Jonathan Decker on January 20, 2021 | End Regulatory Tyranny

by Phil Kerpen


Human beings, and especially our politicians, have a need to feel in control. Tough-guy governors preen about their control measures: lockdowns, closures, hyper-testing, contact tracing, and arbitrary micromanagement of citizens’ lives, families, and businesses. But the evidence that any of these measures have a meaningful effect on the coronavirus’s rise and fall in a given area is extremely sparse, while the lockdown-caused pain, suffering, and death is layered on top of the far lesser harms of the virus. The most draconian control measures have often come after the virus is already in decline in an area, at the moment of maximum political pain. And judging from the pandemic response in Europe, our leaders may be ineducable, repeating the same mistakes in the fall that they made in the spring. That is what makes this year’s fall and winter seasons uniquely dangerous.


SARS-CoV-2 is a serious viral pathogen for people who are very old or medically frail. It wreaks havoc in long-term care facilities — yet the places in the world with the highest death rates (Lombardy, Italy, the United Kingdom, New York, New Jersey, etc.) all implemented some version of deprioritizing residents of those facilities to keep hospital beds available for the general population.


For many people, however — and contrary to frequent misreporting — COVID is a relatively mild infection. For adults ages fifty to seventy, the CDC best estimate for the survival rate is 99.5 percent. From ages twenty to fifty, it is 99.98 percent, and for children and young adults under age twenty, according to the CDC, the survival rate is 99.997 percent — far less dangerous than seasonal influenza. Children rarely infect adults, and we now have several studies showing that exposure to young children actually reduces the risk of COVID death in adults, presumably because the many childhood bugs they carry help build up a strong immune system.


Read more at the American Spectator: 


Jonathan Decker on October 7, 2020 | End Regulatory Tyranny
October 7, 2020
The Honorable John Thune
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building 511
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Thune,
We write to thank you for your recent letter supporting the American competitive approach to 5G deployment, which is private sector driven and private sector led.[1] We agree that nationalizing 5G and experimenting with untested models for 5G deployment is not the way the United States wins the 5G race. Deployment of 5G should not rely on the government but should focus on unleashing the private sector and the free market.
We too are concerned with the Department of Defense Request for Information on a government-managed process for 5G development and are alarmed with how quickly it is proceeding.
Phil Kerpen on August 5, 2020 | End Regulatory Tyranny

By Phil Kerpen

After an early bureaucratic disaster – the feds banned private sector tests and failed to deliver a test that worked – the U.S. has ramped up testing to astronomical levels, dwarfing the rest of the world and any historical comparison.  We average about 1.5 million tests per flu season, and we've now run over 57 million tests for SARS-CoV2.   But have all those tests delivered what proponents of mass testing promised?  Have they contained the spread and restored public confidence that infectious people are at home, not out and about?  Absolutely not.  In fact, by the time most test results are available, the people who were positive are no longer infectious.  The tests serve no actual infection control purpose.  And the tests that actually would make all the difference are still banned by the FDA.

The CDC reports that most infected people are no longer infectious six to ten days after symptom onset.  People with very severe disease can be infectious longer, up to 20 days -- but people with severe disease aren't waiting for a test result to find out if they are sick and self-isolate.  The CDC also reports, however, that even though they have never found live, infectious virus three weeks after symptom onset, the so-called gold standard PCR tests we have been using can show positive based on non-infectious viral debris for up to 12 weeks.  So the mass, industrial-scale testing we're doing – with several days turnaround time – isn't letting infectious people know they are positive quickly enough to alter their behavior.  And many of the positives are likely meaningless artifacts of months-old infections.  It feeds a mass public panic but accomplishes little else.

The tests that we actually need are instant tests that people could take themselves and get results in the morning, confidently going about their daily activities – work, school, leisure – knowing they are not infectious.  These tests, paper antigen tests, have been developed by a team at MIT that applied for FDA approval back in March.  There are several companies ready to mass produce them with FDA approval and unlike the PCR tests that cost around $100 per test, the paper antigen tests could cost as little as $2, making daily self-testing cost effective for most Americans.

In an astonishing display of government stupidity, the FDA's objection to the paper antigen tests is based on precisely the characteristic that makes them vastly superior to the PCR tests – they are far less sensitive.  FDA has used the extreme sensitivity of the PCR tests as a benchmark and refused to issue emergency use authorizations for less sensitive tests.  But a test that is so sensitive that it picks up viral debris for months is not a useful tool to prevent infection.  A less sensitive test that is calibrated to show positive when a person is actually infectious is far more useful.  That makes the paper antigen tests not only cheaper and faster but better than the...