What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

The answer will be none, if we wait for His Majesty’s Government

Int J Public Health, 30 May 2025

Volume 70 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727

Dr Ros Jones, HART author

Gerry Quinn, HART member and lead author, has worked tirelessly to get this paper co-authored, peer reviewed and published and his efforts have finally come to fruition. Whilst, the process is often as hard as the end result, the article epitomises what can be done when 37 scientists and academics from 13 countries can co-operate.

Several HART members are included in the authors list - Gerry Quinn himself plus Clare Craig, Norman Fenton, Ros Jones, Alan Mordue and Karol Sikora. Whilst all the authors would have different emphasis and there will certainly be points about which we would hold very different interpretations, the paper attempts to bring those differing views into one document.

It was most unusual to get a paper accepted which runs to 32 pages and with 399 references and the authors are indebted to the International Journal of Public Health for accepting it and to the diligence of their reviewers.

The paper covers four main areas: the problems of mathematical modelling for informing public health policy; the use of low evidenced non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs); the inconsistent approach to pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) (from the lack of research into and denigration of any repurposed drugs, to the rush to unsafe and unnecessary new technology gene-based ‘vaccines’ for whole populations; and finally the ubiquitous censorship of any differing voices.

In the final section, the paper gives seven conclusions and seven recommendations.

I highlight the last of these, which perhaps sums up why the HART group was formed in the first place. Our readers will know we have had more than our fair share of smearing and censorship including an illegal hack of our online workspace. It is possible that if governments around the world had listened to different voices speaking out from early 2020, then many of the policy disasters outlined in this article could have been avoided.

“Conclusion 7: In a misguided attempt to reduce “the spread of misinformation”, media outlets, social media platforms, government agencies and scientific journals have severely restricted access to valuable scientific information and severely hampered the ability of everyone to have informed discussions of complex, multifaceted problems associated with COVID-19.

Recommendation 7: In our opinion, the best antidote to bad ideas is to counter them with better ideas. Censorship of different scientific opinions does not lead to better scientific opinions–it leads to weaker scientific conclusions. Scientific freedom should be cherished. If not, the costs to humanity may be very high.”

The following press statement has gone out today widely. It will be interesting to see who covers it? BMJ or Lancet maybe ???!!

Press statement - 2nd June 2025

A new study in the International Journal of Public Health by an interdisciplinary team of 37 co-authors from 13 countries (Europe, North America & South America) reveals critical flaws in the global management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Titled “What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?”, this comprehensive review, published two years after the World Health Organization declared the end of the global health emergency (May 5, 2023), is the first major independent multidisciplinary assessment of the entire pandemic response (2020-2023). The study examines the profound consequences of both the pandemic and the global responses, which continue to impact societies worldwide.

Unlike prior assessments that focused narrowly on one or two aspects, this review uniquely integrates perspectives from many disciplines, including immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, data analysts, economists, research methodologists, psychologists, medical doctors, and social scientists. The study scrutinized the major COVID-19 policies implemented globally, from initial lockdowns, mask mandates, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to the rollout of vaccination programs. The authors identified significant scientific flaws underpinning many of these policies, particularly an over-reliance on inadequately tested mathematical models that shaped public health decisions.

Co-author Prof. Norman Fenton, a risk specialist at Queen Mary University of London, stated, “much of the Covid response was compromised by flawed definitions, mathematical models that were not grounded in rigorous testing against actual data, and easily manipulated statistics. These were used to mislead and frighten the public into unnecessary and ineffective interventions, while attempts to highlight these concerns were largely censored.” The study argues that these flawed models led to misguided policies that failed to account for real-world complexities.

Some argue that COVID-19’s unique nature warranted emergency measures. Yet, despite these measures, infections persisted across nations, and countries with less restrictive policies often achieved outcomes comparable to those with stricter measures. Scientists and medical professionals advocating for policy re-assessments were frequently ignored or silenced.

