The Second Largest US Teachers Union Irreparably Harmed US Children

Focus on Congressional findings regarding school shutdowns and the AFT

Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten is an American labor leader, attorney, and educator. She has been president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) since 2008, and is a member of the AFL-CIO. She is the former president of the United Federation of Teachers. Weingarten is directly responsible for promoting school closure and mandatory school vaccination policies across the USA during the COVID crisis, and successfully manipulated CDC to exceed its authority it setting stringent criteria involving SARS-CoV-2 infection rates before school reopenings were to be allowed. The AFT has approximately 950,000 members, and is the second largest teachers union in the United States.

The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the United States. It represents public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers. The NEA has just under 3 million members, three times the size of the AFT. The NEA was not directly involved in advocating for US school lockdown policies, and was apparently not consulted during development of those policies. However, their advocacy and policy initiatives on COVID-19, reproductive rights, bereavement leave, and educator support may have indirectly impacted school safety protocols and emergency preparedness, including lockdown policies.

---

The House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has issued a 550 page report summarizing the findings from their two years of investigation. Published by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on December 2, 2024, this is the single most thorough review of US Federal pandemic policies and consequences conducted to date. The report has had modest, passing coverage by corporate media.

Malone.News has previously published the House Select Committee press release summarizing the report, and an essay focusing on the role of the World Health Organization and its Director-General in acting to bias both fact finding activities and global public policy decisions to favor the interests of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its leadership the Central Communist Party (CCP).

Another underreported story documented in detail by the Select Committee’s report involves the role of the second largest US Teachers’ union (the American Federation of Teachers), and specifically the role of AFT President Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten in advocating, promoting, lobbying for, and influencing CDC policies unsupported by scientific evidence that directly lead to widespread, substantial, and long-lasting damage to both US Children and to the overall US public education enterprise. Furthermore, on the basis of the Select Subcommittee findings, it seems reasonable that AFT and its President Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten should be held legally and financially liable for the damages incurred by US families and children consequent to the actions of the AFT and its President Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten in these matters.

The sections of the report covering these issues include the following:

The Societal Impact of Decisions to Close Schools, How the Decisions Were Made and Whether There is Evidence of Widespread Learning Loss or Other Negative Effects as a Result of These Decisions

1. COVID-19 Pandemic-Era School Closures (report pages 411-414)

2. The American Federation of Teachers’ Influence (report pages 415-437)

3. The Harmful Impacts from School Closures (report pages 438-442)

Not covered in these sections but covered elsewhere in the report are the substantial harms to children, including educational harms, particularly in young children, attributable to unscientifically supported masking policies.

---

Harms to Children from Federal Policies aggressively lobbied for by the AFT

So, what were the harms caused by the school closure policies that the AFT and its lawyer/President aggressively lobbied for? According to the committee findings, these included:

• Pandemic-era School Closures Adversely Impacted Academic Performance that Will Continue for Years.

• School Closures Significantly Contributed to Increased Instances of Mental and Behavioral Health Issues.

• School Closures Made an Already Alarming Trend in Declining Physical Health Worse.

• Despite the evidence of incredibly low morbidity among children, students were not given the benefit of balanced policy.

It is clear that the actions of the AFT and its President have substantially harmed American children and students, resulting in avoidable lifelong psychological, financial, physical, and educational damages. Acting out of irrational, unscientific fear, the AFT and its President clearly placed the interests of its membership over and above the interests of American children and students. Going forward, school boards and responsible teachers should shun or defund the AFT and its lobbying activities and should demand the resignation of its current President, Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten.

Quoting from the report:

The decision to close schools had predictable, but disastrous consequences for students’ academics and mental and physical health. While the full scope of negative consequences of school closures is likely incalculable, certain adverse effects are documented.

The evidence makes it clear that any public health response that warrants closing schools should face the highest levels of scrutiny. School closure policy should be informed by science and data, not fear and politics.

Pandemic-era School Closures Adversely Impacted Academic Performance that Will Continue for Years.

There has been a significant decline in students’ academic performance because of pandemic-era school closure policies. Standardized test scores show that children lost decades worth of academic progress. The performance of 9-year-olds in math and reading declined to levels recorded two decades ago, and the average composite score for the ACT by high school graduates dropped below 20 for the first time since 1991. The students whose classes were less disrupted in the 2020-2021 school year lost about 20 percent of math learning compared to losses of 50 percent for students who did not have access to in-person instruction.

