Confusion and Clarity: Excerpts from House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Report

When a country has abrogated the long-accepted human rights of its citizens on a vast scale, pushed a novel class of pharmaceuticals on its people, and had many of its state governors rule by emergency decree, it seems sensible to look back and assess whether it was all a good idea. 

A sensible country would also carefully review new policies that resulted in a rapid increase in wealth inequality and a prolonged jump in excess mortality. While many countries are still struggling to find the maturity to do so, the United States House of Representatives released the findings of its 2-year review into the Covid-19 pandemic on December 4^th.

Titled the “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic – The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward,” it was intended to do just that – learn lessons. Its 520 pages range over multiple topics with a variety of depth, and a short overview can be found here. It spends many pages, reasonably, on the actions of key senior public health officials to mislead the public and governments. It notes the fully predictable health, economic, and societal harms of lockdown policies such as workplace and school closures, and the false messaging used to promote them. 

Written by a committee led by a Republican Party chair (Brad Wenstrup) on the opposite side to the current (outgoing) government, it contains some bipartisan conclusions and others that only the Republican members appear to have been keen on. 

Unfortunately, basic public health and even truth have become political. Despite sections with refreshing clarity and depth, the report is also often shallow and dismissive of fundamental issues. It fails to assess with evidence the overall effectiveness of the lockdown-mass vaccination paradigm, making sometimes contradictory claims. It seems to avoid several difficult subjects such as iatrogenic harm.

The committee notes the probable laboratory (i.e. non-natural) origin of Covid-19 and considers it the worst pandemic for over a century. Yet it then ignores questions on the proportionality of the post-Covid-19 pandemic preparedness agenda, endorsing the need for greater powers for global non-State organizations including the WHO to detect and manage future major natural outbreaks. As a result, while informing some key aspects of the global debate that is dominating international public health, it also adds to the confusion.

This short summary seeks to highlight some of the more compelling, and contradictory, aspects of the report. Sections of the report not covered here also concentrate on Andrew Cuomo’s actions as governor of New York, waste and fraud in the use of public funds, and government-sponsored misinformation (a separate good House Committee report on this was released in October, covering the period 2021-2024).

The Most Likely Origins of Covid-19: Accidental Lab Leak

The report concludes that an accidental lab leak is the most likely origin of the outbreak, originating from the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This gain-of-function research, considered to have developed the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulted in subsequent years of global excess mortality, was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the US-based non-profit EcoHealth Alliance. The research involved manipulation of SARS-like viruses. Some of these were conducted in BSL2 facilities that were inadequate to contain such a virus, reportedly with the knowledge of EcoHealth Alliance.

The committee also notes that this laboratory origin was suspected by several of the authors who wrote the proximal origins letter in early 2020 intended to quash speculation of such an origin. This ‘Proximal Origins’ paper was initially rejected by the journal Nature as not opposing the lab leak strongly enough. The committee notes that the wording was then strengthened, and the letter submitted to Nature Medicine.

Francis Collins (the then-head of the NIH) and others subsequently cited Proximal Origins as ‘proof’ that the virus was derived from a zoological spillover event, and so not a result of reckless research. NIH staff are then noted by the report to have systematically misspelled gain-of-function and other terms in emails to evade future FOIA requests.

The presence of the furin cleavage site (a site on the spike protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to infect human respiratory tract cells more efficiently, and is found in no other virus) is considered to be almost certain evidence of human manipulation of the genome. The committee also noted that WIV used techniques that make detecting genetic manipulation difficult. EcoHealth Alliance then failed to fulfill its obligation to inform the NIH of evidence of high increases in transmissibility (i.e. gain-of-function) noted in the experiments at WIV. WIV has also failed to provide basic data on the laboratory experiments. The committee was not pleased and recommended that EcoHealth Alliance never receive US government funding again.

