Most public schools were shut down last year. Everyone knows this wasn’t good for children, but what harm was actually done? Studies have confirmed our worst fears about rising rates of suicide, drug abuse, and emotional illness, but what about the loss of education? Now we know how bad that was, too.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reports a new analysis done by McKinsey and Company which quantifies the extent of the harm to education of our children. The consulting firm examined spring 2021 test results for 1.6 million students in grades 1 through 6 across the country, then compared their performance with that of similar students pre-pandemic. They discovered that the pandemic-era children were, on average, about four months behind in reading and five months behind in math.

As bleak as those numbers are, McKinsey says these numbers, “likely represent an optimistic scenario.” The results measure “outcomes for students who took interim assessments in the spring in a school building – and thus excludes students who remained remote throughout the entire school year, and who may have experienced the most disruption to their schooling.” 

Who is most affected by this harm?

The McKinsey study found that children in majority black schools ended the school year a full six months behind in math and reading on average. Students in schools where the average household income was below $25,000 were seven months behind in math and six months behind in reading.

McKinsey went on to note that “students who move on to the next grade unprepared are missing key building blocks of knowledge that are necessary for success,” and “students who repeat a year are much less likely to complete high school” and attend college. Without “immediate and sustained interventions,” the report predicts the lost learning could slash lifetime earnings by $49,000 to $61,000 on average. The WSJ believes these numbers are probably too low and the damage will be worse than average for millions.

Who is most responsible for this tragic undereducation of our children?

The McKinsey study doesn’t place the blame on anyone but the WSJ editors do. They blame the teachers unions calling them “the main architects of this calamity by first refusing to return to the classroom, then insisting on watered-down schedules. The data company Burbio found that, by the end of the spring semester, most students could attend school at least part-time. But due to union demands, the return sometimes amounted to a few days or hours of in-person learning a week.” 

Who is responsible for giving the teachers unions this amount of influence?

President Joe Biden, and his teachers union first lady, are solid supporters of the teachers unions. During his presidential campaign, Biden said to the teachers unions, “When we win this election, we’re going to get the support you need and the respect you deserve. You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an NEA member in the White House. And if I’m not listening, I’m going to be sleeping alone in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

In February of 2021, when schools were eager to reopen, new CDC Director Rochelle Walensky announced a recent study by her institute found schools were safe to reopen without vaccinating the teachers. But the White House pushed back against this scientific study – because the teachers unions didn’t approve. Walensky quickly learned that science takes a back seat to political agendas in this White House.

The WSJ notes many affluent parents can pay for tutors or private schools and avoid these tragic undereducation outcomes. But poorer children don’t have such options. They say the solution is more school choice options. I couldn’t agree more.

As the pandemic lingers on, with increasing numbers of new Covid cases among the unvaccinated, every available treatment is needed. That’s why the FDA’s failure to approve a promising, safe, effective, long-in-use medication for this new application doesn’t make sense.

David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper, writing in The Wall Street Journal, tell us there is an effective treatment of Covid and the FDA refuses to approve it. Henderson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University and was senior health economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors. Hooper is president of Objective Insights, a firm that consults with pharmaceutical clients.

They tell the saga of ivermectin, a medication approved and certified by the FDA in 1996 as an antiparasitic. Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines to prevent river blindness and other diseases caused by parasites. A group of 10 doctors who call themselves the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance calls ivermectin “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.”

Yet the FDA statement about the same drug uses words such as “dangerous, serious harm, very dangerous, seizures, highly toxic, coma and even death.” How could they use such derogatory language to describe a drug they approved in 1996?

Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19. A single dose of ivermectin reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research. Some 70 clinical trials are currenting evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease.

One study of 115 patients with Covid-19 who received a single dose of ivermectin showed none developed pneumonia or cardiovascular complications, while 11.4% of those in the control group did. Those receiving ivermectin developed fewer respiratory distress episodes (2.6% v. 15.8%); fewer required oxygen therapy (9.6% v. 45.9%); fewer required antibiotics (15.7% v. 60.2%); and fewer entered intensive care units (0.1% v. 8.3%). Ivermectin-treated patients tested negative faster (4 days v. 15 days) and stayed in the hospital nine days on average instead of 15 days. Ivermectin patients had a 13.3% mortality versus the control group mortality of 24.5%.

