The following was penned by Dr. Stephen Malthouse in support of the interview he did with BCN News Alberta, Canada on December 16th.
In 2011, a review of the literature by the British Columbia Centres for Disease Control that sought to
evaluate the effectiveness of social distancing measures such as school closures, travel restrictions, and
limitations on mass gatherings as a means to address an in????uenza pandemic concluded that “such drastic
restrictions are not economically feasible and are predicted to delay viral spread, but not impact overall
mortality”. Speci????cally, there appears to be no scienti????c or medical evidence for
- Self-isolation of asymptomatic people
- social distancing
- arbitrary closure of businesses
- closure of schools, daycares, park amenities, and playgrounds
- the discontinuance of access to education, medical, dental, chiropractic, naturopathic, hearing, dietary,
therapeutic, and other support for the physically and mentally disabled, particularly special needs
children with neurological disorders
- the closing down of or restrictions on religious places of worship.
According to the CDC Pandemic Severity Index, none of these measures have been warranted. The Great
Barrington Declaration, signed by more than 30,000 health scientists and medical doctors from around the
world, adds support for this statement.
Surprisingly, the recommendation for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality by supplementing with
vitamin D, a measure that is supported by high-quality research, has been absent from your frequent public
broadcasts and professional bulletins. Optimizing nutrition is a convenient, inexpensive, and safe method of
improving immune resistance and has been con????rmed through numerous studies for both prevention and
treatment of COVID-19. As far as I am aware, you have never mentioned something as simple as vitamin D
supplements for our most vulnerable citizens. Yet, it was the promise to protect these same citizens that was
used to justify the lockdown of a healthy population and the closure of businesses.
Why are you still using PCR testing? The Deputy Chief Medical Of????cer for Health in Ontario has publicly
stated that the PCR test yields over 50% false positives. A New York Times investigative report found that
PCR testing yields up to 90% false positives due to excessive ampli????cation beyond the recommendations of
the manufacturer. The PCR test was never designed, intended or validated to be used as a diagnostic tool.
Even the Alberta Health Services COVID-19 Scienti????c Advisory Group has stated “clinical sensitivity and
speci????city values have not been determined for lab developed RT-PCR testing in Canada”. Despite expert
consensus, you continue to use this inappropriate and inaccurate test to report so-called “cases” and justify