Why there are no debates on Stanford's vaccination policy

Apparently, according to the Stanford students themselves, there are more fundamental issues, such as religious and moral deficiencies, that have priority. So people will die in the meantime.

Executive summary

Stanford, like many other universities, requires students to have a primary COVID vaccine and a booster in order to attend classes.

This is not justified by any science.

That doesn’t seem to matter to the administration or to the students.

Despite the unexplained deaths, neither the students nor the administration want to talk about it. There shall be no debates.

Introduction

I live close to Stanford University. I was a major donor and one of my daughters attended college there. But today, I’m unable to engage in a conversation about a key Stanford campus policy that is arguably killing members of the Stanford community. Let me tell you why.

Stanford University currently mandates that students attending Stanford must be vaccinated and boosted against SARS-CoV-2. Faculty and staff need to be fully vaccinated.

Here’s the student policy:

It appears that only a small number of people at Stanford (such as Professor Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Scott Atlas) are interested in challenging that policy.

The rest are apparently brainwashed.

Stanford faculty is responsible for spreading misinformation

Even worse, over 100 Stanford faculty members (infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists, epidemiologists and health policy leaders) are deliberately spreading misinformation that is not backed by science.

I’m not saying it was misinformation in hindsight. I’m saying, at the time they made the statements, they were demonstrably wrong.

See the signatories of this letter dated October 8, 2020 condemning the views of Dr. Atlas for the full list of these misinformation spreaders.

Their misinformation starts with the very first bullet point: “The use of face masks, … have been shown to substantially reduce the spread of Covid-19.” No possible way. Not even close. That has never been shown and still isn’t true 2 years later! I’d be willing to bet a lot of money on that… say $1M. Would any of the people who signed the letter want to accept my bet? Why not?

So if they can’t get it right on the basics, why should we trust them for anything more complex?

They also claim that “the safest path to herd immunity is through deployment of rigorously evaluated, effective vaccines that have been approved by regulatory agencies.” No way. It was never shown at that time that you can ever make a “safe” COVID vaccine that would be effective. That was complete speculation. We just did that and killed over 500,000 people in the process (I’m happy to debate that one). It would have been better to let people get the virus, and treat it with proven early treatment protocols. That will create stronger, longer lasting immunity that will be more likely to reduce the rate of spread and reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for future variants. You can never do better than “the real thing” when it comes to creating an immune response. There are no counter-examples that I’m aware of.

These people claim to “promote science-based solutions” and follow the principle of “do no harm,” but they are doing no such thing.

They claim that “commitment to science-based decision-making is a fundamental obligation of public health policy” yet they don’t follow their own advice on their own campus.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

We are not afraid of a discussion in a public forum. Why are they afraid?

Let me be clear. Not a single one of the signatories of that letter will appear in an open public forum to allow their views to be challenged by Professor Bhattacharya, Dr. Atlas, and/or any other experts who disagree. They won’t appear alone. They won’t appear as a group. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong on this. Just note your acceptance in the comments section of this article for everyone to see.

The reason they are reluctant to have an open public discussion is simple: the scientific evidence simply doesn’t support what they wrote. So they would be publicly embarrassed and their reputations would all be tarnished.

There is simply no excuse for the lack of open debate. That is what scientists used to embrace before the COVID pandemic.

Today, because the science doesn’t support their beliefs, these people must resort to writing one-sided attack pieces attacking the credibility of Dr. Atlas instead of embracing the principles of dispute resolution articulated in this excellent op-ed co-authored by UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad:

They write:

We are two academic physicians with different career interests who sometimes disagree on substantive issues. But we share the view that vigorous debate is fundamental to the existence of universities, where individuals with different ideas who have a commitment to reason compete to persuade others based on evidence, data, and reason. Now is the time to foster —not stifle — open dialogue among academic physicians and scientists about the current pandemic and the best tactical responses to it, each of which involve enormous trade-offs and unanticipated consequences.

It is a shame none of the signers of the Atlas letter share that view.

Suspicious deaths in the Stanford community that nobody wants to talk about

There have been at least 3 suspicious deaths of members of the Stanford community in 2022. There may be more. These are just the ones I personally know about and have verified:

• Evan Reed, a very fit 46 year old professor of Material Science. He died at home on March 19, 2022. The cause of his death was not disclosed.

• Graduate student John Chipman died suddenly on May 3 2022 in Sacramento. His death was sudden and unexplained.