Physicians exploring the potential use of promising repurposed drugs faced sanctions and media derision, while researchers raising scientific or ethical concerns about the safety and efficacy of rapidly adopted gene-based vaccines were dismissed, despite increasing reports of adverse reactions. Lead author Dr. Gerry Quinn, a microbiologist and immunologist from Northern Ireland, emphasized, “the ‘safety signal’ system was originally created to serve as an early warning system against medical disasters. It is very disconcerting that the alarm bells from this system have been ringing since 2021, yet no-one seems to care. This raises serious ethical concerns.”

Citing over 400 references, the study notes that many scientists and physicians warned policymakers and the public about flaws in COVID-19 policies, only to be mislabelled as spreading “scientific misinformation.” Co-author Prof. Harvey Risch, a Professor Emeritus in Epidemiology for the Yale School of Public Health, stated, "Labelling valid scientific viewpoints as 'misinformation' was a grave error that stifled progress and led to unnecessary additional mortality. We must create a space where all evidence-based perspectives are fairly considered."

The authors conclude with seven evidence-based recommendations, including using models as tools rather than data substitutes and encouraging critical evaluation of interventions without fear of censure. They urge global leaders to adopt these measures for transparent, effective future pandemic responses.

For more information, please contact

Dr. Gerry Quinn g.quinn@ulster.ac.uk, or

Dr Ronan Connolly ronan@ceres-science.com

Citation details for the study

Quinn et al. (2025) “What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?”, International Journal of Public Health, Volume 70 – 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727

Additional quotes from co-authors

With this multidisciplinary international collaboration involving 37 scientists and medical professionals, each of the co-authors had different perspectives and opinions on the importance or relevance of certain topics. Therefore, we have appended this press release with additional quotes and comments from some of the co-authors.

Prof. Demetrios A. Spandidos, Medical School, University of Crete (Greece) “Our study would be a guide in future pandemics, not only scientists but also for health policy makers, pharmaceutical companies and governments dealing with the management of similar health problems.”

Prof. Paul Frijters, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics (UK) “A crisis is indeed never wasted. Unfortunately.”

Prof. Harald Walach, professor of research methodology "It is an extremely bad idea to close the bag of scientific discourse too early and shutter off qualified dissent. What we present here is a wide variety of qualified opinion and information that could and should have been taken seriously much earlier. In that case pandemic responses would have been much more diverse, more adequate to local situations and would have cost less lives. The lesson is: in future situations refrain from centralist steering. Centralism has shown its ugly face in this pandemic"

Dr. Raymond Heymans, molecular biologist (Netherlands) “This paper highlights the importance of fostering open scientific discussions during crises, free from censorship, stigmatization or the demonization of scientists who critique policies or present perspectives that are not in line with governmental or industrial agendas.”

Prof. José Antonio Peña-Ramos, Department of Political Science and Administration, Universidad de Granada (Granada, Spain) "States should have acted more proportionately, without adopting so many extreme measures, focusing on specific population segments and
protecting the economy.”

Dr Tess Lawrie, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. (UK) “The Covid crisis exposed the inherent dangers of centralised health policy. The unprecedented influence of the drug industry, billionaires and the WHO helped push through the global rollout of experimental COVID-19 vaccines that would likely never have been authorised under a truly independent process. Safeguarding public health demands decentralisation and accountability at the local level, as well as respect for individual sovereignty.”

Dr. Antonio Sánchez Bayón, Department of Applied Economics, Rey Juan Carlos University, (Spain) "For future crises management, it is better a bottom-up approach, based in social coordination and digital connections, than a top-down approach, based in a coactive centralized planning. Spain offers empirical illustrations in this sense: COVID-19 crisis, volcano crisis, DANA crisis, electric crisis, etc."

Dr. Beny Spira, Departamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo (Brazil) “‘Science’ failed us when we needed it most. Rather than encouraging inquiry and debate, gatekeepers at key positions shut down open discussion, allowing only a single narrative to dominate scientific publications and legacy media. Now, we're witnessing just how wrong they were across a wide range of issues during the pandemic.”

