Connect with us

Most Popular

Santa Clara University Mandates Students To Take mRNA Covid Shots For 2023 School Year or Withdraw

Published

on

College COVID vaccine mandates continue to be some of the most coercive requirements ever made public. While the majority of institutions have since repealed their requirements, Santa Clara University in California is one of the most onerous.

SCU made the announcement that all students will need to acquire COVID vaccinations for fall enrollment or after full approval, whichever came later, in late April 2021, after the majority of incoming freshmen had committed.

Then, towards the middle of the summer, SCU declared that students would have to have the vaccine even if it remained just an emergency (EUA) authorization, despite the fact that the Nuremberg Code is codified in the California Health and Safety Code.As per Section 24172,

“(t)here is, and will continue to be, a growing need for protection for citizens of the state from unauthorized, needless, hazardous, or negligently performed medical experiments on human beings. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature, in the enacting of this chapter, to provide minimum statutory protection for the citizens of this state with regard to human experimentation and to provide penalties for those who violate such provisions.”

SCU (and many other CA colleges and universities) are in direct violation of this Code for removing informed consent by mandating EUA medical treatments.

Midway through the academic year, in December 2021, SCU mandated the booster despite the lack of safety or efficacy data for this largely healthy young adult demographic. Students would have no choice but to comply or forfeit tens of thousands of dollars. The three-dose requirement for SCU persisted through the academic year 2022–2023.

In complete disregard for the end of the emergency declarations, in early April 2023, when most universities like nearby Stanford were announcing the end of their COVID vaccine mandates, SCU updated its requirement for incoming freshmen.

One week after the deadline for enrolling in the fall of 2023, on May 8th, SCU secretly changed its COVID vaccine requirement to require only one bivalent dose for incoming freshmen (but not for returning students), regardless of how many COVD vaccinations they had previously received. SCU thought that no one would notice that this statement was made on May 1st, but we heard from incoming students’ private emails that several were incensed. We urged them to decline and take an other offer.

On May 31st, SCU updated its policy again. They now require either three previously taken monovalent doses or one bivalent dose for all community members. As with the University’s previous mandates, SCU offers no religious exemptions and limited medical exemptions for students even in the most extreme of circumstances as explained below. Faculty and staff, however, are permitted to request exemptions.

SCU’s policy is determined by its opaque “COVID-19 team,” believed to be led by campus physician Dr. Lewis Osofsky, who also holds several positions at Santa Clara County Medical Association (SCCMA). SCCMA partners with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPH) to maximize COVID-19 vaccinations. Santa Clara County is one of the most vaccinated counties in the country, with more than a third having received the bivalent booster, twice the national average, and 88.5 percent having received the primary series.

Osofsky’s positions in the SCCMA include chair of the Professional Standards and Conduct committee

, tasked with promoting high ethical standards for physicians and investigating disputes involving unethical conduct.  This is ironic, as Osofsky is believed to be a driving force behind SCU’s ethically-indefensible mandate. Medical ethics would require, at a minimum, both transmission prevention and a proven benefit for students. An antibody increase from vaccines, with no established antibody level correlate of protection, wanes in mere weeks, and cannot support the ethics of a mandate. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that the “greater the number of vaccine doses previously received the higher the risk of COVID-19.”

It is alleged that Osofsky has improperly denied student medical exemptions. In a March 2022 lawsuit filed against SCU, Harlow Glenn, one of the student plaintiffs, claims that she had serious adverse reactions to her primary series COVID vaccines, including an emergency room visit due to leg paralysis and abnormal bleeding. According to the complaint, Osofsky refused to grant her a medical exemption for the required booster and actively interfered with her doctor-patient relationship by contacting her private doctors to persuade them to retract their medical exemption documentation.

Such aggressive tactics are nothing new for Osofsky, as he apparently employs them against patients in his private pediatric practice. Parents have complained in online reviews that Osofsky’s office forced vaccines and didn’t listen to their concerns. As it turns out, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians in private practice a $40,000 bonus for every 100 patients under the age of 2 that they fully vaccinate, if at least 63 percent of the patients are fully vaccinated (including the annual flu vaccine).Osofsky’s roles with SCCMA, which is in partnership with the SCCPH whose goal is to maximize COVID vaccination, as well as his aggressive private practice approach to vaccination, have likely played a large role in SCU’s continued COVID vaccine mandates.

On June 14, 2023, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their opening brief against SCU in the Sixth Appellate District in California. It is expected that SCU will oppose the appeal and insist on its right to demand that students submit to EUA boosters to “protect the campus community.” Protect the community? That justification went out the window long ago when CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the COVID vaccine did not prevent infection or transmission. Recently released documents confirmed that Walensky actually knew this information in January of 2021, well before colleges announced COVID vaccination requirements.

Now more than ever, SCU must justify the science and morality behind their decision to continue using the shots despite the fact that the emergency is officially over and they have turned out to be both ineffective and, in some cases, hazardous.

