Michael Eriksson
A Swede in Germany
Home » Politics » COVID | About me Impressum Contact Sitemap

Vindication

Introduction

Towards the end of 2024, there has been an increasing amount of vindication of the (for want of a better word) skeptics’ take on COVID, including an increasing amount of published research (despite “establishment” pressure) and various national investigations that have pointed to the great excesses of the COVID-countermeasures and the lack of scientific backing (again, despite “establishment” pressure; often, as in the U.K., despite a seemingly pre-determined agenda of paradoxically vindicating the failed countermeasures).

To keep track of all the many drops that have hollowed out the rock of COVID orthodoxy would be a Herculean task, and I will only give some examples here. (Notably, due to developments in the U.S. in late 2024.) For more thorough information (both on vindication and on the problems with the COVID-countermeasures and -orthodoxy) I point to e.g. Brownstonee.

The road to a complete vindication is still very long, but it will come if current trends continue. The sad part, of course, is that much of what was done wrong was obviously wrong at a very, very early stage—and to anyone who dared to actually use his brain (“sapere aude” was once at the core of the enlightenment; the way that it is rejected in the current world speaks volumes). My first own text on the topic of misguided countermeasures, e.g., was published on 2020-03-15, a text which has seen its fourth anniversary and is closing in on its fifth.

Another sad part is that the other side of the coin, consequences for the perpetrators of the excesses, is likely to go unaddressed—but this has been clear for a long time, while the evidence of public vindication has only accumulated slowly. (The modifier “public” is of some note, as actual scientific results of a vindicating character have accumulated more or less from the beginning.)

Disclaimer

Not all skeptics have shared all views and my own views have often been more agnostic than those of many skeptics with a deeper medical background (note e.g. the below-mentioned Bhattachary), for the simple reason that there are some issues that I could not judge without very considerable additional digging. For instance, I have never held an opinion on the question of the origin of COVID and I do not see myself as vindicated by the below-mentioned claim that the lab-leak hypothesis was, after all, the most likely. However, it is notable that the most harshly condemned ideas are among those that seem to be winning in light of later results and once the “fog of war” appears to be gone, including the lab-leak hypothesis, the low effectiveness of masks, the importance of differing between persons that are and are not in risk groups, the disappointing performance and risks of the vaccines vs. the value of natural immunity, the benefits of ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine, etc.


Side-note:

Even with the potential lab leak, I have to admit to an indirect feeling of vindication (or, maybe, Schadenfreude), in that a certain “official” take was pushed very strongly and in a manner that violated one of my own core tenets—that issues should be judged on their merits and while allowing free debate. (Propaganda, censorship, and ad hominem is very obviously not a good way to do that.) The lab-leak hypothesis was one most reviled and denounced during the COVID-countermeasure era, but now it looks as if it might win when issues are judged on their merits.

(More: the below-mentioned report gives strong signs that the attempts to quash the lab-leak hypothesis were politically motivated, e.g. to avoid negative reactions towards China and the consequences that might follow from them, and to a non-trivial part committed against the better knowledge of the quashers.)

In this, I am justified in saying that “See, I was right—free debate is important!” and “[...]—issues should be judged on their merits!”, but not e.g. “[...]—it was a lab leak!”.


Jay Bhattachary and the NIH

During the COVID-countermeasure era, Jay Bhattachary was one of the most maligned men on the planet, seeing his words and opinions distorted, his factual arguments answered by more rhetoric and ad hominem than counter-arguments, and even his moral standing questioned.

In early December 2024, however, he was nominated to lead the NIH, one of the most important medicine-/health-/whatnot-related governmental agencies in the U.S. (At the time of writing, 2024-12-03, the confirmation process is still outstanding.)

As an aside, Bhattachary was unusually well positioned to judge the issues at hand, having a solid background not just in medicine but also in economics, while the orthodoxy has listened almost exclusively to medical opinions and, at that, medical opinions of the panic-mongering and/or tunnel-vision kind. (This has brought errors like failing to consider even how the countermeasure could have both direct and indirect negative effects on the health of the people—let alone the economy, education, child development, human rights and Rechtsstaatlichkeit, etc.)

(His merits include both a Ph.D. in economics and an M.D., as well as professorships in both fields.)