The WHO, China, Fault, and Responsibility: Arguments for Strengthening WHO Powers Despite Demonstrated Incompetence

In the section of the report discussing the role of the World Health Organization (WHO), the committee takes a generally confusing approach. It blames the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for many of the WHO’s failures. The WHO is then noted to lack the power to enforce the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) that were intended to address events such as pandemics. The non-pharmaceutical response that the WHO supported (e.g. lockdowns, masks, social distancing) is heavily criticized as harmful and ineffective, yet the report also suggests that it should have more power over countries to force the release of data and demand early responses, by which the committee presumably means lockdown-type measures:

“The WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and was used as cover for CCP’s reckless actions” The WHO was misinformed, denied access to China 171)

Yet:

“The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure. The Organization failed to satisfy all of the above stated goals [to address health emergencies].” (page 173)

“Unlike the World Trade Organization, the WHO has no real authority to sanction or otherwise pressure its Member-States…[t]he WHO has been drained of its power and resources. Its coordinating authority and capacity are weak. Its ability to direct an international response to a life-threatening epidemic is non-existent.” (page 187)

This is interesting, as the committee characterizes a lack of WHO power as an impediment. “Drained of resources” is also an unusual term for a body that has seen a steady increase in its funding, and suggests a lack of deep knowledge here. 

The report goes on:

“[Covid] further exposed the severe limitations of the IHR and the institutional limits of the WHO.” (page 187)

“The Pandemic Treaty does not address the weaknesses of the IHR. The WHO’s refusal to hold the CCP accountable for violating the IHR is a major issue in protecting global public health.” (page 188)

The argument here appears to be that the pandemic was China’s fault, even though the panel considers WIV was working under NIH funding and in collaboration with a US Government-funded entity (EcoHealth Alliance). It seems to consider that a stronger WHO would be able to dictate to China. 

This is the same WHO that the Committee noted had a private organization (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) as its second largest funder and considers to be politically beholden to the CCP. As neither the IHR 2024 amendments or draft Pandemic Agreement address political influence on the WHO, it is unclear why a WHO with greater powers but under the influence of China and the Gates Foundation would be better than one unable to impose their will on other sovereign states and peoples.

The same WHO was noted to have sent its investigative team to China, refusing to include nominations from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) but including EcoHealth Alliance’s head Peter Daszak. Despite being denied access to raw data and having very limited and supervised access to Chinese experts, the WHO concluded:

“The theory that the virus came from a lab was voted as “extremely unlikely” and wasn’t recommended for further research.” (page 185)

The Committee claims that the WHO should have acted faster once it became aware of a health concern in Wuhan, and such earlier action would have stopped or greatly curtailed the spread. It does not seem to address evidence of earlier spread despite including a quote from Robert Redfield, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), of “the unusual actions in and around Wuhan in the fall of 2019” (page 2).

If a lab release of SARS-CoV-2 in the fall of 2019 is correct, then the WHO declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) at the end of December 2019 rather than January 2020 would probably have made little difference. The report seems to presuppose that the spread of an aerosolized virus with significant mild and asymptomatic cases, in a large city and province, could have been completely stopped weeks or months after transmission started, without spreading elsewhere in China and beyond.

“By the time the WHO declared COVID-19 a PHEIC on January 30, 2020, the disease had infected almost 10,000 and killed almost 1,000 people in 19 different countries.” (page 176)

“The BND [German federal intelligence service] concluded that the WHO’s delay in declaring the PHEIC wasted approximately four to six weeks of the potential global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (page 176)

So, what would have changed in those 4-6 weeks to stop spread to 19 (and doubtless many more as testing was mostly non-existent) countries? The lockdowns and masks that the report (on good evidence) considers ineffective?

And further on China:

“For potentially more than two weeks, the CCP held the key to the global response [the viral genome sequence] but refused to share it.” (page 181)

Again, how would this have helped? Would having PCR tests 2 weeks earlier, or a vaccine in late November rather than early December 2020, have made a substantive difference to the number of deaths from Covid-19?

Perhaps China, in the fall of 2019, could have detected a lab leak affecting its staff, isolated all known staff, their families, and close contacts immediately, and stopped the spread. However, as an aerosolized virus, it is likely this would have been ineffective unless action was taken at the time of the leak itself, before healthy lab staff spread undetected through mildly symptomatic infections. This would not be a WHO responsibility (one would certainly hope the world does not go down that path) but a WIV one. 

However, while the committee is clear that China and the WHO clearly acted with an absence of good faith, responsibility for the pandemic should also be shared by those (e.g. in the US) who supported the studies involving virus manipulation under inadequate conditions of inadequate containment, then apparently colluded to cover the evidence. While the NIH role is highlighted elsewhere, the committee seems keener on assigning overall blame distantly than closer to home.

