Josef Mengele, the so-called “angel of death” at Auschwitz, was not a big believer in informed consent for medical experiments. He evaded capture and condemnation by the Nuremburg Doctors’ Trial. More than a dozen other doctors were hanged or given life sentences.

by Walter Smith

The stupor of Covidiocy has infected all levels of society and greatly damaged our social fabric. Out of fear and suppression of common sense and stories contradictory to “the narrative,” Americans are accepting an assault on their liberties, and have been blinded to see it – even pooh-poohing skeptics like me as “anti-science,” “anti-vax,” or “out of bounds” for making comparisons to precedents from the Nuremberg trials. Well, buckle up.

The COVID vaccine mandates are illegal and unconstitutional. That 450 colleges and universities have mandated the vaccination of students shows how little respect our elites – the “experts” who engaged in “gain of function” research, funded it in China when prohibited onshore, and lied about it – have for our liberties.

The Nuremberg Code was established as a result of the Doctors’ Trial after World War II. It set forth the premise for why certain doctors deserved punishment, including execution. I’m sorry if this offends you – while the truth may hurt, it can also set you free. Just read Article 1 on consent for medical experiments. Clear enough?

This thinking explains why the federal statute for “unapproved” drugs has the language about the right to refuse. The COVID vaccines are “experimental” because they have not been fully tested and are available only by “emergency use authorization.” Just to make it easy – this is the location in the statute, as part of the “required conditions” to administer the “unapproved” products – 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). The statute doesn’t say “and if you exercise your right to refuse, you must then agree to a number of conditions designed to force you to be vaccinated against your will.”

Here is the applicable Virgina statute. To make it easy for you, Subsections B and C list the types of vaccines required, and Subsection D lists the exemption protocols. Do you see COVID vaccine? No, neither do I. Students can refuse these long-established, well-accepted vaccines for any medical reason and for any religious reason (except in the case of religious, an emergency or epidemic may override, but the medical exemption is always available). Again, in either case, the statute does not provide that a student must agree to onerous conditions to exercise this right. If you care to know the truth, examine the UVA COVID exemption and non-COVID exemption forms here – Covid medical, regular medical, Covid religious, religious, hepatitis, meningococcal.

UVA specifically is relying on an opinion from the Attorney General to justify legally the mandate. Again, I hate to be mean, I know I will offend some – General Herring is a prevaricator. His opinion states on page 3 that “there is no federal guidance on the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Covid-19 vaccine specifically relating to colleges and universities.” No, there is just a federal statute which applies for all EUA products. And, if I, a self-professed non-scholar know about federal pre-emption, one would presume the top lawyer for the Commonwealth of Virginia might. This is maybe 2nd year law!

The COVID vaccine mandate, wherever implemented, is illegal. I didn’t write the federal statute, but it was grounded in historical events for reasons consistent with natural liberty as envisioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration formed the intellectual and moral basis for the Constitution.

Do you know what isn’t in the Constitution? A pandemic exception! This case was for religious services and this case for emergency extra-legal voting changes. Don’t kid yourself – one day these mandates will be before a federal court and they will be duly and properly declared unconstitutional, besides illegal.

How is it that no one at the University of Virginia will acknowledge the illegality, even after having it pointed out numerous times?

How is it that an institution founded by Thomas Jefferson does not see the violations of natural liberties in the mandate? No one in the administration and no one on the Board?

How is it that the Dean of the Law School positively gushes about decades of lawfare to protect “vagrants,” but has no concerns about the infringements, the “social control,” of her own students?

How is it that the UVa administration can draft a COVID religious exemption form that so clearly on its face is unconstitutional and violates the principles of Jefferson’s religious freedom statute?

How is it that the Uva administration can profess the unequivocal endorsement of free expression and free inquiry, while refusing to subject its vaccine mandate to public inspection and debate? Did not Jefferson, in establishing UVA wish for the pursuit of truth wherever it may lead?

How is it that UVa has an administration and a Board that violate the three things Jefferson wished to be remembered for (the Declaration, the religious freedom statute and UVa)?

A Virginia patriot and contemporary of Jefferson issued a warning and call to arms about this type of behavior we would be wise to notice and join.

Do not be deluded. Wake up!


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

67 responses to “Wake Up, Everybody!”

  1. dick dyas Avatar
    dick dyas

    It may be unconstitutional, but it is a good health policy.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      If the vaccine is “approved” , do all these “Constitutional” issues go away , say like the existing requirements for other vaccines for childhood diseases?

      Is approval the only difference to make it Constitutional?

      Also – what hasn’t yet been done for the COVID vaccines so they can be approved? What is lacking? Is it approvable for al the populations that already are taking it with seemingly few adverse effects, at least no more than other approved vaccines?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Whatever BaQAnon says…

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Part 2. The federal statute is just the easiest currently. If the COVID vax gets approved, then in accord with historic norms, and doctors’ codes (which I have read and you have not), there will be an ability to refuse. This is why they all say “informed consent”. Last I checked, consent does not equate to forced acceptance against your will, does it?
        So, part 3. If somehow COVID vax is approved and a law is passed requiring it without the right to refuse, we then move on to Jeffersonian natural law principles, which are more abstract arguments, but in a sane world, we wouldn’t have to get there.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          really? you read “codes” and I don’t and you know that?

          😉

          Yes it’s INFORMED CONSENT and you can refuse but there are consequences for that in terms of your employment or ability to use services or facilities – has always been that way and never determined to be “unconstitutional” except in the minds of deniers.

          Beyond that, you’re deep into wackadoodle territory IMHO.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          really? you read “codes” and I don’t and you know that?

          😉

          Yes it’s INFORMED CONSENT and you can refuse but there are consequences for that in terms of your employment or ability to use services or facilities – has always been that way and never determined to be “unconstitutional” except in the minds of deniers.

