7.5.4 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions

Introduction

The use of NPIs based on previous pandemic management had been studied for 20 years and updated in September 2019. One of the main concerns about the NPIs used in the COVID-19 pandemic was the glaring lack of a cost–benefit analysis for them.

According to the recommendations in the pandemic plan, there were NPIs which were not recommended to be used.

We were told that certain NPIs would not be used, such as contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, workplace measures and closures, school measures and closures, entry and exit screening, internal travel restrictions, and border closings.

Shockingly, despite the updated pandemic management guidelines for NPIs, many optional and never-to-be-used NPIs were not only used but were mandatory. One of the worst measures was school closures, which will leave indelible traces on our children for decades to come unless we implement robust corrective measures.

From many published studies that compared countries with different NPIs policies, we relearned in September 2020 that the cost–benefit analysis of most NPIs was negative.

Collateral damage from NPIs included massive damage to our individual mental health and our social fabric; other severe health conditions; damage to our children‘s education and socialization; and our economic wellbeing as individuals, in business, and as a nation.

More than 400 studies documenting the collateral damage have been ignored by mainstream media.

Conclusion

There was malpractice by public health and individual healthcare practitioners. Relentless vaccination and denial of alternate treatment were rivalled only by bureaucratic stubbornness.

COVID-19 was not more serious than seasonal flu. Had we ever used such NPIs before, except during the Spanish flu? If they were deemed useful for COVID-19, why had we not used them for other pandemics? If COVID-19 had actually been a grave pandemic, what state-of-the-art NPIs would have been used?

Lockdowns

The stated reason that lockdowns were implemented in March 2020 was to flatten the curve in order to protect the healthcare system. Border closures and shutdowns of businesses not deemed to be essential were also mandated to close.

Then, to prevent a second wave, mask mandates were put in place to stop transmission of the virus. The absurdity of such a measure was displayed by its arbitrary rules: for example, masks could only be removed in a restaurant when seated at a table. Other arbitrary measures, like curfews and internal border restrictions based on colour-coded regional zoning, were also farcical.

What about the best practices learned from the past to control respiratory virus epidemics? In 2006, a WHO study on the Spanish flu concluded that lockdowns had no impact and were not practicable. A 2006 paper by the most renowned epidemiologists became the basis for the WHO 2007 plan, which was renewed without change in 2019. No study supported the confinement of sick people for extended periods of time to slow down a pandemic. Because the negative consequences were so dire, the recommendation was that it should never be used. Border closings and restrictions on travelling have always been inefficient.

Among all NPIs, only two have shown some efficacy: air filtration and isolation of sick people. Aggressive NPIs must be abolished, and their further adoption must be proscribed.

When a virus is already in the population, the most dangerous thing to do is confine sick people with non-sick people because the constant exposure within the same unfiltered air increases the likelihood of infection with an even higher viral load, which in turn would be more challenging to manage.

We had already discovered, at the beginning of the 20th century, that people sick from the flu or tuberculosis healed better if their sanatorium beds were put outside. That taught us that contamination was lower outside, in fresh air, so why did we strictly enforce lockdowns on the elderly and keep them indoors for weeks?

Mandatory lockdowns, without considering the impact, actually exacerbated the epidemic waves rather than improved the situation. Conversely, when people had the freedom to move, their exposure to the virus was less frequent, resulting in lower viral loads. In cases where everyone gathered in “essential“ stores, like liquor stores, the crowds became more concentrated, leading to a higher risk of contamination with higher viral loads. A study in Spain demonstrated that essential workers were less likely to be infected compared to people who were under strict lockdown. To comprehend this phenomenon, it‘s crucial for models to align with real-world observations.

Is Wearing a Mask Appropriate?

Where were the studies supporting the obligation to wear a mask? According to a WHO report published in 2019, just before the pandemic, the studies listed did not find masks effective in preventing the infection of influenza (a respiratory virus similar to the coronavirus). Arruda in Québec and Fauci in the U.S. initially told us the same thing before they changed their tune, without relying on new studies.

Moreover, the CDC chose to rely on the only subsequent study, done in Bangladesh and published after the decision to impose the mask. The CDC used it as a posteriori justification. This study was criticized by several experts, one of whom went so far as to demand either a major correction of its dubious conclusions or the withdrawal of the article published in Science, alleging serious shortcomings in the study.

