Topic: COVID-19
“All along, it was clear from randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of medical research – that masks provide little to no benefit in preventing the spread of viruses and might even be counterproductive.”
This is an outright lie. Study after study after credible study has proven that masks help control the spread of viruses. There’s a reason that surgeons and doctors have been wearing them for decades. But fair enough – if you refuse to believe the CDC or the NIH, here’s a Mayo Clinic Study9, a study from PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America10, an article from Yale Medicine that essentially says make your own choices, but wearing a mask in public indoor spaces is the smart thing to do11 if you’re at risk, an article from Johns Hopkins12, and an article from UCSF13, all in support of masking up. The UCSF article goes into the science behind it.
From the PNAS study:
“The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high.”
I’m not sure what the endgame of lying about the efficacy of masks is, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I suspect something akin to “freedom.” To which I say, you’re being asked to wear a mask, not a Nickelback T-shirt. Suck it up and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“Severino writes of the National Institutes of Health, “Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was responsible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments”—in which the genes of humans and animals are mixed, “and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19.”
Yes, the NIH has historically funded research involving fetal tissue from elective abortions (and with consent only after an abortion was already chosen – there are ethical constructs in place.) It’s a subject of debate, but it has also contributed to advances in vaccines, treatments for various diseases, and understanding human development. The Trump administration put restrictions on this in 2019, and the Biden administration lifted them again in 2021. Specific advancements we’ve made from the use of fetal tissue in research and development have included the polio vaccine, the rubella vaccine, and the hepatitis A vaccine, which was derived from a fetus aborted in the 1960’s, as was the rubella vaccine. Also Adenovirus, chicken pox, Ebola, rabies, and shingles vaccines. [Source] The rubella vaccine has prevented literal millions of birth defects and fetal deaths worldwide, and rubella is the leading vaccine-preventable cause of birth defects.
Additionally, fetal tissue has helped us study how congenital disabilities occur, given us insight into HIV/AIDS, and may eventually provide treatments for blindness, spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Zika virus, and more. Fetal tissue has also been used as a source of stem cells, which can develop into a wide variety of tissues, which has broad implications for regenerative medicine and gene therapy, potentially treating osteoarthritis, heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. [Source]
The NIH has also funded some research involving the mixing of human cells with animals, typically to study diseases or develop therapies. They’re referred to as “chimera” experiments. A prominent example of these is the creation of “human-pig chimeras”, which involves injecting human cells into pig embryos, aiming to grow organs like hearts or kidneys that can be transplanted into humans without being rejected due to their partially human cell composition. This is focused on organ shortage issues – a truly pro-life policy.
We have no definitive proof yet of where COVID-19 originated (and how), so the author has no reason to speculate that it had something to do with gain-of-function research.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain – not to increase them.”
This claim suggests that the U.S. food supply chain is already effective and resilient, and that transformation or national-level planning is unnecessary. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in the food supply chain, such as disruptions in meatpacking plants, shortages of labor in agriculture and trucking, and difficulty in shifting food supplies from commercial to retail sectors. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in the system that national coordination or transformation could address, such as improving worker protections, enhancing logistics, or diversifying supply chains.
To say that it’s “critical to remove barriers in the food supply chain” is oversimplifying. While some regulatory flexibility, such as relaxing transportation restrictions or allowing temporary worker visa programs, helped ease supply chain issues during the pandemic, other interventions were critical for public health and safety. For example, the government had to impose health and safety regulations in meatpacking plants to protect workers, many of whom were disproportionately affected by the virus. Additionally, government assistance, such as financial support for farmers and direct aid to food banks, was vital in preventing food shortages.
In fact, Trump’s deregulations of the food supply chain during COVID had some predictably terrible results, and in fact, the Trump administration was accused by House lawmakers of “exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to push [the Administration’s] reckless deregulatory agenda.” [Source]6
More breakdown of this statement in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“As a result of HHS’s having lost its way, U.S. life expectancy, instead of returning to normal after the COVID-19 pandemic, continued to drop precipitously to levels not seen since 1996 with white populations alone losing 7 percent of their expected life span in just one year.”
This is misleading with the facts, and false with the blame.
It is true that U.S. life expectancy has dropped significantly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), life expectancy in the U.S. fell by 1.8 years in 2020, largely due to COVID-19. By 2021, it had dropped further by nearly 2.7 years, marking the sharpest two-year decline since 1921-1923, when the Spanish flu was still affecting the population. (But that still doesn’t represent a 7% drop, as Severino claims.)
