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

AstraZeneca withdraws COVID vaccines worldwide amid lawsuits alleging severe harm

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has withdrawn the marketing authorization for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine at the manufacturer’s request.

AstraZeneca insists that its intention of pulling it COVID-19 vaccine, Vaxzevria, from markets around the globe is based solely on decreased demand as other more effective vaccines have become available.

However, the announcement comes as the pharmaceutical giant faces lawsuits concerning severe harm — including death — to some of the vaccine’s recipients.

AstraZeneca admitted in a court document submitted in February that Vaxzevria, “can, in very rare cases, cause TTS,” while adding, “The causal mechanism is not known.”

TTS (Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome) is perhaps better described as  VITT, “Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia,” coined in March 2021, not long after the COVID-19 vaccines were being mandated around the globe.

VITT denotes a condition where blood clots form, reducing normal blood flow after reception of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

Young people were soon found to be at higher risk for developing the condition.

As early as May 2021, those under age 40 were being directed away from taking the AstraZeneca jab.

The UK government revealed in 2022 that 247 cases of fatal blood clots in those who had received AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine had been reported up until March 31 of that year. During that same period, 3,385 non-fatal blood clots were reported.

“It has taken AstraZeneca a year to formally admit that their vaccine can cause the devastating blood clots, when this fact has been widely accepted by the clinical community since the end of 2021,” Sarah Moore, a partner at law firm Leigh Day representing the victims, told The Telegraph in April.

Today’s news of Astrazeneca’s withdrawal of its vaccine European markets “will be seen as a decision linked with AstraZeneca’s recent admission that the vaccine can cause TTS, and the fact that regulators across the world suspended or stopped usage of the vaccine following concerns regarding TTS.”

Despite the acknowledgement of cases of TTS contracted by recipients of its COVID-19 vaccine, AstraZeneca has insisted that its product met industry standards.

“Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems,” the Big Pharma corporation said in a statement. “Patient safety is our highest priority, and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

“AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine was first given the nod by the EMA in January 2021,” a report by the Associated Press (AP) noted. “Within weeks, however, concerns grew about the vaccine’s safety, when dozens of countries suspended the vaccine’s use after unusual but rare blood clots were detected in a small number of immunized people. The EU regulator concluded AstraZeneca’s shot didn’t raise the overall risk of clots, but doubts remained.”

“Partial results from its first major trial — which Britain used to authorize the vaccine — were clouded by a manufacturing mistake that researchers didn’t immediately acknowledge,” the AP report continued. Sadly, “Insufficient data about how well the vaccine protected older people led some countries to initially restrict its use to younger populations before reversing course.”

Some are questioning the morality of AstraZeneca’s leadership, fully supportive of its mandated vaccine even as evidence of serious side effects arose.

“When I met the AstraZeneca boss in Davos, he claimed Covid vaccine mandates were needed to PROTECT as many people as possible,” Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini  recounted on X.

“Today, his drug was pulled off the market after it was revealed it HURT the same people forced to have it,” Yemini said. “Let that sink in.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Elon Musk’s X will help fund COVID shot critic’s ongoing legal battle against Canadian university

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dr. Matthew Strauss is an Ontario physician and a federal Conservative Party candidate nominee who has been critical of COVID lockdowns and mandates for years.

Elon Musk’s X announced that it will fund the legal battle for a Canadian doctor critical of COVID lockdowns against his former employer Queen’s University after it forced him to resign.

“X is proud to fund a lawsuit filed by Dr. Matthew Strauss, an Ontario critical care physician and professor, against his former employer, Queen’s University,” @XNews posted last Friday.

“After Dr. Strauss argued against wide COVID lockdowns and mandates on his X account, @strauss_matt, Queen’s University (@queensu) publicly ostracized him, retaliated against him, and ultimately forced him to resign because his opinions did not conform to the university’s political orthodoxy.”

Musk’s X News said it “supports Dr. Strauss’ efforts to vindicate his free speech rights without fear of unfair retaliation!”

Strauss is an Ontario physician who is also a federal Conservative Party candidate nominee for Kitchener-South Hespeler. For years, he has been critical of COVID lockdowns and mandates. In 2021, he observed that full hospitals in Canada have been the norm for decades.

“Hospitals have been full since I started medical training in 2004. Out of 33 OECD countries, Canada comes in 31st place for hospital beds per capita. I will not surrender my human rights to the health care mis-managers who bungled this for the last 20 years,” Strauss wrote.

Strauss’s lawsuit claims that he was the target of Queen’s University after it allegedly censored him and enacted professional reprisals against him because of his outspoken views against COVID mandates and lockdowns.

Last Friday, Strauss reiterated the importance of academic freedom and thanked both Musk and X for helping him fund his legal battle.

“Academic freedom is critical to the proper function of a university,” Strauss posted on X.

Regarding his claims against Queen’s University’s medical faculty, Strauss said the university resorted to “malicious, aggressive, condescending, and defamatory statements” to kick him out of his position.

His lawsuit will seek compensation from what he says was Queen’s University damaging his professional integrity and infringing on his rights to freedom of expression.

For a time, Strauss served as the acting medical officer for Haldimand-Norfolk in Ontario.

He is not the only Canadian doctor critical of COVID mandates who has in recent weeks received financial backing from Musk’s X. Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views, has also received the support of Musk.

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’ConnorMark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative.

Continue Reading

Trending

X