Is it illogical to question the CDC‘s sound judgment regarding masks, considering its initial stance that vaccination offered better protection than natural immunity? Their position on the effectiveness of masks is primarily based on a single study it funded, despite the existence of over a hundred published studies during that period that indicated otherwise?

In addition, a recent study in Europe concluded that countries that practised diligent mask wearing did not present better epidemiological results than countries where mask wearing was less strict. The higher mortality in the most compliant countries even suggested a potentially deleterious effect associated with wearing a mask.

What Should We Think of this Study?

In Sweden, where masks were not worn at school, the epidemiological data were at least as good as, if not better than, Canada or the other Nordic countries. The results of these studies do not consider the collateral damage of wearing masks.

A Danish study concluded that the mask was ineffective, despite strong controversy in the media. Also a study from Finland, in two cities with comparable demographics, concluded that the efficacy of the mask was at best null or even negative.

Why were these studies not considered more seriously? Even more surprising was the absence of more randomized studies which would have made it possible to settle the debate in a more rigorous way. There were ample opportunities to do so during two-plus years of the pandemic.

Administrative State Confusion and Future Solutions

The state apparatus did not have a monopoly on scientific knowledge. That was partly because in the public service, promotion to decision-making positions was often based less on scientific excellence than on compliance with a certain doxa, which was subsequently exploited by politicians in support of their agenda. It was not just a Canadian problem; it was widespread throughout the world, and it has gone on for many decades.

Every time you hear “the experts say,“ ask yourself some questions: Which experts? What is their claim? Are they exempt from conflicts of interest? Are they prepared to fairly debate the basis of their expert opinion?

Among other things, the COVID crisis exposed worrying gaps in the science literacy of politicians and the media, as well as in the expertise of state agencies where scientists and doctors worked. This problem was exacerbated by a lack of leadership to access the best expertise available at the national and international level and, above all, to use it wisely.

It was not that there was a lack of competent and well-meaning people in the state apparatus; it was mainly that their voices were not sufficiently heard and considered in a centralized system where dissent was not valued. While the experts who promoted the “right message“ got all the positive media attention, the whistleblowers and other dissenting voices were not only ignored but actively sanctioned. This meant that we heard them not at all or very little. We could therefore be fooled by the reassuring use of the phrase scientific consensus, which made us believe that the health authorities knew what to do. All that remained was to obey; otherwise, beware of the consequences

Understandably during the first weeks, we were in a phase of bafflement, which rallied us to the injunctions of public health. However, when the data became available, we could have adjusted the course to prevent the two weeks to flatten the curve from being unduly prolonged. How could we have seen more clearly through the confusion and propaganda?

This crisis was managed by relying on models disconnected from the reality on the ground and by inciting fear of an invisible deadly enemy. Fear, one of the most powerful emotions, was used to manipulate or influence us. The techniques were similar; it was just a matter of intention and honesty.

The distinction was notable in that manipulation sought to alter someone‘s behaviour for the manipulator‘s gain, often by feigning to act in the manipulated person‘s best interests to extract their willing compliance. Conversely, influence sought to prompt changes in opinions, decisions, and actions that would benefit the influenced person, and it involved their voluntary choices rather than coercion.

When we talk about war, we‘re essentially discussing the use of propaganda to immerse us in a narrative with questionable ethical foundations. This war narrative propaganda narrative proposed straightforward and seemingly advantageous answers, stemming from a limited perspective that had shaped our societies since the onset of the industrial revolution. It was constructed upon a reductionist and deterministic materialism that had evolved over recent centuries. This materialistic viewpoint, responsible for elevating humanity from dire poverty, also drove us toward relentless consumerism, even in areas like healthcare. As a result, we have strained the delicate equilibrium of our environment: our actions risk damaging it and we despoil it at our peril. And we now know our health is inextricably linked with our environment.

In the United States, the annual budgets devoted to health, including food, is approximately $4.5 trillion, or about five times the defence budget. Health is one of the most important engines of the American economy and, by extension, of the world economy. This economic fervour has been irresponsible and has occurred without the recognition that humanity is an integral part of the natural world, and our actions risk damaging it.

The current crisis will necessitate fundamental changes to guide humanity toward a more harmonious coexistence with nature. This crisis has the potential to awaken our consciousness through spirituality, which goes beyond the realms of science and technology, drawing from the timeless wisdom of humanity, which is constantly evolving.