We are forced to believe that Osofsky, SCCMA, and SCCPH are utilizing SCU students as little more than pawns in order to fulfill their dictatorial and unscientific vaccine goals and quotas in the lack of such transparency.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Angela

    July 12, 2023 at 9:17 pm

    I know four people severely injured by vaccine. I had covid when Trump was in office. We opted out of vaccine because it was a mild illness for us. I’m heartsick by my injured family members and friends. Go to a different school. mRNA vaccines are extremely dangerous!!!! Please!!!!!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

2024 Race

Supreme Court Signals Potential Reversal of Colorado Trump Ballot Decision

Published

on

In a pivotal session on Thursday, the majority of Supreme Court justices hinted at their inclination to overturn a Colorado ruling that prevented former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot.

Trump, 77, alongside his legal team, sought an appeal against Colorado’s Supreme Court decision from December 19. The ruling had declared Trump ineligible for the March 5 Republican primary, citing his violation of the Constitution’s “Insurrection Clause” during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Trump’s legal representatives put forth multiple arguments during the oral proceedings. They contended that Congress, rather than individual states, held the responsibility to enforce the clause. Moreover, they denied Trump’s involvement in an insurrection, asserting that seeking to remain in office after his 2020 election defeat did not constitute such an act.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns about the potential ramifications of upholding the Colorado ruling. He apprehensively highlighted the risk of states arbitrarily removing politicians from opposing parties from the ballot, which could significantly impact presidential elections.

Amidst the legal deliberations, liberal Justice Elena Kagan raised the fundamental question of why one state should possess the authority to determine the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

Justice Samuel Alito presented a hypothetical scenario questioning the administration’s decisions regarding foreign policy, emphasizing the complexities surrounding diplomatic relationships, particularly referencing the Obama-Biden era’s policy towards Iran.

The crux of the matter lies in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly bars individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office under the United States. This clause also grants Congress the power to lift such disqualifications and reinstate violators onto the ballot.

Notably, some of Trump’s congressional allies proposed legislation to formally declare his non-involvement in the Capitol riot, thereby paving the way for his inclusion on the ballot.

Throughout the proceedings, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared skeptical of arguments favoring Congress as the primary enforcer of the clause. She underscored the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority for disqualification removal, juxtaposing it with Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell’s indication of a simple majority.

In response to inquiries from various justices, Mitchell emphasized Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity and rejected the characterization of the Capitol incident as an insurrection, labeling it a riot instead.

The debate also touched upon whether the presidency falls under the purview of the disqualification clause, with Mitchell arguing against its inclusion.

Attorney Jason Murray, representing Colorado voters seeking Trump’s removal from the ballot, emphasized the absence of a rational basis for creating a special exemption to the clause tailored to Trump.

As the legal discourse unfolds, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision holds significant implications, not only for Trump’s candidacy but also for the broader interpretation of constitutional provisions governing presidential eligibility.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

NEW STUDY: Disposable COVID-19 Mask Wearing Link to Cancer

Published

on

By

According to a study posted by the National Institutes of Health earlier this year, indicates that the tight-fitting masks may expose users to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.

The journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety as well as the NIH website both provided details of the research.

Scientists from Jeonbuk National University in South Korea examined reusable fabric masks as well as two other disposable medical-grade mask types for the research. The results revealed that the chemicals produced by the medical-grade masks had at least eight times the advised safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), according to the experts.

According to the data, breathing in TVOCs may cause headaches and nausea. Organ damage and cancer are also linked to prolonged and repetitive exposure.

The researchers cautioned that further research is necessary to fully understand the VOCs connected to surgical mask usage and their impacts on human health.

They continued by saying that there are measures to lessen the risk. If you open a mask and let it rest for at least 30 minutes before using it, exposure may be greatly decreased.

This suggests that the quantity of potentially dangerous compounds in surgical masks may be related to how they are packaged.

Disposable masks contain high levels of TVOCs

A study conducted by researchers tested 14 disposable and cloth masks, KFAD and KF94, made from thermoplastics polypropylene and polyurethane nylon, in South Korea and the United States. The results showed that the masks contained up to 14 times the TVOCs detected in cotton masks.

The sample with the highest amount of TVOCs had 4,808 cubic meters per microgram, which is about 4.8 parts per million, more than eight times the recommended limit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends keeping TVOC levels below 0.5 parts per million in indoor air.

The researchers also identified two chemicals linked to liver and reproductive damage: dimethylacetamide (DMAc) and dimethylformamide (DMF). The study acknowledges that the sample size was small and did not test several o ther popular disposable masks like KN95s.

The researchers also referenced earlier research indicating that mask mandates could cause more harm than good. The study’s findings could have new relevance as COVID-19 variant BA.2.86 is spreading throughout the United States. However, new studies highlighting the dangers of face masks could make mask mandates ineffective.

How to reduce exposure to TVOCS

TVOCs are a large group of odorous chemicals and many of them are released by cleaning and beauty products, burning fuel and cooking.