U.S. life expectancy has risen every single year of the Biden administration, and opioid overdoses have dropped precipitously.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments. We were told masks were not needed; then they were made mandatory. CDC botched the development of COVID tests when they were needed most. When it was too late, we were told to put our lives on hold for “two weeks to flatten the curve;” that turned into two years of interference and restrictions on the smallest details of our lives.”
The CDC did make some missteps, but calling it “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency” is a significant overstatement.
The CDC, along with other health agencies, had to continuously update its understanding of the virus as new data emerged. Early in the pandemic, the full extent of COVID-19’s transmissibility and lethality was not well understood, leading to frequent updates in guidelines. This is typical in a rapidly evolving situation, though it caused confusion and frustration. Science changes its mind in the face of new evidence.
“Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.” – Brene Brown
We still don’t know the origins of the virus and never have, so for Severino to indicate that the CDC “misjudged” the origins is a lie. They haven’t judged them at all (although zoonotic transmission or a lab leak are leading theories.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“We have learned that when CDC says what people “should” do, it readily becomes a “must” backed by severe punishments, including criminal penalties.”
This is patently false. The CDC’s guidance and recommendations are advisory, not legally binding. The CDC doesn’t make laws. The enforcement of public health measures typically comes from state or local governments, not the CDC itself, which lacks the authority to impose any measures or penalties.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“Investigate, expose, and remediate any instances in which HHS violated people’s rights by: 1. Colluding with Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions during COVID. 2. Colluding with abortion advocates and LGBT advocates to violate conscience-protection laws and the Hyde Amendment.”
He’s indicating here that he believes that LGBTQ+ activists have been pressuring health care providers to provide gender care and abortions, even when they don’t want to, which is ridiculous. Note that he does not demonstrate proof of this. Read the analysis below for the consequences of this recommendation.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.
“Oppose efforts to provide intellectual property waivers for cutting-edge technologies, including for COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, through the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement or any other mechanism.”
Yikes. Intellectual property waivers mean allowing others to use patented technologies without paying the original creators or companies. In the case of vaccines, rescinding these waivers would be incredibly dangerous. Philosophically and ethically, there’s an argument to be made here that technologies impacting public health should be treated as a public good – the idea that developed countries and corporations have a moral obligation to share, particularly in poorer countries. Not doing so would perpetuate global inequality and in this case, perpetuate preventable diseases.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.1: Department of Commerce here.
“Although PPP worked through private lenders and as a result experienced relatively less fraud than EIDL experienced, it is estimated “that at least 70,000 [PPP] loans were potentially fraudulent.””
Is that true? Evidence is mixed on that and still being collected, but there was definitely a ton of fraud.
PPP Stands for Paycheck Protection Program, and was credited for saving millions of jobs during COVID. For more about the fraud claims, see the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.
“Hold the CCP accountable for the COVID-19 virus, which almost certainly originated as a genetically engineered virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and do so through the establishment of a presidential commission or select congressional committee that would investigate the origins of the virus; its various costs, both economically and in human life; and the possible means of collecting damages from the CCP, which are likely to rise to the trillions of dollars.”
This is alarmingly conspiracy-theorist. He knows it, too, by his use of the phrase “almost certainly.” He knows this is an outrageous claim to make. While the possibility of a lab leak has not been ruled out, the theory that COVID-19 was deliberately engineered lacks substantial evidence. Many scientists and health experts argue that the most plausible explanation is still zoonotic transmission from animals to humans.
From a philosophical standpoint, acting on shaky or unproven information raises questions about responsibility – basically, we should only act on things we know for a fact to be true. Holding a government accountable without enough evidence can be seen as an overstep, and it risks spreading false accusations, which could do more harm than good. Ethically, it’s a problem to demand punishment or accountability based on uncertain claims because it could lead to injustice if those claims turn out to be wrong. Jumping to conclusions without proof undermines the core principles of rational thinking and the pursuit of truth.
The virus’s origin, whether zoonotic or the result of a lab accident, also may not necessarily implicate the entire Chinese government or CCP leadership in wrongdoing. From a justice standpoint, assigning collective guilt to an entire nation or government for what could be an accidental event might violate principles of fairness and due process. Additionally, the pandemic’s spread involved complex global factors, including delayed responses from many countries.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.6: Trade here.