• At SLAC, laser engineer Steve Edstrom died suddenly on June 18 2022. Google searches showed no public information of his death. The only thing I found was a GoFund me page noting that he died. I contacted the sponsor of the page, Alan Fry, and he abruptly hung up on me as soon as I told him why I was asking. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

There are four more student deaths that nobody is allowed to talk about because we don’t want to violate people’s privacy. It’s important in these incidents we conceal the truth.

The deaths will continue to happen because people will continue to cover up the circumstances of the deaths so nobody finds out the truth

Could any or all of these deaths have been caused by the COVID vaccine? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever ruling this out.

By keeping these deaths covered up, nobody finds out the truth.

And in America today, people believe it is very important that nobody learns the truth. This is why nobody wants to talk about these deaths. Because the truth is too hard to face.

Two famous and courageous cardiologists have risked their careers to speak out

Two prominent cardiologists recently said the same thing:

If a healthy person suddenly dies, and there’s no antecedent disease, it’s the vaccine until proven otherwise.

Other highly educated physicians are finding the same thing about the “safe and effective” narrative. For example, Michael Turner MD, is a graduate of Stanford University, Harvard Medical School, and The Mayo Clinic. He recently wrote very eloquently about how he discovered that he was misled by the medical community he once trusted.

Top scientists from top institutions have called booster mandates unethical

There was a recent paper published by top scientists from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UCSF, and Oxford which concluded that it was unethical to require boosters for students. They wrote in the abstract:

University booster mandates are unethical

I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. That is what the science says.

Someone is telling the truth and someone is lying. Is it important to find the truth?

Universities were wrong to put these mandates in place and even today, they will not permit any debate on the science behind their decision. I am reminded of this old saying:

Science that can not be questioned is not science, it is propaganda.

Today, even Pfizer admits that there was no evidence that vaccination reduces community spread. Check out this video with over 13M views:

Can we have a debate? Apparently not. It’s too hard to face reality, so they make lame excuses to avoid confronting the reality.

I reached out to Stanford students to see if we can arrange a discussion on this issue.

Apparently not because there are more “fundamental issues” that need to be discussed first before we can have the debate as to whether the science supports that the benefits outweigh the risks of COVID vaccination. The more pressing issues are religious and moral deficiencies.

This is a well-known technique to duck debate known as the fallacy of relative privation.

Here is the full text message conversation I had with a Stanford student who made inquiries as to why there are no debates on the Stanford campus about the vaccination policy.

In the text below, SCR is Stanford College Republicans whose stated mission is: “to counteract the left’s monopolization of Stanford’s campus discourse by working to bring conservative ideas into the mainstream of Stanford’s public square, a mission we continue to adhere to today.”

I didn’t understand their reasoning at all.

If the scientific evidence isn’t clearly showing the benefits outweigh the risks, the mandates should be immediately halted.

People’s lives should never be expressly put “at risk” by a policy that cannot be openly discussed until religious and moral deficiencies are resolved. That is simply preposterous.

At one time, there were Stanford students who spoke out about the unethical mandates. This petition was signed by over 3,000 Stanford community members.  Is this not reason enough to have a debate??  What is it going to take?

This article was written by an international Stanford student who was about to be deported.  He was about to appear on Tucker Carlson, but the day before the show, the President of Stanford called this student into his office and “quietly granted his religious exemption.”

Perhaps it is time for the Stanford College Republicans to change their mission statement to better reflect reality? How about this:

“to support the left’s monopolization of Stanford’s campus discourse by avoiding the discussion of timely, relevant ideas into the mainstream of Stanford’s public square.”

What do you think?

Why is this happening?

Watch this short video of Professor Jordan Peterson. If you don’t get what he’s saying in the first minute, you are part of the problem.

For more information

This article gives a history of college vaccine mandates and some that have announced the bivalent booster mandate.  So far, there are around 16 colleges that have mandated or announced they will mandate the bivalent booster.

Here is a comprehensive spreadsheet of many (not all) colleges that do/don’t mandate C19 vaccines and how many vaccines they mandate (plus other helpful tips).  All prospective parents/students should consult this list prior to applying to colleges and stay clear from the ones that do not follow science.

For more information, see the NoCollegeMandates website.

Summary

Unless Stanford can show an error in this recent paper from scientists from the world’s top academic institutions calling booster mandates unethical, the precautionary principle of medicine demands that they should immediately stop the mandates.

That would be the right thing to do.