The practice of evidence-based medicine, founded on years of sound clinical research, is pivotal to physicians seeking effective and safe care for their patients. The recognized standards of credible clinical research are academic honesty, transparency, accountability, objectivity, accurate diagnostic tests, benefit risk analysis, statistical analysis, participant consent, and academic dialogue. Using these established standards in academic research as a metric, the lockdown approach to COVID-19 taken by governments over the past year can be characterized as troubling, chaotic, and misleading.
When the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the arrival of a world pandemic of COVID-19 virus early last year, countries began to lockdown entire populations, closing down small businesses, churches, sports facilities, and anything deemed “nonessential” by public health officials. In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford announced the provincial lockdowns and indicated that these were essential to contain the COVID spread and avoid depleting hospital resources, such as ICU beds and ventilators. Political leaders referred to “computer modelling” projections of catastrophic death rates into the millions. We were shown horrific images of people literally dying in the streets surrounded by survivors in Hazmat biohazard suits. While this approach— the quarantining of healthy people—seemed aggressive and unusual, we were assured that it would be a two week period to “flatten the curve” of COVID spread. New terms like social distancing and slogans like “stay home, save a life” became the mantra of political leaders and mainstream media. Leaders reassured us that our short-term pain would result in long term gain in combating this horrific new lethal virus.
The credibly of the lockdown approach began to soften in the ensuing weeks, as these new emergency measures were being renewed in spite of a much lower death toll than projected—the models had grossly exaggerated projected deaths from COVID. This is when we began to realize that public health leaders and politicians were relying heavily on suspicious diagnostic tests and exaggerated computer modelling programs, rather than credible established clinical research principles. These flawed tools fueled the fear narrative and rationale for the never-ending lockdowns of the healthy population. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the lockdowns, it seems prudent to critically appraise these measures using accepted clinical research and practice standards.
Academic Honesty and Transparency
The foundational test used to promote the lockdown of the healthy population is the PCR test invented by Dr. Kary Mullis. In fact, this is not a diagnostic test for COVID-19 or any other coronavirus; it merely detects RNA fragments, which could be present from dead viruses from past infections. As Mullis himself said, “If you run it long enough, you can find almost anything in anybody, and it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.” Even the Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Barbara Yaffe, admitted to 50% false positive test results using the PCR test. At 35 cycles, the rate used by most provincial labs, the false positive rate has been found to be as high as 97%. In spite of this admission by government officials, mainstream media continues to equate PCR test results with “cases,” leading to the ongoing justification for lockdowns. Worse yet, governments have promoted PCR testing even in asymptomatic adults, and recently even in asymptomatic children. In clinical research, this misleading information would be considered academic dishonesty by peer reviewers. Authors who are fully aware of submitting false data would have their work discredited and rejected for publication. Hence, using research ethical standards, the government’s lockdown project should have been cancelled long ago due to the false information on COVID “cases.”
Accountability
The concept of lockdowns and social distancing originated from a high school science project by Laura Glass. She designed a computer model using the lockdown measures to estimate the theoretical drop in viral transmission during the Spanish Flu. Her father took the project to politicians, who decided to implement it for future pandemics. This untested high school project became the tool used to shut down healthy people’s businesses, places of worship, and places of sports therapy.
There are two concerns regarding accountability for the government’s stubborn adherence to generalized lockdowns. Firstly, we really have no idea what these “cases” represent except a high proportion of false positive PCR test results; there is no information given on presence of symptoms, degree of symptoms, hospitalizations, or deaths among these “cases.” Further, we are told of burdened ICU beds and emergency departments, yet we’ve had contradictory reports of under capacity in those same hospitals from physicians and freelance reporters.
The second concern regarding accountability is the disproportionate targeting of certain groups with no convincing supportive evidence. A barbecue restaurant owner is taken to jail by a massive police force, and his business is forcibly shut down by the Officer of Health, while Costco hosts hundreds of people down the street from his restaurant. A church is placed in strict lockdown while liquor and pot stores are left to carry on with business as usual. Sports arenas and gyms, which promote people’s physical and mental wellbeing, are closed during lockdowns while fast food restaurants are left open. The groups facing the more severe restrictions and closures are offered no specific data or accountability to justify the decisions, leaving them confused, frustrated, and in despair.
Objectivity
First and foremost, an objective evaluation of any coronavirus—including COVID-19—demonstrates that healthy people under the age of 60 have an estimated 99.9% recovery rate. For some reason, this fact is lost in the daily media narrative, and has even been downplayed in recent changes to WHO literature on population immunity. It is suddenly suggested that immunity can only be achieved through widespread vaccination of the population. This is neither objective nor academically accurate, based on decades of established immunology research.
Secondly, there is the daily obsession with the rising “cases” of COVID-19, and this has now progressed to the reporting of allegedly more lethal strains. We are not told how these variants are diagnosed. The PCR test is incapable of making any specific diagnosis, and viral isolation and culture of COVID-19 and its variants is rarely—if ever—reported. Further, viral variants are generally weaker and less lethal that the original strain. The narrative of a rise and extreme danger of this virus and its variants seems to be the only information worthy of publishing by mainstream media. Many have commented that it feels like the media is actually cheering for the virus.
