Opinion
Featured Image
Dr. Donald Ainslie HendersonJohns Hopkins University/screenshot

(Brownstone Institute) – Donald Henderson, who died in 2016, was a giant in the field of epidemiology and public health. He was also a man whose prophetic warnings from 2006 we chose to ignore in March of 2020.

Dr. Henderson directed a ten-year international effort from 1967–1977 that successfully eradicated smallpox. Following this, he served as Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health from 1977 to 1990. Toward the end of his career, Henderson worked on national programs for public health preparedness and response following biological attacks and national disasters.

In 2006, Henderson and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh Center for Health Security, where Henderson also maintained an academic appointment, published a landmark paper with the anodyne title, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza,” in the journal Biosecurity and Terrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science.

This paper reviewed what was known about the effectiveness and practical feasibility of a range of actions that might be taken in attempts to lessen the number of cases and deaths resulting from a respiratory virus pandemic. This included a review of proposed biosecurity measures, later utilized for the first time during COVID, such as “large scale or home quarantine of people believed to have been exposed, travel restrictions, prohibitions of social gatherings, school closures, maintaining personal distance, and the use of masks.”

Even assuming a case fatality rate (CFR) of 2.5%, roughly equal to the 1918 Spanish flu but far higher than the CFR for COVID, Henderson and his colleagues nevertheless concluded that these mitigation measures would do far more harm than good.

They found the most helpful strategy would be isolating symptomatic individuals (but not those who had merely been exposed) at home or in the hospital, a strategy that had long been part of traditional public health.

They also cautioned against reliance on computer modeling to predict the effects of novel interventions, warning that, “No model, no matter how accurate its epidemiologic assumptions, can illuminate or predict the secondary and tertiary effects of particular disease mitigation measures.”

Furthermore, “If particular measures are applied for many weeks or months, the long-term or cumulative second- and third-order effects could be devastating socially and economically.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION CONGRESS: Ban all males from female sports
  Show Petition Text
8011 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 9000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The entire country has seen what happens when men enter women's sports.

Lia Thomas is a biological male, but he was nonetheless allowed swim against elite female competitors to win an NCAA Freestyle competition, much to the disappointment of those women who had trained so hard to compete.

SIGN THE PETITION TO BAN MALES FROM WOMEN'S SPORTS TODAY

Males have a natural advantage over females in the vast majority of sports, so allowing them to enter women's sports can:

  • crush the motivation of the biological girls who have worked hard to compete on a level playing field
  • put females into harm's way in contact sports and locker rooms
  • deprive women of their right to fairly compete for college scholarships and many other accolades

We all know the spectacle of Lia Thomas defeating those female swimmers was a charade, a mockery of women's sports, but now it's time to do something about it.

Please SIGN this urgent petition calling on members of Congress to pass a law banning the participation of biological males in women's sports.

This is not just about ensuring biological girls and women can compete fairly and win in their chosen sports, but it's also a major safety issue in contact sports and the dangerous use of women's locker rooms by gender-confused males.

Some of you will remember Fallon Fox, the male MMA fighter who claimed to be a woman and left his female opponent concussed and with a fractured skull.

Fox later announced on social media that he enjoys "smacking up" women who "talk transphobic nonsense."

Any reasonable person knows men shouldn't compete against women, but some people are too politically correct to take a stand and protect girls and women from this madness.

It's now time to join the growing pushback against the gender-confused lobby and their dangerous beliefs that have literally left some female competitors in the hospital.

Please SIGN this common sense petition calling on Congress to ban all males from competing in women's sport.

Future generations will look back with gratitude on those who stood on the right side of history, defending women from these very confused males.

Nothing less than a federal ban on biological males forcing their way into women's sport is enough, so this petition will be sent to all members of Congress demanding legislative action.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Olympians, coaches, swimmers write open letter demanding NCAA protect women’s sports' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/olympians-coaches-swimmers-write-open-letter-demanding-ncaa-protect-womens-sports/

'Female swimmer torches NCAA after losing spot to William ‘Lia’ Thomas: ‘Make the right changes’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/female-swimmer-nudged-out-of-competition-by-william-lia-thomas-torches-ncaa-in-open-letter/

'Rep. Boebert files resolution declaring female runner-up to ‘Lia’ Thomas the rightful winner' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/boebert-leads-resolution-to-declare-female-runner-up-to-lia-thomas-the-rightful-winner/

**Photo Credit: Fox News/YouTube screenshot

  Hide Petition Text

Regarding forced quarantines of large populations, the authors noted, “There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people,” and they concluded,

“The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”

Likewise, they found, “Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective.” They argued that social distancing was also impractical and ineffective.

The authors noted that during previous influenza epidemics, large public events were occasionally cancelled; however, they found no evidence “that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic,” and they argue that “closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars… would have seriously disruptive consequences.” The review presented clear evidence that school closures would prove ineffective and enormously harmful. They likewise found no evidence for the utility of masks outside the hospital setting.

Henderson and his colleagues concluded their review with this overriding principle of good public health: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”

Needless to say, we did not heed any of this advice in March of 2020. We instead forged ahead with lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and the rest. When faced with COVID, we rejected time-tested principles of public health and embraced instead the untested biosecurity model. We are now living in the aftermath of this choice.

Reprinted with permission from the Brownstone Institute

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

2 Comments

    Loading...