In arguing for a strengthened WHO with dictatorial power over countries (i.e. taking sovereignty from nations and individuals to impose what are now just recommendations under the IHR), the committee’s position seems highly incompatible with the human rights focus elsewhere in the report. The WHO promoted lockdowns, and its IHR lists interventions such as border closures and mandates as something the WHO may currently recommend. The argument, as written, is for this body to have stronger powers of global governance over countries (e.g. China, and therefore, it follows, the United States). 

Lockdowns: Clear Conclusions of Harm Outweighing Benefit

The report damningly sums up the lockdown strategy as:

“Ultimately, the promised 15 days evolved into years, which caused incredibly damaging consequences for the American people. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable, federal and state government policies encouraged or forced millions of Americans to forego critical elements of a healthy, happy, productive, and fulfilling life.” (page 214)

And notes further:

“Unfortunately, it also appears that many of the individuals who were the least at risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 were at disproportionately higher risk of suffering serious mental distress as a result of lockdowns.” (page 216)

Such harms were of course expected – induced anxiety, income loss, and separation from loved ones will do that. The report goes on to discuss the tragic increase in suicide attempts and overdoses among young people and the cognitive and developmental impacts on infants and young children.

As the report sensibly concludes:

“…it appears the American people could have been better served by policies which focused on protecting the most vulnerable while prioritizing productivity and normalcy for the less vulnerable.” (page 215)

This is an approach consistent with the WHO 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations and with orthodox and ethical public health. An outbreak or other disease event should be addressed in a targeted and proportionate way, avoiding harm to those not at risk from the virus. However, this is not what the WHO promoted in 2020, or would have demanded if its IHR recommendations had become requirements as the original 2022 draft of the IHR amendments stated. As above, it is hard to see here how strengthening the WHO would improve outcomes.

The report has a very good summary of the economic harms of lockdown policies and the upward concentration of wealth and increased inequality associated with these policies, forcing closure of small business whilst keeping their larger corporate rivals operating (pages 376 to 396). It also goes into detail on alleged inadequacy, fraud, and incompetence in the funds set up to address this. (pages 146-170 and 357-365).

School closures are also called out as examples of highly harmful and predictably ineffective measures. In particular, the CDC is noted to have given more weight to the American Federation of Teachers than evidence and scientific analysis in its decision-making. The Federation distinguished itself by advocating for avoidance of formal education of children, ensuring families of lower-income children would stay in lower-income brackets for the next generation or two.

Vaccination: Weak Evidence and Ambiguous Conclusions

“Dr. Walensky notoriously warned that “this is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” (page 219)

As did many others…The report rightly calls them out for sowing division and misleading the public. The Covid-19 vaccines were never shown to significantly reduce spread. The report is also clear that they were not more effective at stopping severe disease than post-infection immunity. Thus, even leaving aside the issues of human rights and bodily autonomy, the vaccine mandates imposed on the US armed forces and workers of federal government agencies and many state and private entities were without justification. They would not stop transmission, and those who remained unvaccinated were of no greater risk to the vaccinated than fellow vaccinated workers.

The report also notes the unusually high rate of vaccine adverse events reported, and early knowledge of myocarditis in young adults that, together with their very low risk from Covid-19, made school and college mandates particularly egregious. 

While acknowledging this massive public health travesty, the report is generally supportive of the mass vaccination program and rapid vaccine development (Operation Warp Speed). Although it reasonably justifies the concept of accelerated development and testing in the face of a massive health threat, it also acknowledges that the threat from Covid-19 was relatively limited. 

It fails to explain why, even if the threat of the disease was mistakenly overstated initially, basic testing normally required for genetic therapeutics, including those for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity, was not done. The report specifically notes the Covid ‘vaccines’ are better termed therapeutics based on their action, undermining the ‘vaccine’ terminology ridiculously used to work around these requirements.

Such tests could have been carried out extensively in animals in parallel to late-stage development and even early rollout to people considered highly vulnerable. Regrettably, the only data available, showing increased fetal malformations and failure of pregnancy in injected rats compared to controls, is not expanded on in the report. 