Sources of TVOCs in the home include:

  • Aerosol sprays
  • Air fresheners
  • Automotive products
  • Cleansers and disinfectants
  • Moth repellents

Other sources of TVOCs include:

  • Building materials and furnishings
  • Craft materials, such as glues and adhesives
  • Office equipment, such as carbonless copy paper, copiers and printers, permanent markers and correction fluids

The American Lung Association (ALA) warned that TVOCs may irritate the eyes, nose and throat; cause difficulty breathing and nausea; and damage the central nervous system and organs like the liver.

Some TVOCs are also considered human carcinogens, meaning they can cause cancer.

To reduce exposure to TVOCs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), you must inspect your home for the common sources of TVOCs and VOCs.

Source control:

  • Eliminate the number of products in your home that give off TVOCs.
  • Only buy what you need if you are working on something that requires adhesive, caulks, paints and solvents. Unused chemicals stored in the home may “leak” and release VOCs into the air.
  • Store unused chemicals in a garage or shed where people rarely visit.
  • Dispose of all unused chemicals that are stored in your home or garage. Check with your city or county for the nearest household hazardous waste collection sites.
  • Look for low-VOC options if you need paints and furnishing.

Ventilation and temperature control:

  • Increase the amount of fresh air in your home to help reduce the concentration of VOCs indoors.
  • Increase ventilation naturally by opening doors and windows. Fans can help maximize air brought in from the outside.
  • Keep both the temperature and relative humidity as low as possible. Chemicals off-gas more in high temperatures and humidity.
  • Schedule home renovations when your home is unoccupied or during seasons that will allow you to open doors and windows to increase ventilation.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

BOMBSHELL: FBI Lied To Delaware U.S. Attorney About Key Details in Biden Corruption Case

Published

on

By

According to documents obtained from the FBI and Department of Justice reveal that the agencies blatantly lied about Rudy Giuliani, a partisan lawyer working for then-President Donald Trump, misleading Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss into believing that all allegations against Hunter Biden came from Giuliani. Weiss was charged with prosecuting Hunter Biden for tax and fraud crimes. By doing this, the FBI concealed information from a whistleblower who accused President Joe Biden of receiving a bribe from Ukrainian authorities in order to assist his son with international business. The whistleblower’s interview was recorded.

Internal emails uncovered by The Federalist demonstrate that information concerning the Hunter Biden affair leaked from the FBI and was first supplied to the New York Times showed that Giuliani’s discovery of Hunter’s notorious laptop and the beginning of the sole inquiry into Hunter. One month after the 2020 election, the FBI Office of Public Affairs National Press Office released the NYT’s report, “Material from Giuliani Spurred a Separate Justice Depart. Pursuit of Hunter Biden,” to Weiss’ Baltimore office.

Together, the emails made public raise concerns about whether Attorney Weiss was properly informed about a secret source previously questioned by the FBI who claimed to have information showing that Biden accepted a $5 million bribe while serving as vice president in exchange for pressuring the Ukrainian government to dismiss a prosecutor looking into Hunter’s employer, Burisma Energy, for corruption.

The testimony was recorded by FBI agents as part of their interview with the source and was included on an FD-1023 form that was initially withheld from congressional Republicans who wanted to link President Biden to any possible criminal behavior by his troubled son. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already blasted the DOJ for destroying 17 audio recordings that may have implicated Biden. Weiss then heard from another source that the FBI had verified the claims provided by the anonymous person.

Weiss would have known that the confidential source claimed to have spoken with Burisma executive Mykola Zlochevsky, who allegedly told the source that he was forced into paying Biden and Hunter $5 million each in exchange for their assistance in getting prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Had Weiss received timely information from the FBI’s FD-1023 form, he would have known that.

50 former U.S. intelligence officers joined forces with Biden officials during the 2020 campaign to assert that Hunter’s accusations of impropriety were a product of “Russian disinformation” meant to harm the reputation of then-candidate Biden. Two years after becoming president, Biden has watched as his son was accused of many offenses, and he is still negotiating conditions for a new plea agreement with Weiss’s office. Republicans in the House are debating whether to impeach President Biden, citing the FBI’s withholding evidence among other things.

Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss was falsely told that all allegations against Hunter Biden originated from Rudy Giuliani, a partisan attorney working for then-President Donald Trump. The FBI withheld a documented interview by a whistleblower who accused President Joe Biden of accepting a bribe from Ukrainian officials to help his son conduct overseas business. Internal emails obtained by The Federalist show that leaks from the FBI about the Hunter Biden scandal, originally sent to the New York Times, suggested the only investigation began with Giuliani and the discovery of Hunter’s infamous laptop. The FBI Office of Public Affairs National Press Office leaked the story to Weiss’ Baltimore office one month after the 2020 election.

The chain of disclosed emails raises questions about whether Attorney Weiss was appropriately notified about a confidential source previously interviewed by the FBI who claimed to have evidence that Biden as vice president accepted a $5 million bribe in exchange for pressuring the government of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating Hunter’s employer, Burisma Energy, for corruption. The FBI documented the testimony in an FD-1023 form that was originally withheld from congressional Republicans seeking to tie President Biden to potential criminal activity by his embattled son.

Continue Reading

Trending