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

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 While the majority of institutions have since repealed their requirements, Santa Clara University in California is one of the most onerous.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.