The vaccine strategy overall is justified as:

“However, there is little doubt that the rapid development and authorization of COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives.¹¹⁶⁹” (page 302)

The citation here, reference 1169, is the sole reference in the report for such a claim. It is an online report by the Commonwealth Fund of a modeling study that gives little detail of vaccine efficacy used and assumes vaccines reduce variant emergence. This latter is contrary to what one would expect from a vaccine that does not inhibit transmission. 

The model assumes the vaccines greatly restrict incidence of infection (and thereby transmission) which the committee acknowledges they don’t. Its mortality-saving estimates are further based on the assumption that incidence would have been far higher in years 2 and 3 of the pandemic than in the first year – a highly unusual epidemic curve for an acute respiratory virus outbreak. The study also ignores adverse events, so it predicts Covid-19 death reduction, not overall mortality reduction (which in the Pfizer and Moderna six-month trial reports was not reduced by vaccination).

Thus, the thoroughness of the report seems to fall away badly when the mass vaccination issue is addressed. One can speculate on the reasons for this, as governments change at different stages of the pandemic. Beyond a good analysis of human rights abuses and the poor mechanisms to address those who are harmed by vaccination, it appears to avoid serious analysis of the underlying wisdom of rapidly developing a novel class of pharmaceuticals for mass distribution without thorough testing. As a result, It is unable to start formulating useful recommendations on this.

In Summary

The report addresses specific aspects of the Covid-19 event, covering some thoroughly, such as the proximal origins controversy and the devastating economic effects and rise in inequality through lockdowns. In contrast, it promotes the concept of mass vaccination for Covid-19 as a model for pandemic management, contrary to prior approaches and without offering strong evidence in support. 

The committee considers Covid-19 to be the result of a predictable laboratory accident, resulting in the worst acute outbreak in 100 years. It further recognizes that the virus predominantly targeted the sick elderly, and that most deaths in younger age groups were related to the response rather than the direct effects of the virus itself. It condemns the abuses of human rights and attack on bodily autonomy through mandates, yet promotes earlier imposition of lockdown-related measures and travel restrictions.

The committee seeks to blame China for the pandemic. However, they also acknowledge the role of US-based entities in the probable laboratory origin of the virus and the subsequent coverup by senior health officials, which would seem to make them similarly culpable. 

Regarding international policies, the committee condemns the policies promoted by the WHO, and notes its influential private-sector funding and perceived geopolitical capture. Despite this, it promotes the idea that the WHO should have more direct power to enforce health regulations on countries and their populations, apparently overriding both national and individual sovereignty. The committee fails to explain how the more forceful imposition of the WHO’s harmful pandemic policies would provide a net benefit.

Many will also be frustrated by the failure to address the reasons for mortality, the unusual rise in excess mortality in years 2 and 3 of the pandemic, and the very limited discussion on iatrogenic harms and clinical management failures. The report steers clear of the role of financial incentives in the US in attributing deaths to Covid. It also fails to address the low priority given to supplements such as vitamin D in improving individual immune resilience, fundamental to managing future outbreaks.

Overall, the report reads as though it was indeed written by a committee, with differing agendas depending on the subject under discussion. This may reflect the inevitable political preferences and tussles that come with opposing parties analyzing the actions of each other’s recent administrations during an election year. However, it is disappointing in its lack of deep analysis and coherent recommendations. While raising important examples of the harm imposed on the population, their health, and economies over the past few years, it offers little clarity on a better path forward.

The committee’s last two recommendations, found in Brad Wenstrup’s opening letter on the second page, do however provide a strong guide to the future, irrespective of the ambiguities elsewhere:

“The Constitution cannot be suspended in times of crisis and restrictions on freedoms sow distrust in public health.” 

“The prescription cannot be worse than the disease, such as strict and overly broad lockdowns that led to predictable anguish and avoidable consequences.” 

Whatever the risk public health officials ascribe to any future disease event, the public must be in charge, and each individual human must be sovereign and have the ultimate right of decision-making over their own health. This is the basis of post-World War II human rights norms, was formulated with good reason, and used to be a bipartisan understanding. If we could all agree to start there, we may be able to develop an approach that all can work with.