I am an independent researcher who aims to present a realistic perspective of COVID-19, using the most competent, high-quality references.
The Concept of "Compelling Government Interest"
Compelling governmental interest means a specific and legitimate interest of a government that is of the highest order in the context in which it is asserted.
Protecting public health or corporate health is the compelling interest that a government or organization must have in mandating a vaccine. For a vaccine to legitimately serve this interest, there must be evidence of the vaccine's effectiveness.
With regard to a vaccine, what does it mean to protect public or corporate health? It means that the vaccine prevents infections and that the vaccine prevents transmission of infections.
Prevention of infection and prevention of transmission has not been demonstrated with the COVID-19 vaccines. How, then, do COVID-19 vaccines serve a compelling government or corporate interest to protect health?
The answer is that COVID-19 vaccines do not serve a compelling government or corporate interest, because correct interpretation of the now available data provides no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines really work, either to prevent infection or to prevent transmission. Rather, these vaccines seem to lessen symptoms of and reduce deaths from COVID-19.
Lessening symptoms or reducing deaths are effects at the level of individual people, much like taking an aspirin for a headache is an effect to reduce head pain. The government, however, does not mandate aspirin. Rather, it allows individuals to choose to take aspirin or choose not to take it -- to endure the pain, or to reduce the pain -- to accept the risk or not. One person's taking an aspirin does not prevent another person from getting headaches. One person's choice to avoid aspirin does not cause another person's aspirin to fail. In short, the effect of the aspirin is not a matter of public interest.
The same applies to COVID-19 vaccines -- one person's choice to take such a vaccine does not effectively prevent infection or transmission in another person. Refusing the vaccine does not prevent it from reducing symptoms or reducing risks in other people. Hence, the government or corporate interest in using these vaccines to protect public or corporate health is not compelling, by definition. Consequently, COVID-19 vaccine mandates, should be illegal.
All of the above statements are clearly supported in the following reference, whose conclusion is quoted in full below:
In Re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Interim Final Rule: COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard 86 Fed. Reg. 61402, Issued on November 4, 2021
- Conclusion: The Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity, and therefore do not meet the definition of a vaccine. They are instead treatments and must be analyzed as such. It is a fundamental human right to refuse a medical treatment, as this Court has held. Under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, strict scrutiny must be applied in the Court’s analysis of the OSHA ETS [Emergency Temporary Standard]. Because no compelling state interest is served by the ETS (and even if it were, the ETS is a sledgehammer approach rather than a narrowly tailored approach), the ETS cannot survive strict scrutiny analysis.
The takeaway from the above explanation is that COVID-19 vaccines, first and foremost, fail to function in a manner that justifies any legal claim for mandating them. This alone should be sufficient grounds (legal grounds) to outlaw any act of forcing them onto anyone. The legal problem, however, appears to go even deeper.
Scientific Failures of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
How can injections eventually fail, when they are promoted by their makers as effective, and they are endorsed by their regulators as legitimate public health measures? Does this not imply that their makers and regulators are being less than honest? And if such dishonesty exists, then does this not further imply criminal behavior on multiple levels?
Clinical trials are supposed to validate that something works. Regulatory approval is supposed to validate the validation that something works. There is, however, a big elephant in the room at the very outset of field testing vaccines.
In field testing such injectable substances, the basic assumption appears to be that vaccinated participants and unvaccinated participants are equally exposed to infection, so any differences in risk in the two groups is due to the biologic effects of the vaccine.
How can this most basic assumption be valid? For example, are people presented with sunblock and people presented with nothing exposed equally to sunlight, so any differences in risk of sunburn in the two groups is due to the effects of the sunblock alone? No -- there has to be some information about actual exposure, in order to determine who, in fact, is actually exposed to the sun (how often, for how long, at what intensity) and who, in fact, is not.
A 2007 study by Struchiner and Halloran addresses this very issue:
C. J. Struchiner & M. E. Halloran (2007). Randomization and Baseline Transmission in Vaccine Field Trials. Epidemiology and Infection, 135(2), 181–194.
- We show that randomization does not guarantee easily interpretable estimates of vaccine efficacy within trials or across sites.
- The infection outcomes in an individual would generally depend on whether a person is exposed to infection at all, the size of the inoculum, and how often the person is challenged.
- Randomization is supposed to ensure that the vaccine and placebo groups are comparable in that the experience of the group with the vaccine would have been the same as the group that did not receive the vaccine had the vaccinated group in fact received the placebo, and vice versa. Randomization coupled with blinding is also supposed to ensure that post-randomization exposure to infection is balanced.
- We have shown, however, that randomization in vaccine field trials does not guarantee that the estimated parameters are biologically meaningful.
- Meaningful interpretation of vaccine efficacy estimates, even in randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled field trials, remains a challenge.
Even trials that meet the strictest procedural requirements face this challenge. Poorly conducted trials or poorly interpreted trials, then, should have zero validity in determining governmental policies to protect public health.
Assessment Failures of COVID-19 Vaccine Regulators
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates vaccines. From all appearances, though, the FDA did not do its job properly in assessing the COVID-19 vaccines. Even if we ignore the underlying flaw in the basic assumption described earlier, COVID-19 vaccine trials in the US were unacceptably inadequate to validate the much promoted claims for these injections.
An organization of independent doctors, scientists and health care practitioners called the Canadian COVID Care Alliance has created a superb presentation that describes clearly and precisely the gross inadequacy of the Pfizer trials:
Canadian COVID Care Alliance (2021). The Pfizer Inoculations for COVID-19: More Harm than Good [pdf of a PowerPoint presentation].
The Pfizer Inoculations for COVID-19: More Harm than Good [excellent, forty-minute video of the pdf]
A Seemingly Impossible Lack of Due Diligence
How is it that the FDA overlooked such glaring problems in studies whose results determine grand society-changing policies?
Another study points to gross inadequacies in clinical trials of the other COVID-19 vaccines:
J. Bart Classen, MD (2021). US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”. Trends in Internal Medicine 1(1): 1-6.
- Pivotal clinical trial data from the 3 marketed COVID-19 vaccines was reanalyzed using “all cause severe morbidity", a scientific measure of health, as the primary endpoint. ... Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in “all cause severe morbidity" in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.
Table 2 From Classen's Analysis
It simply boggles the minds of rational thinkers and professionals dedicated to high standards how researchers and regulators could put forth such grossly inadequate, misrepresented claims of safety and effectiveness to support the goal of protecting public health.
Such claims are blatant falsehoods, and those people promoting these falsehoods are negligent at best, evil at worst.