid scientific data.

The report highlights the dilemma between protecting public health and preserving individual freedoms during lockdowns. Although the lockdown measures were essential to limit the spread of the virus (sic), they drew criticism regarding infringements of freedoms such as restrictions on travel, religious activities and vaccination mandates. The report advocates a fairer balance in future responses to health crises, favouring less intrusive and more targeted measures.

• Management of relief funds: The report criticises the mismanagement of federal funds intended for the pandemic response. Federal agencies failed to coordinate their efforts and to properly check recipients’ eligibility, which led to a significant waste of public funds.

• Trust and transparency: The pandemic revealed a deep distrust of leaders and public institutions. The report insists on the need to restore trust through integrity, transparency and accountability. It calls for better preparedness for future pandemics, involving a coordinated and impartial response.

• Treatments: The report also addresses the question of COVID-19 treatments that were set aside or controversial. It criticises the way in which certain COVID-19 treatments were marginalised or rejected without a full and transparent scientific debate. It stresses the importance of examining all possible options objectively and without stigmatisation, so as not to limit therapeutic choices in health-crisis situations.  Here are a few salient points on this subject:

• Ivermectin: The report criticises the way certain treatments, such as ivermectin, were treated by the health authorities. It notes that public health officials, notably the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), falsely implied that ivermectin was intended only for animals, minimising its potential as a human treatment. This presentation may have hindered an objective assessment of its efficacy.
• Demonisation of certain treatments: The report mentions that discussion of certain alternative treatments was often stigmatised. Criticism of these treatments was sometimes perceived as politically motivated or intended to limit scientific debate.
• Off-label prescribing: The report stresses that the use of off-label prescriptions was unfairly demonised. This helped erode the relationship of trust between doctors and their patients, making it difficult to explore potential treatments that were not yet widely accepted.
• Transparency and scientific debate: The document insists on the importance of maintaining full transparency and open debate on treatments, even those that arouse controversy. It criticises attempts to stifle discussion or to discredit health professionals proposing alternative approaches.

In conclusion, the Select Subcommittee’s report highlights, in a rather virulent and well-sourced manner, the critical errors in the handling of the pandemic, and proposes ways to improve the response to future health crises.

It insists on the need for a holistic and coordinated approach to protect public health and ensure the efficient use of public resources.

One may wonder whether this report is not “political”, given its Republican majority.  Insofar as this subcommittee had been set in motion by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), with strong Democratic representation, and insofar as all the criticisms are sourced through long-term work made up of interviews, hearings, written requests for information, etc., it would be entirely out of place to regard it as biased or as spreading “fake news”.  Apart from the report’s assertion that the vaccine “saved millions of lives”, all the theses put forward by critics of the health measures, of the vaccine and of the origin of the virus, considered during the pandemic to be “conspiracy theories”, are verified and confirmed by this report.  So the “conspiracy theorists” were right!  This report even shows that it was the US government itself that apparently lied on several occasions and spread “fake news” concerning, for example, the health measures, vaccine side effects, etc.  Will these “conspiracy theorists” one day finally be regarded as whistleblowers?

When will such work be done by our parliaments in the European Union, or even by the European Parliament itself?  Admittedly, we have seen a few superficial snippets from certain politicians (“we could have done better, but we did what we could”), yet a great deal of data was available at every level from the middle of the first wave (for example, concerning alternative treatments), for anyone willing to face it.  For now, there is radio silence, and those responsible – many of whom are still in place – prefer for the time being to keep their blinkers on…  We can understand why.

Read the full report:
AFTER ACTION REVIEW OF THE COVID‑19 PANDEMIC: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward

Select Subcommittee website:
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Sandra for BAM!