U.S. House report

Introduction

The U.S. House of Representatives has performed extensive work, resulting in 520-page report. (Cf. the official press releasee with a link to the full report.)

The below consists of two parts: Firstly, some selected quotes from the press release (originally quoted before I had had the time to read the report in full). Secondly, some remarks around the report (post-reading).

Press release

Consider some (!) relevant quotes (with the usual disclaimers around changes to formatting, etc.):

COVID-19 ORIGIN: COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDING: Federal and state governments had significant lapses in coordination, were unprepared to oversee the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds, and failed to sufficiently identify waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars during the pandemic.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO): The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.

SOCIAL DISTANCING: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance, “sort of just appeared.”

MASK MANDATES: There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.

LOCKDOWNS: Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.

COVID-19 MISINFORMATION: Public health officials often spread misinformation through conflicting messaging, kneejerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. In the most egregious examples of pervasive misinformation campaigns, off-label drug use and the lab leak theory were unjustly demonized by the federal government.

COVID-19 VACCINE: Contrary to what was promised, the COVID-19 vaccine did not stop the spread or transmission of the virus.

VACCINE MANDATES: Vaccine mandates were not supported by science and caused more harm than good. The Biden Administration coerced healthy Americans into compliance with COVID-19 vaccine mandates that trampled individual freedoms, harmed military readiness, and disregarded medical freedom to force a novel vaccine on millions of Americans without sufficient evidence to support their policy decisions.

NATURAL IMMUNITY: Public health officials engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore natural immunity — which is acquired through previous COVID-19 infection — when developing vaccine guidance and mandates.

BUSINESS IMPACTS: Federal and state governments imposed mandatory lockdowns that were the primary cause of temporary and permanent business closures. More than 160,000 businesses closed due to the pandemic — with 60% of those closures classified as permanent. For the businesses that stayed or re-opened, the lack of supply chain diversity exacerbated pandemic-era challenges and deepened existing disparities.

HEALTHCARE IMPACTS: America’s healthcare system was severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients experienced a decreased quality-of-care, longer wait times, shorter medical appointments, and missed diagnoses.

LONGTERM IMPACTS: Standardized test scores show that children lost decades worth of academic progress as a result of COVID-19 school closures. Mental and physical health concerns also skyrocketed — with suicide attempts by 12-17 year-aged girls rising 51%.

HHS OBSTRUCTION: The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.

Report

After reading the full report, I see the press release as giving a reasonably correct impression (and one that confirms many of my own observations and/or claims that I have encountered in other, “non-establishment”, sources),

To give it an even remotely full analysis would take more time than I have available; however, some remarks:

The report loses some credibility for being politicizing, if not to the degree that the COVID-fanatics were. A notable example is how too little is said about Trump’s failures and how “Operation Warp Speed” is raised to the skies in a blanket manner. (Something that sticks out already in the press release.)

There is a surprising number of language and similar errors. Demanding perfection in a so long document might be unreasonable (and I certainly make errors myself); however, this is an official report of a group effort and from a group that certainly can arrange for professional proof reading. On at least one occasion, the report claims that “REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK”, but lets further contents follow.


Side-note:

There were a number of such labels, usually (always?) to explain empty space when some image or whatnot forced an unfortunate page break. I am not aware of what tools are available to the House, but high-quality tools, including a properly set-up and used LaTeX, should be able to handle such matters better.


Some potentially important sub-topics are left out, maybe, most notably the outrageous actions of Birx, who, by her own self-incriminations disinformed, circumvented, and sabotaged the executive during the Trump era, and, through those actions, caused incalculable damage to both the U.S., in particular, and the world, in general. (Such sub-topics might have been left out for reasons of time and space, but I cannot rule out other reasons. In the case of Birx, it could e.g. be that it would be impossible to discuss her perfidy without drawing attention to Trump’s failures—which, of course, to a large part, were caused by Birx and her ilk.)

