New Insightful Report on Key Healthcare Policy Lessons from the COVID-19 Fiasco

One of the most significant health events of our lifetime

Although it has not yet received much publicity, a very detailed Report was just published by 37 MDs and related experts about their takeaways from the COVID-19 matter. I was thoughtfully sent a copy by the lead author.

Based on four (4) relevant facts, most people would not consider adding to this powerful assessment. These facts are: 1) its extensive length, 2) its four hundred (400) technical citations, 3) the impressive number of its authors, and 4) the wide range of expertise of said authors.

But that’s what Critical Thinking is all about: we should automatically always be considering whether we can improve on: what we are told, what we are doing, what we are saying, etc.

So while you are perusing their Report, please take notes about thoughts you have. Please post them in the Comments below, and I will share them with the authors. Only after doing that, continue on here to see what I wrote back to the lead author.

Note: The lead author did reply to me, and he did not dispute the veracity of any of my seven points (below). His main defense was that the Report was too long already, and adding more material created a problem getting it published at desirable sites (like PubMed).

In that case, my first question is: were any of my points better than any of those that were in the Report?

My second question is: considering the worldwide importance of this analysis, why don’t the authors create a second (more comprehensive) Report and publish that version on the websites of some of their many supporters (like here!)? It seems unproductive to abbreviate what needs to be exposed about this extraordinarily significant international matter, due to the arbitrary word limits of some medical publishing outlets…

——————————————————————————————————————————

My Comments regarding their fine Report —

Thank you for sending that Report, as I had not seen it or heard of it(!).

In my perusal of it, I thought it was very well done.

That said, I would have added some additional comments that seem to be of great significance, yet I did not see them adequately addressed in the Report:

1 - Self-serving parties (and other bad actors) are continuously trying to conflate Science with political science. This is horrifically bad. The public must be educated about the difference, and all health agencies should publicly acknowledge the critically significant distinction.

2 - In the US, the FDA’s EUA process is severely flawed, which enabled bogus solutions to be FDA-approved (think Remdesivir), while quality treatments were passed by (think Vitamin D). [I seem to have been the only person in the world who put this scientific information in a readable table.]

3 - All treatments must be required should show Absolute and Relative efficacy (see my discussion of this). Allowing pharmaceutical companies to only show Relative efficacy is extremely misleading and a MAJOR contributor to the unscientific directions that health agencies took regarding COVID-19 treatments.

Note 1: This recommendation is consistent with an important FDA advisory publication. A key conclusion (see page 60) is that the public is: “unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

Note 2: This recommendation is also consistent with the CONSORT 2010 Statement — Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials, which states: “… presentation of both absolute and relative effect sizes is recommended…”

4 - Pharmaceutical companies should only be allowed to call a treatment "safe and effective" if: a) short and long term safety tests show Absolute risk to be very low, and b) safety tests include a statistical representative sample of subjects with one or more chronic diseases [since the majority of adult Americans have at least one chronic disease]. Note that the CDC appears to say that 95%± of U.S. COVID-19 deaths were people who had an average of four (4) co-morbidities (mostly chronic diseases). COVID is a disease of those with chronic conditions!

Note 1: Where both of these are NOT done, the FDA should be required to include in their EUA Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers:

“This EUA was granted after a very limited scientific assessment of this product for this medical condition. As a result, the FDA has a low confidence level regarding the efficacy or long-term safety of this product for this condition.”

Note 2: Further, since the safety and efficacy for the majority of Americans from such EUA products has not been scientifically established, the FDA should prohibit any EUA product manufacturer from claiming that their product is Safe or Effective.

5 - All major health agencies (FDA, CDC, etc.) must make patient informed consent a top priority.

For example, the FDA should be obligated to promptly develop and publicize regulations for Informed Consent regarding the public’s taking of EUAs. (These should be comparable to the FDA’s informed consent conditions for clinical trial subjects [which includes many pages of conditions and caveats: see here].) EUA product recipients should effectively be considered to be clinical trial subjects!

6 - The Report's Conclusion #4 should be broadened as it does not just apply to injections — rather to ALL COVID-19 treatments.

7 - IMO, there was not an adequate discussion in the Report about the lack of health agency support for the public to commit to boosting their natural immunity — e.g., see here and here. [For example, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, et al appear to have never publicly said a single word about this.]

I would also advise that the Report authors have a 1± page Executive Summary of this important, lengthy, and technical Report.

regards,

john droz, jr.

physicist

C19Science.info

---

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).