Posted on 05/12/2021 8:57:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Students looking forward to getting back to college are getting letters from 100 to 200 colleges notifying them of a new prerequisite: getting fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As one letter states, this is because of “our continued desire to protect the health and safety of our community.” This includes high-risk individuals in the surrounding community or wherever the students go in the “mass migration” at the end of the semester, according to the American College Health Association (ACHA).
The main purpose of the requirement is not to protect the students themselves. Of all COVID deaths, only about 0.1% have been in 15-to-24-year-olds. Yet young people can suffer death or serious disability after getting the jab. (Authorities point out that it is not necessarily because of the jab.) According to a controversial independent analysis, the aggressive Israeli vaccination campaign killed more than 200 times as many young persons as the coronavirus itself could have killed during the same 35-week period.
One of the commenters on the ACHA’s recommendation wrote: “It is perfectly reasonable for a society to expect its members, *all* of its members, to take up such risks on behalf of everyone. Unless you plan on putting a bullet in your own head on your 39th birthday, one day *you* will be that elderly person who benefits disproportionately from universal vaccination. To not accept that risk now, yet expect that protection later, would make you a hypocrite.”
So much for the parental instinct to protect children – instead of using or sacrificing them!
We do not know the precise number of post-vaccine “adverse events,” because of incomplete reporting, or the percentage that were caused by the jab and not coincidental. But one can see the number and types of events reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) or the more user-friendly British Yellow Card system. These include death, clotting or bleeding problems, paralysis, blindness and miscarriages (213 of the latter in VAERS as of today).
The long-term adverse events cannot yet be known. The prospect of most concern to the young women calling our office is infertility. There is no evidence that the products currently available cause infertility. And also no evidence that they don’t. There are plausible reasons to worry. Viral spike protein has been found in placentas from mothers who gave birth after having COVID. And the spike protein itself, without any virus, can attach to the lining of blood vessels and many tissues, and even cross the blood-brain barrier, and wreak havoc.
Getting your own body to make spike protein is what these genetically engineered products do.
Concerning fertility, the one relevant animal experiment, in 1,273 Sprague-Dawley rats, showed a numerically lower pregnancy rate, but within the facility’s historical range. The rats were not injected in early pregnancy when organs are forming, to check for birth defects.
There are thousands of reports of menstrual irregularities, though these are not officially recognized as side effects, and many things including anxiety can affect the menstrual cycle. There are worries disseminated in social media but debunked by fact-checkers that menstrual problems and other effects can result from contacts with vaccinated persons.
The vaccine-induced spike proteins are supposed to stay attached to your cells and cause your body to make antibodies that will recognize the virus. Can they be shed into the environment and picked up by others by contact or inhalation? I don’t know of a mechanism. But it seems odd to me that the Pfizer experimental trials not only excluded women who were or might soon become pregnant, but also required men to abstain or use a condom for 28 days post injection. Just FDA bureaucracy and “abundance of caution”?
There is no abundance of caution in forcing this product onto students entering their prime reproductive years. No concern about “reproductive rights.”
It is unlawful to use coercion to gain acceptance of products available only through an Emergency Use Authorization, but colleges are confident of quick FDA approval, even though trials won’t be complete until 2022 or 2023.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has written to college administrators urging them to withdraw the mandate but has received no reply. Grants from ACHA, which receives grants from Pfizer and CDC, probably talk louder.
So, what can students do? Be cheerful or reluctant participants in a massive uncontrolled experiment and hope for the best? Seek an exemption? Or pause their education plans – and outrageous tuition?
There are “help wanted” signs everywhere. For learning, there are libraries, and more on-line opportunities will spring up. A college degree may be unnecessary or can wait. The biological window for having a family will close. How much risk of infertility should young people take?
Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. She completed an internal medicine residency at Parkland Memorial Hospital and University of Arizona Affiliated Hospitals and then became an Instructor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine and a staff physician at the Tucson Veterans Administration Hospital. She has been in solo private practice since 1981 and has served as Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) since 1989. She is currently president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. She is the author of YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Healthcare, and the second through fifth editions of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis published by Wolters Kluwer. She authored books for schoolchildren, Professor Klugimkopf’s Old-Fashioned English Grammar and Professor Klugimkopf’s Spelling Method, published by Robinson Books, and coauthored two novels published as Kindle books, Neomorts and Moonshine. More than 100 of her papers have been published in the scientific and popular literature on a variety of subjects including risk assessment, natural and technological hazards and nonhazards, and medical economics and ethics. She is the editor of AAPS News, the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter, and Civil Defense Perspectives, and is the managing editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Well, that's true, but the colleges and other institutions aren't using coercion ... they have a right to set forth the conditions by which they'll deal in the free market with other people. Kind of like "if you wish to remain gainfully employed with my company, you will give me fellatio every Thursday. The choice is yours."
RE: Kind of like “if you wish to remain gainfully employed with my company, you will give me fellatio every Thursday. The choice is yours.”
Regarding this analogy, is it LEGAL if an employer were to make such a condition for employment? Can an applicant sue him in court for such a condition? Or is the law on his side?
I don't think it is (and rightly so). However, the analogy is still good, because in both cases (vaccination and sexual favors) an individual is being offered a contract on the basis of having his personal sovereignty and bodily integrity violated as a condition of the contract. The libertarian will say, of course, that the individual always has the right to say no and decline the contract.
Now big pharmaceutical companies are telling Americans what they must do via threats. They are ignoring what physicians and scientists are saying about these vaccines. The news media is told to ignore it too, so if you think you know all of the data on these vaccinations, you are wrong. It’s being squelched.
Pharmaceutical companies are now running colleges, the work place and whether or not we get released from these covid lockdowns.
And it’s obvious our health and lives have absolutely no value to these psychopaths.
The disgusting thing is they are all protected against legal action once maiming and death become part of their “vaccine” equation.
Can sue, presumably, if adverse health effects “ensue”, so to speak.
More anti-vaxxer claptrap from a discredited source: The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
The association’s Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), from 1996 to 2003 named the Medical Sentinel, is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the viewpoints advocated by AAPS are rejected by mainstream scientists and other medical groups. The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.
As of September 2016, JPandS was listed on Beall’s list of potential or probable predatory open-access journals. Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical. An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described the journal as a “purveyor of utter nonsense.” Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the “house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]” and “is barely credible as an independent forum.” Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the journal as the “in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
One word: liability. Higher ed will do anything to cover it’s sorry ass.
The ACHA is bought off by Pfizer, what a shock.
I wonder how many businesses and organizations nation-wide have Big Pharma offering to weigh in on their “wellness” programs with grants and friendly advice...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.