Our challenges run deep, and the transformations ahead will be protracted and marked by hardship. Consequently, it will be imperative to exercise patience and cultivate resilience.

In terms of scientific progress, we have entered an era of spectacular discoveries in genomics, which has opened up the world of epigenetics, the microbiome and the virome. Epigenetics has returned the natural environment as central to our health. We have also made considerable progress on knowledge about this wonder that is our immune system, the main source of our healing from infections and cancers.

Although there is still much to discover, we know enough to understand that the majority of diseases that afflict us—whether infections, cancers, or autoimmune diseases—result from erratic functioning of our immune system. The causes are sometimes genetic but are more frequently epigenetic, and we know with certainty that we can have a major impact on epigenetic causes through a healthy lifestyle.

Simply put, a good diet, including a supply of vitamins and minerals; restorative sleep; exercise and relaxation activities, such as walking or meditation; and nurturing social bonds, which helps to reduce stress have been clearly recognized as having an immunosuppressive impact.

During the last two years, have our health authorities seriously promoted a healthy lifestyle or, on the contrary, have they considered several of these protective factors as non-essential?

What price will be paid for delayed treatments of the various pathologies, the anxiety disorders of the young generations who suffered major disruptions in their social and emotional development, and the psychological distress of small entrepreneurs and their families who were forced into bankruptcy? This mental stress has had a major impact on our immune system and is likely to culminate in an outbreak of chronic psychosomatic illnesses in the years to come.

Reviewing the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, it would seem that the germ theory of infections, developed by Louis Pasteur, prevailed over the alternative paradigm promoted by Antoine Béchamp and Claude Bernard, two contemporaries of Pasteur who affirmed that “the microbe is nothing; the terrain is everything.“

According to some historians, Pasteur finally adopted this idea at the end of his life, but several of Pasteur‘s heirs still do not have the memo. And yet, an increasing number of immunologists adhere to this idea that a properly functioning immune system, innate and acquired, confers upon an individual the ability to resist infectious pressures of all kinds, with rare exceptions, as well as the various cancers, which do not fail to develop with age in an environment polluted by all kinds of toxic substances.

The worst of these toxins are those that affect the balance of our microbiota, which plays a fundamental role in our homeostasis, including that of educating our immune system. Several scientists reflected that fact when they said that the greatest threat during the pandemic was not the virus but the measures that contributed to weakening our immune system.

The victims of COVID-19 were overwhelmingly elderly people, often sick, and people suffering from several health problems, particularly obesity. Obesity confers greater susceptibility to all sorts of ailments, including the progressive resistance to insulin and to leptin, a key hormone in lipogenesis and essential for the proliferation and homeostasis of immune system cells.

Therefore, the best possible preventive health measure for the next pandemic would be to put in place incentives to mitigate the current epidemic of chronic diseases mostly derived from the consumption of processed food full of fructose and poor in dietary fibres essential for the homeostasis of our microbiota.

Recommendations

In line with the “first, do no harm“ principle and adhering to best medical practices and sound scientific practices, the following recommendations are proposed:

A. Avoid mandatory health measures, such as lockdowns and universal mask mandates, unless they have been objectively demonstrated through rigorous studies to have a positive benefit-to-risk ratio.

B. Prioritize diligent implementation of the two non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that have a well-established track record of efficacy in managing respiratory infections: air filtration and isolation of individuals who are both sick and contagious.

C. Establish a targeted research and development program to investigate the adverse effects of ineffective NPIs, with a specific focus on the impacts of masking children and restricting physical and social activities. The goal is to formally assess the extent of physical and mental health damage and propose tailored remediation measures.

D. Ensure that scientists and healthcare professionals working within government agencies have access to the best available scientific evidence, free from conflicts of interest, at both national and international levels. This access will enable them to provide politicians with the highest quality and most up-to-date knowledge for decision-making.

E. Instead of prohibiting them, mandate scientific debates to facilitate the emergence of optimal health measures. Encourage open discussions among experts to foster innovation and evidence-based policy-making.

F. Actively promote healthy lifestyles that can enhance the immune system through epigenetic mechanisms. A strong immune system forms the foundation for protection against infections, cancers, and autoimmune diseases.