Connect with us

COVID-19

Report Shows Politics Trumped Science on U.S. Vaccine Mandates

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

If you thought responsible science drove the bus on the pandemic response, think again. A December 2024 report by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee, Coronavirus Pandemic shows that political agendas made regulatory bodies rush vaccine approvals, mandates, and boosters, causing public distrust.

ā€œAfter Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forwardā€ praised the Trump administration’s efforts to speed up vaccine development. By contrast, the report said presidential candidate Joe Biden and vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris undermined public confidence.

ā€œ[W]hy do we think the public is gonna line up to be willing to take the injection?ā€ Joe Biden asked on September 5, 2020. This quote appeared in aĀ PoliticoĀ article titled ā€œHarris says she wouldn’t trust Trump on any vaccine released before [the] election.ā€

The House report noted, ā€œThese irresponsible statements eventually proved to be outright hypocrisy less than a year later when the Biden-Harris Administration began to boldly decry all individuals who decided to forgo COVID-19 vaccinations for personal, religious, or medical reasons.ā€

Millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered beginning in December 2020 under anĀ Emergency Use Authorization. This mechanism allows unapproved medical products to be used in emergency situations under certain criteria, including that there are no alternatives. The only previous EUA was for the 2004 anthrax vaccine, which was only administered to a narrow group of people.

By the time vaccines rolled out, SARS-CoV-2 had already infected 91 million Americans. The original SARS virus some 15 years prior showed that people who recovered had lasting immunity. Later, a January 2021 study of 200 participants by the La Jolla Institute of Immunology found 95 per cent of people who had contracted SARS-CoV-2 (the virus behind COVID-19) had lasting immune responses. A February 16, 2023 article by Caroline Stein inĀ The LancetĀ (updated March 11, 2023) showed that contracting COVID-19 provided an immune response that was as good or better than two COVID-19 shots.

Correspondence suggests that part of the motivation for full (and not just emergency) vaccine approval was to facilitate vaccine mandates. A July 21, 2021, email from Dr. Marion Gruber, then director of vaccine reviews for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), recalled that Dr. Janet Woodcock had stated that ā€œabsent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination.ā€ Woodcock was the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner at the time.

Sure enough, the FDA granted full vaccine approval on August 23, 2021, more than four months sooner than a normal priority process would take. Yet, five days prior, Biden made an announcement that put pressure on regulators.

On August 18, 2021, Biden announced that all Americans would have booster shots available starting the week of September 20, pending final evaluation from the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Some decision-makers objected. Dr. Marion Gruber and fellow FDA deputy director of vaccine research Dr. Philip Krause had concerns regarding the hasty timelines for approving Pfizer’s primary shots and boosters. On August 31, 2021, they announced their retirements.

According to a contemporaryĀ New York TimesĀ article, Krause and Gruber were upset about Biden’s booster announcement. The article said that ā€œneither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet,ā€ and that they ā€œviewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the F.D.A. to quickly authorize them.ā€

InĀ The LancetĀ on September 13, 2021, Gruber, Krause, and 16 other scientists warned that mass boosting risked triggering myocarditis (heart inflammation) for little benefit.

ā€œ[W]idespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate,ā€ the authors wrote. ā€œCurrent evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high.ā€

Regardless, approval for the boosters arrived on schedule on September 24, 2021. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky granted this approval, but for a wider population than recommended by her advisory panel. This was only the second time in CDC history that a director had defied panel advice.

ā€œ[T]his process may have been tainted with political pressure,ā€ the House report found.

Amidst all this, the vaccines were fully licensed. The FDA licensed the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine on August 23, 2021. The very next day, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo announcing a vaccine mandate for the military. Four other federal mandates followed.

ā€œ[T]he public’s perception [is] that these vaccines were approved in a hurry to satisfy a political agenda,ā€ the House report found.

The House report condemned the dubious process and basis for these mandates. It said the mandates ā€œignored natural immunity, … risk of adverse events from the vaccine, as well as the fact that the vaccines don’t prevent the spread of COVID-19.ā€

The mandates robbed people of their livelihoods, ā€œhollowed out our healthcare and education workforces, reduced our military readiness and recruitment, caused vaccine hesitancy, reduced trust in public health, trampled individual freedoms, deepened political divisions, and interfered in the patient-physician relationship,ā€ the report continued.

The same could be said of Canadian vaccine mandates, as shown by the National Citizen’s Inquiry hearings on COVID-19. Unfortunately, an official federal investigation and a resulting acknowledgement do not seem forthcoming. Politicized mandates led to profits for vaccine manufacturers but left ā€œscienceā€ with a sullied reputation.

Lee HardingĀ is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

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

Addictions

New Report – Five years on: Tracing the costs of lockdowns

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

In 2019, 67 percent of Canadians rated their mental health as ā€œvery good or excellent.ā€ By 2023, that figure had dropped to just 54 percent.

A new report from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms examines the immediate and long-term negative impacts of Covid lockdowns, including physical, social, and economic harms. It also underscores the lack of transparent, evidence-based analysis by governments to justify these measures.

The reportĀ details how policies introduced with the stated goal of saving lives came at an extraordinary cost to Canadians’ mental and physical health, access to healthcare, economic security, and civil liberties.

One of the most concerning findings is the sharp decline in Canadians’ mental health. In 2019, 67 percent of Canadians rated their mental health as ā€œvery good or excellent.ā€ By 2023, that figure had dropped to just 54 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of Canadians reporting ā€œfair or poorā€ mental health nearly doubled—from 8 percent to 15 percent. This trend was seen across all age groups, but especially among young adults.

