Connect with us

COVID-19

Brown University Study Shows COVID Rules are to Blame for Decline in Children’s Development

Published

on

Children Covid

The Daily Mail reported on a “disturbing study” that “shows scores in three key cognitive tests slumped between 2018 and 2021, with face mask rules among possible culprits.” The federal government is forcing mandates on your children in the name of safety, health and the “greater good” but the reality is a very dark one.

The study was conducted by Brown University and shows that COVID rules are blamed for a 23% “dive in young children’s development.” Researchers analyzed 1,070 assessments administered on 605 kids prior to March 2020, before COVID rules such as masking and lockdowns went into effect.

Daily Mail writes “a further 154 assessments from 118 kids administered between March 2020 and June 2021, during the height of the pandemic, were then carried out.” Also, 39 children born in 2018 and 2019 were analyzed over the course of the pandemic into 2021.

The report found there was a 23 percent drop in scores which measured kids’ intelligence quotients since the start of the pandemic. “The study also found similar dips in the same span in regards to developing children’s ability to communicate, both verbally and through subtle facial cues.”

Verbal development “quotient also dropped dramatically, from an average of 100 in 2018 to just below 90 in 2020, and around 70 in 2021.” Non-verbal development “also experienced a similar dip, from a mean score of around 105 in 2019, to 100 in 2020 and around 80 in 2021.”

In conclusion, the study found that “children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.”

“In addition” the report adds, “masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socioemotional processing.”

Children at the most risk are boys from poor backgrounds: “we find that males appear significantly more impacted than females and that higher socioeconomic status (SES, as measured by maternal education) helps buffer against this negative impact.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

COVID-19

Former Harvard medical professor says he was fired for opposing Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates

Published

on

Covid

“My hope is that someday, Harvard will find its way back to academic freedom and independence.” That is the heartfelt message from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former Harvard University professor of medicine since 2003, who recently announced publicly he was fired for “clinging to the truth” in his opposition to Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Kulldorff posted the news on social media alongside an essay published in the City Journal last week. The epidemiologist and biostatistician also spoke with National Review about the incident. Kulldorff says he was fired by the Harvard-affiliated Mass General Brigham hospital system and put on a leave of absence by Harvard Medical School in November 2021 over his stance on Covid.

Nearly two years later, in October 2023, his leave of absence was terminated as a matter of policy, marking the end of his time at the university. Harvard severed ties with Kulldorff “all on their initiative,” he said.

The history of the medical professional’s public stance on Covid-19 vaccines and mandates is detailed by National Review:

Censorship and rejection led Kulldorff to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020 alongside Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University. Together, the three public-health scientists argued for limited and targeted Covid-19 restrictions that “protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives,” as Kulldorff put it in his essay.

“The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified—and even grew slanderous,” he wrote, naming former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins as the one who ordered a “devastating published takedown” of the declaration.

Testifying before Congress in January, Collins reaffirmed his previous statements attacking the Great Barrington Declaration.

Despite the coordinated effort against it, the document has over 939,000 signatures in favor of age-based focused protection.

The Great Barrington Declaration’s authors, who advocated the quick reopening of schools, have been vindicated by recent studies that confirm pandemic-era school closures were, in fact, detrimental to student learning. The data show that students from third through eighth grade who spent most of the 2020–21 school year in remote learning fell more than half a grade behind in math scores on average, while those who attended school in person dropped a little over a third of a grade, according to a New York Times review of existing studies. In addition to learning losses, school closures did very little to stop the spread of Covid, studies show.

Continue Reading

Trending