Doctor Calls Vaccine Mandates ‘Scientifically Inconsistent and Illogical,’ Forced ‘Humiliations’ in Testimony Before Coronavirus Subcommittee

In testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Thursday, a doctor from the University of Washington said that Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates subjected Americans “to the humiliations of forced medical treatments,” were “scientifically inconsistent and illogical,” and “an insult to our American foundation of freedom.”

Dr. Kevin Bardosh, an affiliate assistant professor, cited an academic paper he published in the BMJ in March of 2023 on COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults which found vaccine mandates on college campuses to be inappropriate and unethical because it likely resulted in a net harm to young people.

“In our paper, we combined empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis,” Bardosh explained. “We estimated that to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization over a 6-month period, between 31,000–42,000 young adults aged 18–29 years would have to receive a third mRNA vaccine,” he continued. “But this would mean that for each hospitalization prevented with these booster mandates, at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines would occur, including 1-5 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalization).”

Three other witnesses testified before the Committee hearing titled “Examining the Science and Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates,” including Danielle Runyan, the Senior Counsel for First Liberty, a legal organization that is representing many U.S. service members who lawfully objected to the required injections, and Allison Williams, a sports reporter who was fired from ESPN after 10 years of employment because she refused to get the jab. Williams is now a reporter for Fox Sports.

Dr. John Lynch, Associate Professor of Medicine and Allergy and Infectious Diseases at University of Washington School of Medicine, defended the jabs as a witness for the House minority. “COVID-19 vaccines provide significant protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death,” Lynch testified, citing CDC data.

Bardosh said his paper concluded that university booster mandates are unethical because the risks outweigh the benefits for young people.

1. Are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit
assessment for this age group;
2. May result in a net harm to healthy young adults;
3. Are not proportionate: expected harms do not outweigh their public health
benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against
transmission;
4. Violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are
not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and
5. May result in wider social harms, such as losing educational opportunities
for those who do not comply.

Bardosh also cited an important and widely read paper from late 2021, also published in BMJ, titled: The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.

“In the first paper, written in late 2021, I and a group of scholars from Johns Hopkins, Oxford, Harvard and elsewhere outlined a set of 12 reasons why the coercive approach to COVID vaccination policy would ultimately be both counterproductive and damaging to public health and society,” Bardosh testified. “We based these ideas on the existing literature at the time, with nearly 150 citations.”

We divided these 12 reasons into 4 categories:

Read More HERE