Indeed, despite facing minimal risk from Covid, young Canadians suffered some of the most serious consequences of lockdown measures. Non-Covid deaths among Canadians under age 45 rose by 22 percent, driven by factors such as disease, addiction, delayed treatment, and suicide. Physical activity among youth dropped significantly during this period, while time spent on screens—such as cell phones, computers, and tablets—increased sharply. Up to 70 percent of children and teens reported experiencing anxiety, depression, or other serious mental health issues.

A particularly alarming trend was the surge in opioid-related deaths. From 2020 to 2023, annual opioid overdose deaths increased by 108 percent. In 2023 alone, 8,606 Canadians died from opioid toxicity—more than double the pre-lockdown average. British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario recorded the highest rates, with the vast majority of deaths involving fentanyl.

During Covid, thousands of medical check-ups, diagnoses, and treatments were delayed or cancelled, resulting in a serious and ongoing backlog in Canada’s healthcare system.

Wait times for medical treatments increased by 43 percent between 2019 and 2024, reaching a median of 30 weeks. MRI wait times rose by 55 percent. For certain cancers, including breast and prostate, surgery delays increased by as much as 34 percent. Since 2018, more than 74,000 Canadians have died while waiting for surgery or diagnostic care—over 15,000 of them in 2023–24 alone. The actual number is likely higher, due to poor provincial tracking and reporting.

The economic impact was equally severe. Lockdowns resulted in widespread job losses, particularly among low-wage workers, while the ā€œlaptop classā€ remained largely unscathed. While many public sector jobs expanded during this time, Canadians in hospitality, retail, and service sectors faced prolonged unemployment. The expansion of public spending and government debt contributed to rising inflation, driving up the cost of food, housing, and other essentials.

Crime rates also rose during the lockdown years. Homicides peaked in 2022 at 17 percent above trend, with 882 victims across Canada. Cybercrime nearly doubled, rising from 48,000 cases in 2019 to over 93,000 in 2023. Identity theft and fraud increased to 120 percent above trend in 2020, with similar levels in the following years. Particularly troubling was the rise in online child sexual exploitation, which reached 18,650 reported cases in 2023—a 173 percent increase from 2019.

Benjamin Klassen, Education Coordinator at the Justice Centre, says the findings demand accountability. ā€œThis report calls for governments to take responsibility for the damage done during this period and ensure that future public health policies uphold the Charter rights and freedoms of all Canadians.ā€

Mr. Klassen continues, ā€œThe Charter requires governments to ā€˜demonstrably’ justify any freedom-limiting policy. To date, no federal or provincial government in Canada has conducted the kind of comprehensive impact assessment required to justify the lockdowns.ā€

He concludes, ā€œThe evidence is clear: the harms of lockdowns outweighed their benefits. Canadians deserve an honest and transparent evaluation of lockdown harms, so that these mistakes are never repeated.ā€

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s top doctor signed oath to withhold COVID info that could ā€˜embarrass’ Trudeau’s cabinet: records

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dozens of Canada’s top health managers and the nation’s top doctor were required to sign a secret oath that prevented them from divulging information relating to the COVID crisis to not ā€œembarrassā€ the federal government at the time.

Access to Information records show that Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, and ā€œquite a fewā€ other COVID pandemic managers had to sign the pledge,Ā as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter.

An internal staff email sent in 2020 from Alan Thom, vaccine supply manager with the Public Health Agency, showed he complained that so many managers had to take an oath of secrecy ā€œat a certain point the Department of Public Works determined individual non-disclosure agreements were no longer needed for federal employees as we are all covered through our responsibilities as public servants.ā€

In total, 29 managers signed the oath with the Public Health Agency and Departments of Foreign Affairs, Health, Industry and National Defence.

The oath came right after the federal government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, signed a deal to buy mRNA COVID jabs with pharmaceutical companies.

The oath noted, in part, that ā€œUnauthorized disclosure of any confidential information, including but not limited to disclosures or communications to supplier competitors or to the media may result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada and may jeopardize Canada’s supplier relations and procurement processes.ā€

It continued, stating, ā€œAs an employee of the Government of Canada I acknowledge I have read and understood theĀ Values And Ethics Code For The Public Sector,ā€ the pledge stated. ā€œI remain bound by my oath.ā€

Tam is aĀ strong proponentĀ of the COVID shots. At the peak of the COVID crisis in Canada, the Trudeau government signed about $8 billion in contracts with multiple companies, including, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer and Sanofi.

The first COVID jab to be approved for use in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech mRNA injection, which became available on December 9, 2020. Moderna’s mRNA jab followed a couple of weeks later. Of note is the launch of the jabs came after the Trudeau government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding jab-related injuries.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP)Ā was launchedĀ in December 2020 after the government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

Recently, VISP injury payments areĀ expected toĀ go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

AsĀ reported byĀ LifeSiteNews last week, a government-funded inhaled version of the COVID mRNA vaccines developed with abortion-tainted fetal cell lines is now entering Phase 2 clinical trials.

The federal government continues to purchase the COVID shots despite the fact itsĀ ownĀ data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection. It also comes as the government has had to increase spending on VISP, asĀ reported byĀ LifeSiteNews last week.

Canadians’ decision to refuse the shots also comes as a Statistic Canada reportĀ revealedĀ that deaths from COVID-19 and ā€œunspecified causesā€ rose after the release of the so-called ā€œsafe and effectiveā€ jabs.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental COVID mRNA jabs that include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children, and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X
OSZAR »