Vaccine Mandates at Dartmouth College: Informed Consent?

Why aren't Americans being fully informed of the risks of Covid vaccines?

An incredible panel of informed voices joined together on April 26 at the Hanover Inn in Hanover, New Hampshire to address informed consent in college vaccine mandates.  Hosted by Concerned Alumni of Dartmouth, the event was fully sold out.  Dartmouth College declined to attend.  Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. followed the panel, demonstrating an extensive knowledge of the dubious ethical history—and potential adverse health impacts—of vaccines mandated by government/pharmaceutical joint decree.

Dartmouth College has previously required full vaccination of students and staff:

Students, faculty, and staff are required to receive all recommended doses in their primary COVID-19 vaccine series, and one booster dose when eligible, or have an approved exemption. Students must submit documentation of vaccination or an approved exemption before beginning their study or work at Dartmouth.

….Applicable health guidelines at Dartmouth and elsewhere continue to evolve in response to available medical data and public health priorities. 

This requirement was lifted on April 11, but the College still advises full vaccination:

Dartmouth continues to advise that all community members receive the necessary COVID-19 vaccines, in response to guidance issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the email noted. The College will work with health-care providers to maintain a supply of vaccines and share information about how to find vaccines in the community. 

Though Dartmouth has long prioritized consent for sexual activity, its Covid vaccination resources are completely silent about any potential risks of harm from these experimental gene therapy injections, or the risks to young people of catching Covid.  These issues were the subject of the Wednesday night forum.

Young people are not much at risk from death or serious harm if they catch Covid.  This has been clear throughout the pandemic, and is corroborated by CDC data.  This cannot be said for the shots, for which an unprecedented number of adverse reactions have been reported, including for young adults.

Wednesday’s apolitical event, aptly titled “Important Conversations Never Had,” dared engage in precisely the sort of informed and intelligent conversations once expected at institutions of higher learning, but which Dartmouth College has consistently eschewed.  The panel included a variety of highly experienced and qualified speakers who shared a list of problems with this failure to warn.

Harvard medical school graduate Dr. Sandy Reider, a founder of Physicians for Informed Consent, observed that informed consent is bound with the United States Constitution, a right which he views as “absolute and not relative.”  Dr. Reider joined others in explaining that the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has been flooded by exponentially more complaints of adverse reactions than all prior vaccines combined.  Shouldn’t college students be informed of this threat, when colleges require or recommend these pharmaceutical products?

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra related that the trade-off for young people was not worth vaccination, because tens of thousands of vaccinations are required to ward off each serious hospitalization, versus higher risks of adverse vaccine reactions.  He criticized the revolving door of CDC regulators and pharmaceutical interests, and paraphrased Dr. John Ioannidis for the proposition that “the greater the financial interests, the less reliable the medical research.”  Younger people are more likely to experience a severe adverse event from these vaccines than they are to be hospitalized for Covid.  Dr. Malhotra called the government-mandated push for vaccine mandates a psychopathy, and “a freedom to deceive.” 

If the shots are scientifically established to be more dangerous than catching Covid for young patients, shouldn’t colleges disclose that?  If not, should they face legal liability for adverse reactions that occur, rather than cower behind corrupt CDC “guidance”?  As Dr. Joel Walskogg related, there is NO liability for the manufacturers if a person is sickened or injured by a so-called vaccine-–”You are on your own.”  Isn’t that pretty important legal information for college students at Dartmouth and elsewhere to be informed of prior to electively deciding to receive an irrevocable jab?

Dr. Martin Kulldorff related that from early on, there was clearly a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality rates between young and old, and that policies which diverted limited vaccines to the young “laptop class” unfairly exposed at-risk rural and working class elderly Americans (and impoverished Africans). 

George Mason University Law School Professor Todd Zywicki discussed the unquestioned superiority of natural immunity over all vaccines, for defense against Covid and also for transmission. Vaccines do not provide mucosal immunity and so do nothing to prevent transmission— despite false claims that shots prevent the spread of the disease. Should college students who have previously had Covid be exposed to jabs, without informing them of the risks and lack of necessity of an inferior protection?

Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer vaccine trials, explained that she had never seen such speedy and sloppy patient trials as for these vaccines: that patients in trials were denied basic informed consent.  She witnessed the fabrication and falsification of data, complained to Pfizer, then the FDA, and was fired six hours later. 

(With Dr. Meryl Nass, one of my heroes!)

Following the panel was attorney and activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  The crowd enthusiastically received Kennedy’s recounting of his experience with vaccines, and why he came to distrust both the so-called science and the integrity of government and industry collaborators who have misinformed Americans about the innate risks of their products.  Kennedy claims pharmaceutical manufacturers enjoy a twin benefit from the modern regulatory mechanisms which they control: free advertising (through CDC advisories and government/private mandates), and no liability or legal accountability when their products cause harm. 

As an environmental attorney, Mr. Kennedy has reviewed many hundreds of studies of vaccines.  Not a single study can be produced comparing patient outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients—because none have been done.  Candidate Kennedy twice called industry claims of vaccine safety “canards,” and pointed to manufacturer inserts (which recount a myriad of potential side effects) for Covid injections as the one reliable place to seek accurate information.  This is because manufacturers obtain legal immunity only for those risks disclosed, and legally cannot include risks for which there is no evidence.  

Americans getting shots are not being informed of these various concerns.  There is no informed consent.  This is an extremely important conversation ….to be continued.

(This commentary was also published April 28, 2023 at American Thinker.)