Many have commented that it feels like the media is actually cheering for the virus.
Thirdly, the issue of masks for the healthy has also undergone little objective scrutiny. For centuries in infectious disease history, there has never been evidence that healthy people can transmit viruses, and hence no physician has previously recommended masks for them. The accepted standard was always to wear a mask if you have symptoms or if you are caring for someone with symptoms. Suddenly, the healthy are treated as though they’re actually sick, allegedly necessitating masking and quarantine. Professional organizations specializing in mask design and effectiveness have uniformly argued against mask use for prevention of coronaviruses, given the permeability of the tiny viral particles. In spite of this objective evidence, governments now mandate masks for the healthy, and question the ethics of anyone challenging the directive.
Diagnostic Tests
While we see the inappropriate labelling of “cases” from PCR test results, very little is found in the literature on specific COVID-19 viral isolation, purification or culture. This is considered the gold standard test for viral diagnosis, yet it appears elusive in the literature and media reporting. There has been little to no investigative journalism in search of more data from this most reliable test in virology.
Benefit Risk Analysis
This is foundational to clinical research and the practice of medicine, yet it is one of the most lacking elements of the lockdown management of COVID-19. From day one in medical school, we heard the importance of the “do no harm” approach; foundational to this is measuring the risk versus benefit of any medical treatment. It is astounding to see such a one-sided biased approach to locking down the healthy population. It is presented as the only option to manage COVID-19 by most governments, with little to no regard for its harm. In fact, there has been immense health harm from the lockdowns, including the health harm from economic devastation itself. Atlas et al., from the Hoover Institute, evaluated actuarial data on lost years of life related to lost income compared to lost years of life from COVID-19 itself over a two-month period. They found that lost years of life resulting from sudden loss of income were far greater than lost years of life from COVID-19 itself. Furthermore, the following conditions have substantially worsened with lockdowns: mental illness, suicides, substance abuse, and domestic violence. In addition, we’ve seen a significant decline in cancer screening, cardiac care, and cancer surgery.
Furthermore, the following conditions have substantially worsened with lockdowns: mental illness, suicides, substance abuse, and domestic violence.
Another interesting phenomenon is the negative health impact of suppressing religious gatherings. There are many studies in the medical literature—mostly from Duke University—that have demonstrated a definitive connection between religion, spirituality, and health. There are peer reviewed objective papers, many of whom were published by Dr. Harold Koenig, demonstrating improvements in mental and physical health outcomes when people gather together to worship. Yet Canadian provincial governments have deemed churches as nonessential, closing or severely restricting their worship services as part of the generalized lockdowns. Police and bylaw officers have been actively ticketing pastors and attendees during the lockdowns. One Pastor, James Coates, was even jailed for leading a service at GraceLife Church in Alberta.
The government’s myopic lockdown obsession has essentially ignored or downplayed these catastrophic consequences of the lockdown. They persist in their one-sided approach as though COVID-19 is the only condition affecting the population’s health.
Statistical Analysis
In most credible medical research, statisticians are involved in the data analysis to determine whether favourable treatment results are statistically significant. Without a reliable diagnostic test, one cannot possibly determine the effect of the lockdowns on the transmission of COVID-19.
Participant Consent
In modern western medicine, the standard for health care providers is to give full disclosure of benefits and risks of treatment before obtaining consent. The only exception would be in cases of a life-threatening emergency when the patient is unconscious and incapable of providing consent. Under the rationale of keeping us safe, governments have forced policies on us with neither full disclosure nor consent. They have unilaterally decided for us when we must wear a medical device, if and when we can work, when we can go to church, when we can attend sports facilities, and when we can gather with family and friends.
Academic Dialogue
The door has essentially closed for any meaningful academic dialogue during the past year. Any physician raising serious concerns over locking down the healthy population has faced ridicule, defamation, and complaints to professional regulatory bodies. A colleague faced a College complaint for citing scientific peer-reviewed papers on social media; the papers concluded that lockdowns cause more harm than benefit. This colleague is not alone, as there are over 70,000 physicians who would like to engage in an objective academic dialogue regarding the lockdown management for COVID-19; there is little to no media attention to these physicians representing the Barrington Declaration. In it, the physicians have strongly recommended a Focused Protection Model to target the most vulnerable and end the harmful lockdowns of the healthy. They are all but muted in this government and media narrative.
There are over 70,000 physicians who would like to engage in an objective academic dialogue regarding the lockdown management for COVID-19.
In conclusion, the application of accepted standards of clinical research to the current government lockdown measures for COVID-19 and its variants demonstrates many areas of concern. Instead of using well established evidence-based practices, politicians have spent the past year convincing healthy people that they may actually be sick and spreading disease, thereby mandating them to cover their faces, stop earning a living, stop going to church, and abandon their social life. This approach has led to a troubling and chaotic toll on people’s lives and health. Given the lack of truthful diagnostic data, the absence of supportive evidence for lockdowns, and the widespread harm to non-consenting healthy adults, government leaders would be wise to end the lockdowns for the healthy population immediately; instead, maximal resources should be dedicated to protect those who are most vulnerable.
