An open letter to Harvard President, Alan Garber Reinstate Martin Kulldorff and others fired because of Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: Vinay Prasad, MD MPH
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/an-open-letter-to-harvard-president
Dear President Garber
One actionable way you can show that Harvard has a commitment to academic freedom, and the free exchange of a range of ideas is to reinstate Professor Martin Kulldorff and other staff and faculty who were wrongly terminated at Harvard and it’s affiliate hospitals due to the vaccine mandates that were advanced by the Biden administration.
As you know, the use of mandates, particularly for medical products administered to individuals, has a long, complicated, and at times ignoble history. A general prerequisite to consider such mandates is that the benefit provided the third parties has to exceed the loss of individual autonomy. Notably, this has never been demonstrated for the covid-19 vaccine, which is unable to halt transmission, and whose repeated administration barely dampens it.
In the third and fourth quarter of 2021, the Biden administration, based on the advice of a handful of ill-informed advisors, decided to advance vaccine mandates across America. They utilized the power of the federal government, and OSHA to push these mandates. They also privately sought the agreement of major corporations and universities. This impetus led Harvard University and the affiliate hospitals to implement the mandate. Notably, the mandate did not exempt individuals who had previously had covid-19, a bizarre modern tactic— to compel vaccination in those who have natural immunity— that has no precedent in the history of vaccine mandates.
Martin Kulldorff was a professor of medicine at Harvard University and the Brigham and Women’s hospital. Because his primary appointment was in the hospital, he likely was subject to particularly harsh treatment under the false premise that there is a special obligation for people in patient facing roles to be vaccinated. That obligation cannot exist for a vaccine product that does not eliminate transmission, and barely blunts it. Moreover, Martin is not in a patient-facing role.
During the covid-19 pandemic, Martin was one of the first to point out the steep age gradient and argue for focused protection. His original post was famously censored from the microsoft-based platform LinkedIn. At no point did Harvard University protested this decision by a technology company to censor a professor whose expertise is pandemics and transmission. That was a blemish on the reputation of the institution to capitulate to technology companies and fail to defend its own faculty members.
With his colleagues Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya, Martin authored the Great Barrington declaration. Reasonable people can disagree about everything in the declaration, but all reasonable people should think and that declaration was worthy of debate and discussion. Those discussions were suppressed by the national institutes of health leaders, and by the leadership of Harvard. Harvard should have staged a series of debates on the topic, it did not. That is contrary to the principles of the academy.
Martin had previously had and recovered from covid-19 prior to the Harvard and Brigham vaccine mandate. He sought exemption declaring that his religion was science. This exemption was denied, and Martin was terminated, even while others were granted exemption for nebulous religious reasons. It is difficult to view this action as not linked to Martin’s views and sentiments during the covid-19 pandemic, which initially were unpopular, but which currently are increasingly favored. Martin was punished for having views ahead of his time.
Where precisely the limits of academic freedom are is an open question for the academy. Historically, matters of public health, and medical product mandates have not been considered under the auspices of academic freedom. Yet, shouldn’t it? Particularly for an individual whose research, focus and expertise is the appraisal of medical evidence and the deployment of medical products at times of pandemic. Martin’s scholarly focus is the basis for his declination of a vaccination. His academic pursuit includes who should be vaccinated. He concluded, that he should not, as he had already had the virus.
I urge Harvard to take a more expansive view of academic freedom, particularly on medical matters, that are subject to tremendous disagreement. The acceptance of novel medical products, and vaccine mandates, has strong links to socio-political views and political affiliation. Harvard vaccine mandate was driven by a Democrat administration, and serves as a tacit way to eliminate faculty members with certain viewpoints.
President Garber, the reputation of a university like Harvard spans generations. As time has passed, more people have gained sympathy for the views of Martin and his colleagues. One of them is slated to be the national institutes of health director, a stunning reversal of fortune and a great example of karma.
Harvard got the vaccine mandate wrong. But worse, it used a mandate developed by one political administration to eliminate a faculty member who held views that were broadly supported by the opposing party. That is gravely concerning. In the future, such a precedent can be weaponized.
If Harvard is truly a place that represents all academic ideas and views, it should correct the egregious error of firing Martin Kulldorff. I can tell from your writings, and careful choice of words that you are struggling mightily to navigate the reputation of your University at a trying time. Reinstating Martin and other colleagues who are wrongfully terminated is a clear actionable step that the university is committed to tolerating diversity of ideas.
Martin was right, and Harvard was wrong. It’s just that simple. Please do the right thing.
Comments are closed.
