Note: The full document is attached here. 

Synopsis

I write to address concerns regarding the University of Notre Dame’s booster requirement. Because of the fundamental importance of informed consent in medical proceedings, I evaluate vaccine mandates under the legal standard of strict scrutiny that is applied to infringements upon fundamental Constitutional rights. Under this standard, a regulation that infringes upon a fundamental right must be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government (or in this case university) interest. In the context of a vaccine mandate, this entails the following:

1) The pathogen must be severe enough (at least for some individuals) for the university to have a compelling interest in blocking its transmission. And the vaccine mandate must be the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling interest (protection of those at severe risk from the pathogen).

2) The vaccine must demonstrate substantial efficacy in blocking the transmission of the pathogen.

3) The vaccine must clearly provide all individuals required to take it substantially more benefit than harm. I take it as an obvious moral principle that it is immoral to force someone to undergo a medical procedure that will cause them more harm than good.

Because the University is seeking to abrogate an individual’s right to consent to a medical procedure, it is incumbent upon it to demonstrate with overwhelming evidence that all three criteria are met. I argue that it has not. In fact, I present substantial evidence to the contrary. My argument is built on the following points:

1) College students are at minimal risk of a severe, negative outcome from COVID-19. Moreover, those who consider themselves “at risk” can always avail themselves of the protection of the supposedly highly safe and effective vaccine. Forcing it upon others is unnecessary.

2) The vaccine has been demonstrably proven to be ineffective in blocking transmission of SARS-CoV-2. To the extent that it provides any benefit, it is a private benefit against severe illness, not a public benefit in reducing community transmission. In fact, there is evidence that the shots eventually leak into negative efficacy. These problems are magnified with the Omicron variant.

3) The vaccines are associated with a substantial number of adverse events, some of which particularly impact young adults. The surveillance systems used to monitor adverse events do not capture the totality of vaccine injury. It is far from clear that the vaccines provide more benefit than harm to young adults, and there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

At the bottom of the document are important questions that the University must address regarding its proposed mandate. 

Read the full document.