The report repeatedly demonstrates how important it is to keep sources of information on domain topics and decision makers separate in politics—a point where the U.S., and many other countries, failed in a horrifying manner and with horrifying results. (Also note the saying that war is too important to be left to the generals.) The former should provide information, but the decision makers must make up their own minds—and do so after having consulted with sources from other relevant fields and different viewpoints within all fields. This up to and including that the sources must not even suggest policy (in this capacity; they, of course, have the same right to free speech qua private persons as everyone else). In an over-simplified example, an expert on medicine should not answer a request for information on how to combat a pandemic with “we must lock down society”. but should limit himself to “one way of limiting the spread that I personally believe to be effective is to lock down society—and here are some modelling figures”. These claims would then be complemented with information from e.g. medical experts with other and/or independent views, economists, and experts on civil rights, after which the politicians make a decision about policy. (In reverse, politicians should not ask “What should we do?” but use questions like “What are some options?” and “What would happen if we do X?”.)


Side-note:

I would give at least three reasons for this—all of which I see strengthened from reading the report:

  1. The need to have separation of powers and checks-and-balances. By handing power to experts (or, worse, “experts”), bureaucrats, civil servants, and the like, these protections are circumvented. Note, in particular, that we are not limited to e.g. the formal separation into branches of government (as prescribed by the U.S. constitution), but that more informal separations must be considered, like the advisor–decider barrier. (Ditto checks-and-balances.)

    This is made the worse when foreign experts (from a U.S. perspective: unlike Fauci et al., who were bad enough) are given a large say, including those provided by the WHO. In reverse, why should the opinions of Fauci et al. be allowed to dictate policy in other countries?

  2. The same handing of power has allowed a circumvention of the democratic processes—and often to those who have an un- or outright anti-democratic attitude. Note e.g. repeated mentions of deliberate attempts to prevent future FOIA requests from revealing the matters that they should reveal, how the people is to be manipulated into blind obedience with no democratic say, or, outside the report, the inexcusable machinations of Birx.

    In the overlap between the two items, I note issues like the dangers of reduced accountability and hidden agendas.

  3. The need to ensure that sufficiently many aspects of an issue are covered and, especially, that a fanatical focus on some single sub-issue is avoided.

    It was very gratifying to see at least one significant interviewee (one “Dr. Collins”, former director of the NIH, pp. 334–335) admit to problems of this kind in very explicit words:

    If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life...so you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach a zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recovered is a public-health mindset...another mistake we made.

    (With reservations for formatting loss and similar through conversion from pdf to text.)

    Of course, even this quote fails to address the health-related opportunity costs, e.g. in that such disruptions also caused delays in cancer screenings, that money problems can lead to health issues, and similar. (In fairness to Collins, I do not rule out that he has made such concessions without being quoted.) More generally, much of what went wrong with the COVID-countermeasure era goes back exactly to a failure to consider various opportunity costs and effects outside a disturbingly “narrow view”. This is the more disturbing as there were a great many others, including yours truly, who raised concerns of exactly that type from very early on—only to be ignored or, even, derided.

Here also note how dangerous the suggested WHO “pandemic treaty” could be through exactly mechanisms like giving single-minded and narrow experts the say, moving power abroad, circumventing democratic processes, whatnot.


Likewise, it demonstrates how dangerous it is to treat stakeholders as neutral advisers, to allow stakeholders to set policy, etc. Note e.g. the problems around teacher’s unions, how connections with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) might have tainted some influential actors (likely, including Fauci), and how many organizations seem set on expanding their own powers at the cost of others for no other apparent reason than to gather power (by no means limited to topics around COVID).

In reverse, there are some signs that there has been an influence in the other direction—that politicians have dictated or tried to dictate how the advice should look. (Note a lengthy discussion of the highly problematic Andrew Cuomo.)


Side-note:

Also note my long-standing suspicions that the likes of Keynes have been raised to the skies because they give the politicians an excuse to do what they already wanted to do and that many EU states push the EU to adopt certain policies so that they later can blame the policies on the EU (despite, themselves, favoring the policies).


The enormous amounts of disinformation directed at the people by the likes of Fauci, Birx, and Biden is extremely troubling. Ditto the way that various news sources, media platforms, and similar either leaped to cooperate with the disinformation (including through censorship and fraudulent fact-checks of those who wanted to set the record straight) or were coerced to do so. Now, I was highly skeptical to both government and media long before COVID, but the situation seems to be even worse than I believed—and my opinion of experts in fields like medicine has taken an enormous dive. (But note that this is a statement about my overall change through the COVID-countermeasure era, not just from reading the report. Similar reservations can apply elsewhere without mention.)