Dr. Dragos Simandan, Faculty of Social Sciences, Brock University (Canada) "The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that highly educated people are just as likely to lose their cool and succumb to collective hysteria as their lesser educated counterparts. It was really disturbing to see academics who made their careers promoting the importance of critical thinking and of interrogating and deconstructing dominant narratives failing to apply those very same skills to interrogating and deconstructing the dominant COVID-19 narrative promoted by public health officials and the mainstream mass media.”

Prof. Ari Joffe, John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre, University of Alberta (Canada) “The Emergency Management process was abandoned. The EM process would have included the correct aim (to minimize the impact of the pandemic on society wellbeing), task force (with wide multidisciplinary representation), decision-making process (transparent consideration of potential courses open, subjecting each to cost-benefit analysis of their effects on population wellbeing), and iterative updates as data accrues (including the low infection fatality rate under age 60-70 years). This could have prevented the massive and lasting harm done to population wellbeing by NPIs.”

Prof. Michaéla Schippers, Department of Organisation and Personnel Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (Netherlands) “The devastating ripple effects of the NPI’s were summed up early on into the crisis in my paper ‘For the greater good: The devastating ripple effects of the Covid-19 crisis’ but was not picked up in terms of policy changes. I hope we learn from the mistakes and avoid the “death spiral effect” of societal demise.”

Dr. Jane Orient, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (USA) “Most diseases are not vaccine-preventable. We need better treatments, and the most efficient way to develop them is to repurpose existing drugs, now possible through a rigorous method grounded in bioinformatics. Academia suddenly stopped supporting this with COVID. Use of safe drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin – instead of nontreatment – would have saved many lives and possibly stopped the pandemic.”

Dr. Jessica Rose, Brownstone Institute (USA) "Models guiding public health policy - particularly for experimental vaccine mandates - are like weather forecasts for surfing: they can be useful, but are ultimately limited. Models are not oracles, they are tools, and can be used as a guide, but should never be used to dictate policy especially when public trust and bodily autonomy are at stake. There's no point putting on a wetsuit that is cold and wet until you see the surf is pumping, with your very own eyes."

Prof. Philipp Bagus, Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University (Spain) “Our research shows the government management of the COVID-crisis had disastrous consequences. Government meddling with health is very dangerous.”

Dr. Ros Jones, Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART, UK) “As a paediatrician, I was especially concerned with the 'one size fits all' approach of lockdowns including school closures and more particularly for the vaccine rollout. Messages such as 'Don't Kill Your Granny' were employed and society's traditional protection of children was turned on its head with the expectation that children should instead protect adults."

Dr Willie Soon, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES, USA) "The multidisciplinary collaboration behind this paper is a model for how science should tackle complex issues. In my research, I’ve seen how insights from one field can illuminate another. The pandemic response would have benefited from a broader range of expertise—beyond just epidemiology—to address the multifaceted challenges we faced. In my scientific research across many disciplines, I’ve learned that nature often defies theoretical projections. This paper highlights how pandemic models, much like computer climate models, failed to account for real-world complexities like seasonality and human behaviour. Moving forward, we must prioritize empirical evidence over alarming projections to guide policy."

Prof. José Luis Domingo Roig, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rovira i Virgili (Spain) “I would like to personally note that, during the pandemic, the publisher of the scientific journal-where I served as Editor-in-Chief-interfered with my editorial work. Regrettably, I believe I was not the only one affected by such actions at that time. This interference was the primary reason for my prompt resignation. Upholding scientific integrity requires complete editorial independence, especially during critical periods such as a pandemic.”

Prof. Carlos F. Cáceres, School of Public Health and Administration, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru) "The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes has been documented in the past, and the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of early treatment, non-pharmacological interventions and vaccination in this case cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of the COVID controversies (e.g. on free expression, vaccine mandates, restriction of freedoms) also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind."