Connect with us

COVID-19

Harvard drops COVID vaccine mandate for students; other holdout colleges may follow suit

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Harvard’s reversal constitutes the “beginning of the end of the COVID mandate, the final nail in the coffin.”

Prestigious Harvard University has finally abandoned its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students, a surrender that could be the first of several dominoes to fall in academia.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that medical freedom group No College Mandates had identified 68 of the 1,216 undergraduate institutions of higher learning across the United States as still requiring students to take at least one mRNA COVID shot. The list includes Ivy League Harvard University, which said the shot is required for “all students who will be on campus” and that “registration holds (for classes) will be automatically applied” who “fall(s) out of compliance at any time for any of the required immunizations.” (Students could apply for medical or religious exemptions, however.)

On March 5, however, Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) announced that it “will no longer require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.” It continued to “strongly recommend that all members of the Harvard community stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters if eligible,” as well as “high-quality face mask(s) in crowded indoor settings and remaining at home if unwell.”

“This is a big deal. I am literally blown away,” No College Mandates co-founder Lucia Sinatra told The Epoch Times. “For Harvard to remove this language from the immunization forms is a huge sweeping move that is impossible to overstate. As goes Harvard, so goes the rest of the country, and I believe many of the small liberal arts colleges are now going to have a very hard time justifying the demand that young people take these shots now that Harvard has dropped it.”

Sinatra predicted that Harvard’s reversal constitutes the “beginning of the end of the COVID mandate, the final nail in the coffin.”

The COVID vaccines were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. But while initially hailed as an unprecedented achievement embraced by many in both parties, a significant body of evidence has since arisen establishing that they carry significant health risks.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 37,231 deaths, 214,906 hospitalizations, 21,524 heart attacks, and 28,214 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of February 23, among other ailments. An April 2022 study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection itself cannot fully account for the myocarditis numbers despite common insistence to the contrary. VAERS reports are technically unconfirmed, as anyone can submit one, but U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.” On the problem of under-reporting, the VAERS website offers only that “more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones” (emphasis added).

In 2021, Project Veritas shed light on some of the reasons for such under-reporting with undercover video from inside Phoenix Indian Medical Center, a facility run under HHS’s Indian Health Service program, in which emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales laments that myocarditis cases go unreported “because they want to shove it under the mat,” and nurse Deanna Paris attests to seeing “a lot” of people who “got sick from the side effects” of the COVID shots, but “nobody” is reporting them to VAERS “because it takes over a half hour to write the damn thing.”

Last September, the Japanese Society for Vaccinology published a peer-reviewed study conducted by researchers from Stanford, UCLA, and the University of Maryland, which found that the “Pfizer trial exhibited a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group” while the “Moderna trial exhibited a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group,” for a combined “16% higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.”

In December 2022, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin hosted a roundtable discussion during which civil rights attorney Aaron Siri detailed data from the CDC’s V-Safe reporting system revealing that 800,000 of the system’s 10 million participants, or approximately 7.7%, reported needing medical care after COVID injection. “Twenty-five percent of those people needed emergency care or were hospitalized, and another 48 percent sought urgent care,” Siri added. “Also, another 25 percent on top of the 7.7 percent reported being unable to work or go to school.”

Another study by a team of American, British, and Canadian researchers, published last December in the Journal of Medical Ethics, found that COVID booster mandates for university students – a relatively healthy group at relatively low risk from the virus – do far more harm than good: “per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5-4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalization).”

Most recently, an analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine – the largest analysis to date – “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.”

For those in the academic world still struggling under COVID vaccine mandates, No College Mandates offers on its website a variety of resources to help connect students and staff with resources to find information, counseling, and legal representation.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

New report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Manufacturing consent: Government behavioural engineering of Canadians, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report warns that the federal government has embedded behavioural science tactics in its operations in order to shape Canadians’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviours—without transparency, debate, or consent.

The report details how the Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in Ottawa is increasingly using sophisticated behavioural psychology, such as “nudge theory,” and other message-testing tools to influence the behaviour of Canadians.

Modelled after the United Kingdom’s Behavioural Insights Team, the IIU was originally presented as an innocuous “innovation hub.” In practice, the report argues, it has become a mechanism for engineering public opinion to support government priorities.

With the arrival of Covid, the report explains, the IIU’s role expanded dramatically. Internal government documents reveal how the IIU worked alongside the Public Health Agency of Canada to test and design a national communications strategy aimed at increasing compliance with federal vaccination and other public health directives.

Among these strategies, the government tested fictitious news reports on thousands of Canadians to see how different emotional triggers would help reduce public anxiety about emerging reports of adverse events following immunization. These tactics were designed to help achieve at least 70 percent vaccination uptake, the target officials associated with reaching “herd immunity.”

IIU techniques included emotional framing—using fear, reassurance, or urgency to influence compliance with policies such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements. The government also used message manipulation by emphasizing or omitting details to shape how Canadians interpreted adverse events after taking the Covid vaccine to make them appear less serious.

The report further explains that the government adopted its core vaccine message—“safe and effective”—before conclusive clinical or real-world data even existed. The government then continued promoting that message despite early reports of adverse reactions to the injections.

Government reliance on behavioural science tactics—tools designed to steer people’s emotions and decisions without open discussion—ultimately substituted genuine public debate with subtle behavioural conditioning, making these practices undemocratic. Instead of understanding the science first, the government focused primarily on persuading Canadians to accept its narrative. In response to these findings, the Justice Centre is calling for immediate safeguards to protect Canadians from covert psychological manipulation by their own government.

The report urges:

  1. Parliamentary oversight of all behavioural science uses within federal departments, ensuring elected representatives retain oversight of national policy.
  2. Public disclosure of all behavioural research conducted with taxpayer funds, creating transparency of government influence on Canadians’ beliefs and decisions.
  3. Independent ethical review of any behavioural interventions affecting public opinion or individual autonomy, ensuring accountability and informed consent.

Report author Mr. Hannaford said, “No democratic government should run psychological operations on its own citizens without oversight. If behavioural science is being used to influence public attitudes, then elected representatives—not unelected strategists—must set the boundaries.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman convicted at retrial even after original trial judge deemed him a “peacemaker”

Published on

Evan Blackman and his son at a hockey game 

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman has been convicted of mischief and obstructing a peace officer at the conclusion of his retrial at the Ontario Court of Justice, despite being fully acquitted on these charges at his original trial in October 2023.

The Court imposed a conditional discharge, meaning Mr. Blackman will have no jail time and no criminal record, along with 12 months’ probation, 122 hours of community service, and a $200 victim fine surcharge.

The judge dismissed a Charter application seeking to have the convictions overturned on the basis of the government freezing his bank accounts without explanation amid the Emergencies Act crackdown in 2022.

Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre had argued that Mr. Blackman acted peacefully during the enforcement action that followed the federal government’s February 14, 2022, invocation of the Emergencies Act. Drone footage entered as evidence showed Mr. Blackman deescalating confrontations, raising his hand to keep protestors back, and kneeling in front of officers while singing “O Canada.” The original trial judge described Mr. Blackman as a “peacemaker,” and acquitted him on all charges, but the Crown challenged that ruling, resulting in the retrial that has now led to his conviction.

Mr. Blackman was first arrested on February 18, 2022, during the police action to clear protestors from downtown Ottawa. Upon his release that same day, he discovered that three of his personal bank accounts had been frozen under the Emergency Economic Measures Order. RCMP Assistant Commissioner Michel Arcand later confirmed that 257 bank accounts had been frozen nationwide under the Emergencies Act.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury said, “While we are relieved that Mr. Blackman received a conditional discharge and will not carry a criminal record, we remain concerned that peaceful protestors continue to face disproportionate consequences stemming from the federal government’s response in February 2022.”

“We are disappointed that the Court declined to stay Mr. Blackman’s convictions, which are tainted by the serious infringements of his Charter-protected rights. Mr. Blackman is currently assessing whether he will be appealing this finding,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending

X