Disturbingly, these declines were the most significant among low-income children and children from racial minorities. Schools in urban areas attended by low income and minority children were kept closed longer. Accordingly, Black and Latino students and low-income students fell further behind in learning than their peers.

The effects of pandemic-era school closure policies continue to impact students today. Students are not rebounding from the effect of the school closure policies: “Analyses of student test scores have repeatedly shown severe declines in academic achievement… accelerating student learning… is notoriously challenging.” More troubling than students’ inability to “catch up” with where they should be academically, though, is the fact that the problem is growing worse: “except for the youngest learners, students are progressing more slowly than their pre-pandemic peers – furthering widening academic gaps.”

Many students never returned to public schools following prolonged pandemic-era school closures. While many students were enrolled in private schools, an estimated 230,000 students have simply “disappeared” from public schools since the pandemic closed schools.

According to Eric Hanushek, an economist at the Hoover Institution, pandemic-era students could lose an estimated $70,000 in lifetime income. These losses are estimated to be two to nine percent of lifetime earnings, depending on the state they live and the severity of school closures. As a result of a lower-skilled workforce, states are estimated to have 0.6 to 2.9 percent lower gross domestic product (GDP), as total societal losses could amount to $28 trillion over the century.

The fact that these children had the poor fortune of being children during a global pandemic has only been exacerbated by pandemic-era school closure policies. While initial government action erring on the side of caution in response to a novel pandemic is a sensible course of action, the failure to adjust to current data and understanding of COVID-19 cost these students valuable time inside of the classroom. Again, the complete scope of academic loss is impossible to measure. However, the data is clear enough to display that these policies had a significant adverse impact on education.

School Closures Significantly Contributed to Increased Instances of Mental and Behavioral Health Issues.

During the pandemic, rates of psychological distress among students, including anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems, significantly increased. Among other things, these mental health issues can be attributed to pandemic-era school closure policies, which isolated students from their peers, restricted sports and other extracurricular activities, and led to excessive screen time.

Initially, school closures primarily impacted students with pre-existing mental conditions. Many of these students lost access to critical mental health resources usually available through school. As the pandemic progressed, however, these mental health issues broadened to affect all students.

In 2021, according to CDC data, 37 percent of high school students reported experiencing poor mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 44 percent reported they persistently felt sad or hopeless during the past year compared to 36.7 percent in 2019.

Suicide attempts increased sharply for adolescents with suicide attempts by 12- to 17-year-old girls rising 51 percent from early 2019 to early 2021.

A 2021 NIH study acknowledged that COVID-19 related disruptions to everyday life led to increases in anxiety and depression, which in turn led teens to self-medicate. As a result, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning, and the American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national state of emergency in children’s mental health.

Reports have shown that for “children between the ages of 11 and 17, additional weeks of home schooling in the early months of the pandemic correlated with worsening mental health measures.” This study found that “younger children were more adversely affected,” a troubling, yet again predictable, consequence of the isolation of the most vulnerable of the population.

The data are clear that prologued school closures had an adverse effect on the mental health of students. Science shows that the prolonged closures had negative effects. When science showed that the shutdowns were no longer necessary, policies should have acted to mitigate the harm done.

School Closures Made an Already Alarming Trend in Declining Physical Health Worse.

Pandemic-era school closure policies not only affected academics and students’ mental health, but also had negative consequences on their physical health. As with students’ academic performance and mental health, the adverse physical effects were predictable; prolonged school closures had a measured impact on students’ physical health.1770 Among other things, in-person schooling provides students with access to nutritious lunches and regularly scheduled physical activity, including exercise classes, sports, and other extracurricular activities.

As a result of school closures, physical activity significantly decreased and sedentary behavior, including but not limited to watching television, playing video games, and using the computer, increased.

Accordingly, the rate of BMI increases for children ages 2-19 approximately doubled from pre-pandemic rates. The number of new cases of Type 2 diabetes among children during the first year of the pandemic increased 182 percent from pre-pandemic levels. These increases disproportionately affected black youth.

It should come as no shock that isolation is not healthy, in any respect, for people—let alone children. The results of prolonged school closures have exacerbated physical health issues while simultaneously hampering activities that would otherwise mitigate those issues, such as communal sport and exercise, and a healthy diet.