In addition to these impressive numbers for treatment of Covid-19, ivermectin has shown the ability to prevent Covid-19. One study looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected versus 58.4% of those untreated. Among 200 healthcare workers and others at high risk of exposure, only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19 infection while 10% of the control group did.

The authors say the FDA’s claims that ivermectin isn’t safe is belied by the historical evidence. Over four billion doses have been administered since 1998 with only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found ivermectin safe for use in pregnant women, children, and even infants.

If science was the only consideration for the FDA this drug would have been approved already. But this same FDA has been maddeningly slow to approve the Covid-19 vaccines except on an “Emergency Use Authorization” basis, which accounts for the hesitancy of many Americans to receive the vaccines. This despite over 300 million doses of the vaccines given in this country alone.

It is clear that the FDA, and its federal counterpart the CDC, are being controlled by the White House and subservient to their political agenda. It is not clear why that agenda refuses to give the American people the scientific truth without political spin.

There’s an old saying, “One man’s junk is another man’s treasure.” It depends on your point of view – and what you’re looking for. Information is much the same. What one man calls “disinformation” may actually be accurate information. It depends on your point of view – your bias – especially when politics is involved.

The most recent example of this is the origins of the coronavirus pandemic. Shortly after the onset of the pandemic, two theories quickly arose to explain where the virus originated. The first was it originated in a “wet market” in China, where bats and other animals may play host to such viruses. The second was it originated as a leak in the labs at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

Since the first cases of the novel coronavirus were discovered in Wuhan, you might have concluded the virology lab leak was the most plausible explanation. Instead, Chinese officials insisted it originated in the “wet market” about a thousand miles away! Epidemiologists and other infectious disease researchers were quick to jump on this hypothesis, perhaps because it didn’t threaten their research grants. The World Health Organization, deeply connected to the Chinese government, insisted the virology lab leak was not rational and dismissed this possibility.

Facebook, and other social media outlets, labeled the virology lab hypothesis “disinformation” and quickly took steps to censor anyone who disagreed. Yet, one year later the virology lab leak hypothesis is now considered more than likely, not just by the Biden administration that earlier rejected this idea, but even by the WHO. Now the “disinformation” is quite likely the truth.

But despite this about-face on the origins of the coronavirus, the Biden White House has recently taken steps to coordinate with Facebook on taking down any information that they consider “problematic.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki admitted, “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook.” The Surgeon General, an officer in the department of Health and Human Services, released a report with a page of suggestions on “what technology platforms can do” to crack down on certain information. The Verge reported that officials at Twitter “met with the surgeon general’s office on Monday to discuss its misinformation policies.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board says, “It’s been clear for some time that the tech giants look to government to determine what coronavirus-related speech to allow. YouTube’s misinformation policy bans content that contradicts the evolving guidance of “health authorities.” Facebook stopped blocking some commentary on the lab-leak theory of the virus’s origins only after President Biden ordered an investigation into the possibility.”

In an earlier post (Free Speech in America), I recalled my own experience with censorship by Amazon when trying to publish a book that included coronavirus information. They were following the same approach as YouTube by banning any content that “contradicted the evolving guidance of health authorities.” Yet most of that information has since become public information acknowledged by health officials even today.

We are in a dangerous place when the government is restricting the flow of information based on their assessment of what constitutes “disinformation” – based on their political agenda. We’ve already witnessed the complete retraction of statements made by the Director of the CDC, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, when her bosses in the White House didn’t approve (CDC Director Caves to Politics). Why should we have any faith in any other statements coming from health officials who have been so obviously compromised?

The WSJ says “Wherever the legal line is drawn, the rise in Big Tech censorship that happens to align with government preferences ought to draw scrutiny. If it can happen on coronavirus, it can happen on other issues. Americans shouldn’t let that become the new normal.”