In brief

• A new report on New Hampshire’s COVID pandemic response criticises the state’s blind reliance on federal guidance and mandates.

• “Safety signals” for vaccine injuries were ignored.

• It condemns “propaganda” and censorship, calling it unconstitutional and harmful to public trust.

• It notes that lockdowns caused mental health challenges, and harm to child development.

• The report shows how politicised COVID was, with a minority report of the Democrats coming to the opposite conclusions.

Safety signals ignored and state compliance criticised

A new report from the New Hampshire House of Representatives Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy slams across-the-board failures in the state’s response to the pandemic. 

According to the report: “Most worrisome here is…that the relevant federal agencies overseeing safety abandoned the established standards for safe use of such products in humans.”

The report says early data showed “safety signals” for serious conditions, including myocarditis, autoimmune dysfunction, and neurological injuries, exceeding thresholds shortly after vaccine rollout. Yet, federal agencies like the CDC disregarded these alarms, and the report questions why the public was not informed of changes to safety monitoring protocols.

Testimony revealed that state health officials adopted CDC recommendations uncritically, despite the federal narrative of vaccines being “knowingly not supported by data.” The report describes this as “the blind leading the blind.” 

It further states that vaccine mandates violated principles from the Nuremberg Trials, which prohibit medical experimentation without informed consent. It adds: “This case is further strengthened by the ultimate failure of these products to achieve any measurable benefit…and the now well-documented safety concerns.”

Propaganda and censorship during the pandemic

The report condemns the use of “propaganda” to enforce compliance with COVID measures, including lockdowns, masking, and vaccination campaigns. It states: “A prevalence of fearful messaging from various levels of government, media, and the private sector increased the sense of uncertainty.”

It details how federal and state authorities suppressed alternative viewpoints, calling these actions unconstitutional. It notes: “Censorship efforts included suppression of treatments and information… [and] undermined the natural processes by which public debate arrives at truth.”

The committee warns against such practices, recommending: “Going forward this government should reconsider the practice of adopting official narratives.” It also calls for robust debate to ensure transparent and effective pandemic responses in the future.

The impact of lockdowns on education

The report describes the severe consequences of lockdowns on education: “Such measures unnecessarily placed the burden of society’s safety onto children to the detriment of their proper childhood development.” 

School closures disrupted learning, particularly for disadvantaged students, and testimony detailed widespread learning loss, mental health challenges, and the suspension of special education services.

Mask mandates, the report notes, further harmed young children by hindering speech development and socialisation. It concludes: “Such measures unnecessarily placed the burden of society’s safety onto children to the detriment of their proper childhood development.”

A call for accountability

The report criticises equity-based resource allocation, describing it as “a dangerous departure from the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality.” 

Testimony highlighted how “certain quantities of scarce resources… were allocated on the basis of ethnicity and skin colour with a considerable disregard for traditional conceptions of ‘need.’”

The report further critiques reliance on unelected experts, asserting that “Decisions ought to be the purview only of elected and accountable officials… to avoid the pitfalls of safetyism in crafting policy.”

Partisan divide over conclusions

Democratic committee members defended the state’s pandemic response as effective in a minority report that directly opposes the majority report’s conclusions. Democrats argued the testimony presented was one-sided and failed to show a “full picture” of the response. Instead, they focused on the dedication of state and local officials.

As vaccine sceptic Steve Kirsch noted, “The minority report is the exact opposite of the majority report. You can’t make this stuff up.”