Generally, the immune system benefits from physical activity. It is well established that accelerated weight gain and obesity can cause long-term metabolic changes that increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, mental health issues, and diabetes, as well as complications with subsequent morbidity and premature mortality, for children. During the pandemic, studies showed that obese children were more likely to suffer severe respiratory complications as a result of COVID-19.

Yet again, warnings from scientists, and the common sense understanding that isolation is bad for a child, were largely unheeded by policymakers. A February 2021 preprint of a study (finally published in January 2022) found negative health impact on children due to school closures, and warned of already troubling data that would only compound if closures continued:

Available data are short-term and longer-term harms are likely to be magnified by further school closures. Data are urgently needed on longer-term impacts using strong research designs, particularly amongst vulnerable groups. These findings are important for policymakers seeking to balance the risks of transmission through school-aged children with the harms of closing schools.

Despite the evidence of incredibly low morbidity among children, students were not given the benefit of balanced policy.

---

The American Federation of Teachers’ Influence

The American Federation of Teachers Is Not a Scientific or Medical Organization.

AFT is not a scientific organization—it does not employ epidemiologists or immunologists. Instead, it is a political union—committed to activism on behalf of its 1.7 million members—that donated $2.4 million dollars to Democrat candidates during the 2020 election cycle. The extent of the AFT’s political influence is reflected in the fact that the Biden Administration reached out to AFT for advice on school reopening rather than the AFT reaching out to the Biden Administration.

In a letter to the Select Subcommittee on April 19, 2023, AFT disputed the notion that it had “no scientific expertise.” However, Ms. Weingarten admitted in her testimony before the Select Subcommittee that they did not employ any epidemiologists or immunologists. The fact that AFT is not a scientific organization is supported by its own employees.

Accordingly, “AFT was out of its league” in representing that it had scientific expertise and making policy-based scientific interpretations and recommendations throughout the pandemic.

The American Federation of Teachers Did Not Support Reopening Schools and Predicated Its Support for Reopening Schools on Non-Scientific Policies.

While AFT and Ms. Weingarten have attempted to rewrite history by arguing that they were always trying to reopen the schools, this simply is not true. AFT continually pushed for school closures throughout the pandemic. Restricting in-person schooling was always the default—not the alternative—mitigation measure underlying AFT’s positions.

During the summer of 2020, AFT and Ms. Weingarten attacked the Trump Administration for pushing to return students back to the classrooms for the start of the 2020-2021 school year. To Ms. Weingarten, incentivizing the reopening of schools was “reckless,” “callous,” and “cruel.”

AFT released an ad on reopening schools that claimed that students were “being used as guinea pigs.” In an official press release, Ms. Weingarten wrote:

“Schools cannot reopen safely and equitably until we have effectively contained the virus spread and have a robust testing system, a plan for a future surge, and appropriate safety protocols in place, including physical distancing, proper ventilation, deep cleaning procedures and adequate personal protective equipment.”

AFT repeatedly denounced and fought against individual states’ plans to reopen schools. AFT even supported efforts by affiliate teacher unions to sue state and local governments attempting to reopen schools for in-person instruction. In an official press release, Ms. Weingarten wrote:

“The push to reopen schools full time without any precautions or new resources, and, most importantly, amid a skyrocketing COVID-19 surge, ignores science, safety and basic humanity.”

AFT emboldened its affiliates —calling on its members and affiliates to conduct “safety strikes” in some cases. In a transcribed interview, Ms. Ucelli-Kashyap testified that AFT supported affiliate organizations striking if mitigation measures were not deemed appropriate.

In response, many of its local affiliates resisted school reopening plans. For example, the Chicago Teachers Union , tweeted that “the push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny” and continued to stage COVID-19 related safety strikes—which necessitated school closures—as late into the pandemic as January 2022. Another affiliate, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, similarly cited safety concerns throughout the pandemic as to keep schools closed, however, made political demands—not related to COVID-19—including but not limited to enacting a millionaire tax, defunding the police, and providing Medicare for all.

Finally, in New York City, the New York State United Teachers resisted reopening schools unless Mayor de Blasio agreed to close schools if the COVID-19 positivity rate exceeded three percent—an extremely conservative threshold. Ms. Weingarten supported the decision to close New York City schools when, predictably, the positivity rate exceeded three percent— seemingly disregarding the advice of the CDC and evidence that transmission was low within schools. AFT would continue to support efforts within the state to close schools.

