This comes after they were sued after announcing the mandate this past summer. Why has vaccine hesitancy grown so much amongst scientists and doctors? The University of California is one of many in the United States that have made the flu shot mandatory for all students, staff and faculty. Originally, Flu shots were required to be taken by November 1st of this year, according to UC, but Judge Richard Seabolt has halted their ability to do that until November 4th, when he will determine whether or not UC can or cannot mandate the flu vaccine. Due to the growing amount of evidence that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, let alone completely safe, attorney’s Rick Jaffe Robert F. Kennedy Jr, renowned attorney and Chair of Children’s Health Defense are sued the University of California for mandating the flu shot. You can read a bit of their reasoning here. Click here to contribute! According to Greg Glaser., general counsel at the Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC), “In this lawsuit against the UC Board of Regents over their new flu vaccine mandate, some of the world’s top experts have provided declarations opposing the flu shot mandate...
Their declarations will have a s significant impact on decisions made regarding public health.” Dr. Shira Miller, founder and president of PIC says:
there’s data showing that the flu shot increases one’s chances of non-flu illness by 65% – meaning that not only does this mandate lack scientific justification, but it puts UC students, faculty and staff at a greater risk of other respiratory illnesses...
The studies referenced in the UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses; however, that benefit may be outweighed by an increase in non-flu respiratory illnesses. And although the possibility has been studied, there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents the spread of influenza.” UC will not take adverse action against any employee or student who comes to campus who has not had a flu shot. We will see what happens during the trial. Jaffe states: The judge is obviously taking this motion very seriously, and that is a very good thing. He wanted more time to consider all the papers and write an opinion that will have enormous implications. Judge Seabolt gets to be the first judge in the country to weigh in on whether the state can mandate a vaccine during a pandemic where the vaccine doesn’t treat the pandemic disease and where there is reason to believe that the flu shot could actually increase COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths. That’s a lot to think about. It seems like he’s trying to get it right, and that is certainly extremely encouraging, since in my view, the more anyone reasonable thinks about it, the worse the mandate looks because of the lack of proper procedure in its issuance, and the lack of proof that the vaccine won’t cause much more harm than good. So I am all for the judge taking all the time he needs on this. There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference statesd that: The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen... still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider... Some Science: A study published in the journal Vaccine found a greater risk of contracting coronavirus among individuals in the study who received the influenza vaccine.
These studies were conducted prior to COVID 19, and apply to already circulating coronaviruses prior to the novel coronavirus. A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:
Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.
Read the full article at the original website