University Endangers Students By Mandating Covid Jabs (They Should Be Way Past This Nonsense)
It’s nothing new for the left to deny reality, but it’s obvious in this case that the so-called doctor pulling the trigger on this decision is getting rich by jeopardizing lives. It’s also obvious that he doesn’t have a calendar or anything showing him or the rest of the university that it is now 2023.
While the rest of the country has come to the realization that the jab is not effective, and for young people and infants it is absolutely unnecessary, Santa Clara University (SCU) has decided to ignore those truths.
Back in the spring of 2021, SCU announced that all students were required to get the Covid jab by fall enrollment or after full approval, which ever came later. Then over the summer they announced that students would still be required to receive the shot even if it remained approved for emergency use only under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The EUA, which is enacted very infrequently (for obvious reasons) in the U.S., grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the freedom to use a drug prior to approval. It does not constitute full approval of the drug in question, but it allows the FDA to facilitate availability of the unapproved product, or the unapproved use of an approved product during a declared state of emergency from either one or several agencies.
This encapsulates the entire argument against the jab. Essentially, the government and institutions like SCU, were mandating that an experimental product be injected into your body. This injection was required without any reliable safety data since no extended studies had been done.
“Informed Consent” is a very important term that is required anytime a medical procedure is being considered. Essentially, informed consent means that the patient has been informed of all possible outcomes including any and all negative side effects. However, think about that. If the drug is experimental and is being mandated without any extended study, no informed consent could be provided. That is a direct violation of human rights and should allow anyone to refuse the shot without fear or consequence. Obviously, that didn’t happen then and institutions like SCU are still violating that right today.
This violation is especially egregious when applied to young adults and infants, two groups that were clearly the least susceptible from the very beginning of this “plandemic.”
In spite of that, in December of 2021, SCU mandated that the “booster” was required of all students. This requirement came down in the middle of the academic year, which created a major dilemma for students. They were forced to choose between accepting the violation of their personal rights or losing thousands of dollars in paid tuition. Unbelievably, SCU continued to mandate this three-dose requirement through the 2022-2023 academic year.
Unlike the rapid decision to inject the population with a totally experimental jab, it took until April of 2023 for the EUA declaration to be removed. Yet even then, SCU refused to acknowledge the change. On May 8th, which “coincidentally” was one week after the fall enrollment deadline, SCU adjusted it’s requirement for incoming freshmen. The revision required the new students to have one bivalent dose, regardless of how many doses of the jab they had previously taken.
This requirement, compounded by the previous poor decisions made by the school, was further complicated by the devious decision to backdate the announcement to May 1st. This obviously infuriated some students. Not only was the school still violating their personal rights, but now the institution was attempting to hide the financial aspect by altering the timing of the announcement.
On May 31st, the school changed it’s policy again. It now would require that all staff and students to have received either three monovalent injections or one bivalent dose. As with all of the school’s mandates, students are not permitted to claim any type of medical or religious exemptions. However, the staff may apply for such exemptions inflicting yet another indignity on the student body.
So who or what is making these decisions at the university? Well, as I previously mentioned, one doctor seems to have overriding authority on the school’s “Covid-19 team. That man is Dr. Lewis Osofsky, campus physician and an apparent integral member of the Santa Clara County Medical Association (SCCMA). The SCCMA works closely with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPH) and with Osofsky’s oversight, Santa Clara County is one of the most vaccinated counties in the country.
Ironically, Osofsky also chairs the SCCMA’s Professional Standards and Conduct Committee. The committee’s primary function is to promote high ethical standards for all physicians and to intercede on any claims involving unethical conduct. Still, he offers no explanation for his own unethical decisions concerning these unnecessary jab mandates. He continues to ignore scientific facts, not only the inefficacy of the shot, but the drastic increase of sudden deaths, blood clots, stroke and other serious side effects that are occurring in healthy young adults.
Osofsky sins don’t end with just incompetent and nonsensical decisions. It is alleged that that he has not only turned a blind eye to legitimate student medical exemptions, but that he has attempted to interfere with them.
In March of last year, a lawsuit was filed against SCU. One of the plaintiffs, Harlow Glenn, a student at the school, claimed to have suffered extreme adverse reactions to her first series of shots. Glenn states that she suffered abnormal bleeding and leg paralysis which necessitated an emergency room visit. Osofsky inexplicably not only denied her a medical exemption but violated the sacred doctor patient relationship. He allegedly contacted Glenn’s doctors in an attempt to persuade them to rescind their medical exemption.
Osofsky’s reprehensible conduct is also carried out in his private pediatric practice. In online reviews, parents have complained that his office forced vaccines on their children and turned a deaf ear to their concerns. Could it be that his actions are guided by the fact that Blue Cross Blue Shield pays private pediatricians a $40,000 bonus for every 100 children under two years old that are fully vaccinated if a minimum of 63 percent of the patients are fully vaccinated, which includes the annual flu vaccine?
Osofsky is obviously not driven by moral and ethical medical standards. He is motivated by greed in his private practice that coincides with an overall radical agenda that is embraced by leftist extremists. They project caring by spewing the tag line, “follow the science,” which they then systematically refuse to do.
The SCU mandates are endangering the health of their students and fly in the face of responsible moral standards. The institution needs to take stock of the fact that Osofsky’s influence is placing the student body in jeopardy and remove him as soon as possible.