Like their affiliates, AFT relied more on “politics” than “science.” In her testimony to the Select Subcommittee, Ms. Weingarten stated that AFT was always working to reopen the school and had released a “commonsense science-based plan to open schools safely.”

The plan Ms. Weingarten was referring to was released April 29, 2020 and entitled “A Plan to Safely Reopen America’s Schools and Communities” [hereinafter “AFT Plan”]. The AFT Plan could hardly be considered “science based.” Among other things, the AFT Plan called on Congress to make significant public investments into areas not related to the pandemic, such as improving broadband infrastructure, increasing Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and cancelling student loans. Specifically, the AFT Plan wrote “COVID-19 has exacerbated the deep inequalities in our society and underscored the need for additional public investments to combat this inequity.” The AFT Plan directed that “[i]t is not the time to be concerned with deficits.”

In addition, the AFT Plan called for limited student testing and a suspension of teacher performance evaluations. Like those before, these measures—which presumably aimed to combat parental oversight and accountability of America’s educators—were not related to science nor combatting the spread of COVID-19 in schools.

The Biden Administration’s U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Broke Precedent and Shared a Draft Guidance with the American Federation of Teachers.

According to testimony, the CDC began drafting the Operational Strategy late December 2020. In a transcribed interview, Dr. Massetti testified that she was the “lead drafter” of the guidance. Dr. Massetti testified that the main purpose for drafting the new guidance was to get students back in the classroom.

By early January 2021, Dr. Massetti testified that she had completed the first draft of the guidance.

It seems likely that AFT was aware that the CDC—under the newly inaugurated Biden Administration—would be issuing new guidance related to schools. One of President Biden’s first acts after being inaugurated was issuing an executive order directing the Department of Education and HHS to develop evidence-based guidance on reopening schools. Ms. Weingarten commended the act saying that the “order will produce guidance that embeds and disseminates best practices—based on science—for safe and effective in-person, remote and hybrid learning.”

By January 27, 2021, however, AFT was aware that the CDC was preparing new guidance and were anxious to review it. That morning, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) began inquiring into receiving an “advance copy” of the Operational Strategy.

Within hours, Ms. Weingarten was connected in an email with members of the Biden-Harris Administration and the White House COVID-19 Response Team to set up a meeting to discuss the guidance in the coming days.

After coordinating schedules, a call between AFT and the CDC was set up for January 29, 2021. Dr. Walensky also wanted to participate and was added to the call. In an email to Ms. Weingarten, Ms. Johnson wrote, “[w]e would really benefit from having the opportunity to hear you and your members perspectives directly.”

In the meantime, AFT staff were scrambling to prepare to review the guidance. On January 28, 2021, Ms. Ucelli-Kashyap—who was also a member of the Biden Transition team —emailed other AFT staff to be ready to serve as “rapid reviewers” of the new guidance. Specifically, providing a “quick summary of what it does and doesn’t say, and how that purports with our must haves, et cetera.”1701

The next day, January 29, 2021, Ms. Ucelli-Kashyap followed up with her team regarding her instructions, which she wrote was likely going to be released the following Monday, February 1, 2021, informing the team that hopefully she would have more information following the call between AFT and Ms. Weingarten later that afternoon.

The American Federation of Teachers Advocated for Mitigation Measures that Were Overly Broad and Not Scientific, including Closure Triggers, Delaying the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Issuance of the Operational Strategy.

While AFT was uncertain of the specifics of the guidance, they knew what they wanted to see included in it. Among other things, AFT wanted the CDC to implement a “trigger” that would automatically cause schools to close if COVID-19 positivity rate exceeded a certain threshold. These priorities were included in meeting notes prepared for Ms. Weingarten for her phone call with Dr. Walensky on January 29, 2021.

According to Dr. Massetti, AFT made additional requests during the January 29 phone call, including a recommendation that schools should not be reopened unless teachers were fully vaccinated. Dr. Massetti understood that certain things AFT advocated for would have made openings more difficult.

Among its other priorities, AFT advocated that the guidance included a closure “trigger” that would automatically close schools if the positivity rate of COVID-19 exceeded a certain threshold. Ms. Ucelli-Kashyap testified regarding how AFT interpreted closure triggers to work.

These “triggers” were not only desired by AFT, but other teachers unions across the country. As previously noted, New York City teachers were able to negotiate with Mayor de Blasio to implement a closure “trigger” threshold of a three percent positivity rate.