Side-note:

An interesting twist is that there have been a few times when I have suspected that I was paranoid, too pessimistic, going too far in my doubts or skepticism, or similar. Once the cards were on the table, it has turned out that I was, if anything, overly optimistic. The COVID-countermeasure era provides several examples (including the above and governmental disregard for civil rights); the paramount example might be the Snowden revelations relative my very suspicious, yet still far too optimistic, view of matters like government surveillance on the Internet.


In the overlap between the preceding paragraphs we also see the danger of conflicts of interests, of letting a potential culprit evaluate how something is investigated, and similar. For instance, while the exact extent of the connection between Fauci and the WIV is unclear, it is at least potentially strong enough to justify the equivalent of a judge’s recusal.

On occasion, the report (more accurately, the interviews and whatnot that form the basis for the report) takes an unnecessarily hard line. For instance, EcoHealth has a genuine point in that its ability to provide data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was limited and/or dependent on the cooperation of the WIV. (Which should not be seen as a defense of EcoHealth in a bigger picture—there appears to have been very severe problems with EcoHealth, its behaviors, and its approaches.)

Likewise, the report sometimes seems to miss a bigger point in order to quibble about an easy target. Consider an interrogation of Fauci concerning the six-feet rule: Yes, that the specific distance of six feet was arbitrary, something that “sort of just appeared”, was bad and it was an easy target. More important issues include whether “social distancing” made sense, how social distancing was communicated, that the six feet might have been presented as more important than they actually were, and that the advice might have been too categorical in not considering differentiations in settings, risk groups, and similar. (I might, in particular, claim that it is better to treat the citizens as adults and give them reasonable limits. For instance, if the data had pointed to a tangible benefit from a distance of 3 feet and an increasing benefit from larger distances, something like “keep as far apart as reasonably possible, especially if you belong to a risk group; while indoors, make sure to be at least 3 feet apart at all times” would have been a far better recommendation than just “keep six feet apart”.)


Side-note:

In Germany, claims were quite varied, with 1.5 and 2 meters likely being the most common versions. While I am not aware of the basis for these distances, they might very well be “round” metric versions of the U.S. recommendation (6 feet is approximately 1.83 meters). If so, they gives further evidence of how arbitrarily social distancing was handled.



Side-note:

If matters like communication had been handled better, even something like 6 feet would have been comparatively easy to justify. Consider e.g. the following train of thought:

  1. Social distancing is beneficial, but we do not know what makes a reasonable limit. Going below 3 feet is likely to be too dangerous, however.

  2. A greater distance prevents infection better but can be less practical and/or less likely to gain acceptance.

  3. Let us say 6 feet for a workable value in the trade-off between risk and acceptance.

(The assumptions made are for illustration only. I do not claim that they hold true and have no insight into the details of the assumptions made or not made by the likes of Fauci.)

Here 6 feet remains arbitrary in that e.g. 5 feet might have been equally sensible (just prioritizing practicality and acceptability a bit higher relative prevention of infections), but the arbitrariness is no different than the arbitrariness of someone turning 18 and suddenly being allowed to do a slew of things that he was not allowed to do a day earlier.

Even a specific value like “6 feet” could conceivably be given some justification by allowing, say, a store visitor to tell someone else to keep his distance in a manner that a vaguer “stay away from each other” or “keep 3 to 9 feet apart” does not. Vice versa, it gives the other party the option to defend a distance at just above 6 feet in a manner that the vaguer rule does not.


A somewhat unexpected issue might be the actions of the Federal Reserve (which the report, in my opinion, views too positively): Here we simultaneously have the government and the Federal Reserve pushing the same or similar policy goals of stimulation in a perversion of roles. This is by no means unique to the COVID-countermeasure era; however, a more serious approach would have been particularly important during this time span. Firstly, it is dubious whether an entity like the Federal Reserve should engage in such (non-monetary) policy pushing at all. Secondly, the Federal Reserve acted contrary to the more legitimate, monetary, policy goals that it should pursue, notably, relating to price inflation, currency stability, value of money. (More generally, attempts to e.g. “stimulate the economy” often do more harm than good in the long term, regardless of who makes the attempt, through mechanisms like misallocation of resources, perverse incentives, granting of loans to credit risks, wasteful use of public resources, the need to rob Peter to give to Paul, etc.)