Dr. Massetti testified that the CDC never recommended a closure trigger and that there was no “scientific evidence” supporting such a mitigation measure. Dr. Walensky testified that AFT had requested that closure “triggers” be included in the Operational Strategy, but that it was not accepted because the goal of the guidance was to open schools—not close them.

According to documents reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, the initial feedback from AFT and other teacher unions made it unlikely that the CDC would be able to release the Operational Strategy according to the previously planned release date of February 3, 2021.

AFT’s feedback was also apparently serious enough to necessitate the CDC scheduling another meeting with AFT staff to discuss the Operational Strategy the following Monday, February 1, 2021.1713

It is unclear when the CDC initially decided that they would be open to accepting suggestions and edits in the guidance from AFT. According to emails reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) wrote to Ms. Weingarten that the CDC “did not seem to be super open to suggested edits” on January 31, 2021. On February 1, 2021, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) again emailed Ms. Weingarten writing that “it seems very unlikely any of our changes will be incorporated because the document is mostly through their internal review process.”

Another AFT employee, Ms. Chelsea Prax, seemed less enthusiastic after the follow-up meeting with the CDC on February 1, 2021, writing in an email to colleagues that “it’s not clear that CDC wanted feedback, despite their “we’re listening” opening comments.” However, Ms. Prax openly wondered if AFT was pursing “other dialogues” with the Biden-Harris Administration related to the guidance.

Regardless, it is hardly surprising that AFT staff may have felt that the CDC was not open to their feedback. AFT staff clearly were not satisfied with the guidance and believed that its mitigation measures did not go far enough.

According to emails reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, Dr. Walke described the follow-up meeting with AFT staff on February 1, 2021 as “difficult.” Specifically, Dr. Walke wrote that “it seemed as though the staff had not read it, confused it with another document, or perhaps, did not understand the intent.” Among other things, AFT wanted the guidance to support more testing, ventilation standards, and enforcement mechanisms for mitigation efforts.

Dr. Massetti testified that the type of feedback received from AFT made the call difficult.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Accepted American Federation of Teachers Edits to the Operational Strategy.

According to documents and communications reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, Dr. Walensky asked Ms. Weingarten and AFT to provide explicit language during the January 29, 2021 meeting. Dr. Massetti testified that, while the CDC invites input from stakeholders, it is not obliged to accept edits. Dr. Massetti’s testimony is seemingly contradicted by Dr. Walke who testified that, while the CDC often receives comments and suggestions from outside partners, it is “uncommon” for outside partners to send line-by-line edits. Dr. Walke also testified that it was “uncommon” for the CDC to “incorporate” such edits.

On February 1, 2021, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) sent a follow-up email to staff at the White House and the CDC. Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) then provided proposed language on behalf of Ms. Weingarten that included several accommodations “to limit the risk of workplace exposure.” [hereinafter “AFT Edit 1”]. On February 3, 2021, Dr. Walensky replied to Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) to inform her that the accommodation language was being “worked” into the guidance.

Thereafter, AFT Edit 1 made it into the final operational strategy largely unchanged.

The inclusion of the accommodation language was not enough for AFT. According to emails reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, Dr. Walinski had a phone call with Ms. Weingarten on February 7, 2021.

On the morning of February 10, 2021, AFT was able to review a copy of the Operational Strategy that was leaked to The New York Times. AFT staff quickly expressed concern that the Operational Strategy draft allowed for schools to be open at any level of community transmission. In relevant part, the draft language directed:

“At any level of community transmission, all schools can provide in-person instruction (either full or hybrid), through strict adherence to mitigation strategies. Recommended learning modes vary to minimize risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in school by emphasizing layered mitigation, including school policies requiring universal and correct mask use. The recommended learning modes (in-person, hybrid) depend on the level of community transmission and strict adherence to mitigation.”

AFT—specifically, Ms. Weingarten—was not pleased that Operational Strategy would allow schools to open at any level of community transmission. On the morning of February 11, 2021, Ms. Weingarten texted her concerns to Dr. Walensky, asking for a meeting after the Operational Guidance was leaked. Dr. Walensky responded that she could meet that afternoon.

Shortly after the text exchange between Ms. Weingarten and Dr. Walensky, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) emailed Dr. Walensky expressing AFT’s concerns with the guidance and provided another edit. Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) stated that AFT was “deeply concerned” about the language and stated that AFT did not “believe that any current research ha[d] demonstrated that all schools…can safely reopen.”

Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) then provided language that would permit the CDC to update the Operational Strategy in the event of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant [hereinafter “AFT Edit 2”].

“In the event high-community transmission results from a new variant of SARS-CoV-2, a new update of these guidelines may be necessary.”

These edits were intended to make it more likely that schools would close to in-person learning. According to Ms. Nedrow’s (Trautner) email to Ms. Weingarten, the draft language was meant to address AFT’s concerns about the absence of “triggers” that would automatically cause schools to close.1738 Specifically, the AFT advised Dr. Walensky that its draft language should be incorporated to remediate “the absence of a closure threshold” and AFT’s continued efforts to “urge the inclusion of clear closure triggers in the imminent guidance.”1739

On February 11, 2021, Ms. Ucelli-Kashyap told her colleagues that the guidance would not include “a closing metric, but there may be some useful nuanced language there.” Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) testified that the edit was not “necessarily rooted in science.” Additionally, Ms. Nedrow (Trautner) testified that “everything” that was proposed for the guidance was cleared by Ms. Weingarten.

According to documents reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, Ms. Weingarten had a call with Dr. Walensky regarding the guidance shortly after the guidance was leaked. Later that night, Ms. Weingarten and AFT staff also had a “Confidential Briefing” with members of the Department of Education as well as the CDC.

While the specific content of those calls is unknown, Dr. Walensky directed her staff to organize a call with AFT and NEA the next morning prior to the guidance being released.

According to emails reviewed by the Select Subcommittee, on February 12, 2021, Dr. Walensky instructed Dr. Walke to incorporate the AFT’s language into the Operational Strategy, even though the Operational Strategy had already been previewed for the media. Specifically, Dr. Walensky emailed “[a]re we able to add the bolded line below, bolding is mine.” Dr. Walke replied, “[y]es, will work with team.”

Accordingly, AFT Edit 2 also made it into the final Operational Strategy largely unchanged.

---

Observations Concerning Select Committee Report Deficiencies

Many have appropriately complained that the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic failed to investigate and comment on the medical harms attributable to the FDA Emergency Use Authorized gene-therapy technology-based vaccines (mRNA, recombinant Adenovirus). Official US Government censorship and refusal to allow medical doctors to treat the virus with anti-viral medications, apparently to enable Emergency Use Authorization for experimental gene therapy, then using propaganda, PsyWar technology, coercion, enticement, and methods of compelling (mandates) to force product uptake without informed consent was substantially overlooked by the House Select Committee.

Obvious and widely accepted harms include a wide range of blood clotting disorders and various forms of acute and delayed heart damage (myocarditis, pericarditis). Well documented but not generally acknowledged have been reproductive harms, particularly in women from girls to postmenopausal elders, including a variety of alterations in menstruation, passing decidual casts, spontaneous abortion, and fetal damage. Less well documented but suspected are a wide variety of disorders of immune system function, central and peripheral nervous system harms, and both rekindling and acceleration of a variety of malignancies (turbo cancers).

The failure of the Select Committee to address these issues when virtually all other aspects of the failures in federal COVIDcrisis policymaking have been thoroughly investigated and documented is paradoxical. Why would the Select Committee avoid topics relating to the safety of these FDA-regulated and CDC-promoted products? Why would the Select Committee endorse Operation Warp Speed while acknowledging that the products from this program failed to prevent infection and disease?

One hypothesis that may account for this glaring error in oversight and accountability may be a widespread conflict of interest, bias, or fear of reprisal if the Select Committee were to investigate and document these matters. What evidence exists that could support this hypothesis? The only evidence I am aware of involves the composition of the Select Committee, in which medical practitioner interests are greatly overrepresented. Select Committee members include the following:

• Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, Chair: A physician and U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel.

• Raul Ruiz, California, Ranking Member: An emergency physician.

• Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa: An ophthalmologist and U.S. Army veteran.

• Ami Bera, California: A physician and former chief medical officer of Sacramento County.

• Rich McCormick, Georgia: An emergency physician and former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander.

• Ronny Jackson, Texas: A physician and former Trump White House physician.

• Michael Cloud, Texas: Not a physician by training, but his wife is a physician.

• John Joyce, Pennsylvania: A dermatologist.

  ---