          Beyond that, you’re deep into wackadoodle territory IMHO.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            What you just described is discrimination, not informed consent.

            Informed Consent is as follows:

            “permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.”

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            What you just described is discrimination, not informed consent.

            Informed Consent is as follows:

            “permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.”

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            I think I do Larry. Which medical codes have you read?
            Have the Dem talking points been prepared yet for you to mindlessly spout?

    2. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      No. If it is a good health policy, then our supposed leaders should do something really novel…pass a law making it health policy. And see my answer to Larry’s dumb question below for part 2.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    A lawyer friend once told me that any law or regulation is presumed to be constitutional until a judge says it is not. So, file a suit in state or federal court challenging the constitutionality of UVa.’s mandate. Ask for a preliminary injunction. I am sure there is some organization that will provide the financial assistance to do so.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I’m not sure any of them actually want to file the lawsuit and then receive a decision. Seems like that could have been done a long time ago.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Because, they can’t just lie.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          well they could but the court would then also pronounce them wacadoodles…

    2. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Dick – why should any citizen have to file a lawsuit to get the government to obey its own law? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t our “public servants” obey and enforce the LAW equally, everywhere, regardless of color and status? Aren’t the resources vastly different? So we turn a blind eye to infringements? Washington said government is a consuming fire. It must be kept under control. It is not currently, and this “emergency” trick will be played again and again, like Gov Granny Killer is doing in New York with guns.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Obviously our “public servants” think they ARE obeying the law, or at least not violating a federal law or constitutional right. You and others think they are not. Until a judge says otherwise, however, you have to obey the law and rules. We can’t have individual citizens obeying only the laws they think are just. Unless you want to take the road of civil disobedience. Your daughter and other students who agree with her could stage a sit-in in class or at the registrar’s office to bring attention to what you and she consider unjust rules. (Be sure to have the press there when they call the cops to haul her away. That’s how you get the publicity for your cause.)

        The other alternative is to challenge the rule or regulation in court. Yes, it is expensive. That is probably a good thing because the expense discourages frivolous suits. But, that is what various legal organizations are for. I would think you could find some organization that is willing to launch a legal campaign against mandatory vaccination requirements. I would not be surprised if a suit has already been filed somewhere.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          You presume goodwill. You are naive at best. Jim Ryan is a Constitutional expert. He was on Virginia Law Review. He taught at the Law School. He clerked at the Supreme Court. Two members of the Board are lawyers at humongous law firms. Two members of the Board are doctors and aware of the overriding “informed consent” underpinning medical practice.
          Anyone who can read can figure out the mandate is illegal and I have pointed out the “why.” Show me where I am mistaken.
          So far, no one has. And no one can. So, I get evasions and called crazy for wanting my “public servants” to respect the people who they supposedly “serve” by OBEYING THE LAW!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You’re WRONG because you are citing your opinion and others do not agree with your rationale.

            When that happens, you need a 3rd party to resolve the disagreement, and that’s the courts.

            I think you folks are actually afraid to go to the courts for fear that they too will say you are wrong.

            We are a nation of laws – not individual opinions…

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Read the statute Larry. Even you can see it. But you don’t want to.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s pretty simple. YOUR reading and interpretation is NOT theirs.

            They do not believe they are breaking the law.

            When you have that many people taking that position and you disagree, then your redress is the courts.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s called “redress”. But, you’d have had to read all of A1 before skipping to A2 to know that.

      3. Just so we are clear, you issue a call to arms — “A Virginia patriot and contemporary of Jefferson issued a warning and call to arms about this type of behavior we would be wise to notice and join.” — as a preferable path rather before you would follow Dick’s advice to file suit.

        God save us.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          The fact that people feel the need to take it to such extremes of “a call to arms” would point out a larger issue. That constitutional review is lacking and or not being done at all.

          It’s also humorous that everyone seems to think it’s cheap to file Lawsuit against the Federal or even State Government (unlimited resources, which is why people settle or plead out). Which in both cases you’d be paying the legal fees of both your lawyer and the Governments lawyer. One being a roundabout way via taxes the other direct.

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Those who refuse to understand, refuse to understand. If you can get past Nuremberg! Nazis!, you will read the Code and see Article 1. Then if you read Patrick Henry’s speech, you will see he refers to 10 years of “remonstrance,” “petitions” etc. This is the stage we are in. And Henry predicted that war was coming, and 3 weeks later Lexington and Concord happened. He was right. Henry also said he had no way to guide his steps but by the past. There is a lesson for us there. God help us if people like you never stand up to government intentionally abusing your rights That is where we are.

          1. So you are ready to call for the overthrow of the gov’t (sounds like both US and VA) for a vaccination requirement?

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            And you are determined to be obtuse?
            I am trying to wake up people like you to “public servants” intentionally violating the law. This is the petition, remonstrance stage. But you on the Left love power, and are fine with it when your side does it. A summer of riots is “mostly peaceful protests.” A joke mini-riot with no one armed (and with some number of government provocateurs) is an “insurrection.”

            Here is where Henry was after 10 years of trying to get the British Crown to acknowledge the Colonies’ Rights – “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.”

            Try to actually understand, rather than argue. As usual, no one has refuted my position that they are violating the law. Because you can’t, because they are.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Then go to court and get a judgement….. or else you’re spitting in the wind.

          4. I’m asking a simple yes or no question. Nothing obtuse about it. You are deflecting.

            Dick already answered your question about violating the law.

            Are you actually advocating a call to arms as you wrote in your original piece. Yes or No?

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            No. You are the one deflecting. Are you one of the FBI agents rounding up the white supremacists and insurrectionists?
            Let me repeat – I AM CALLING FOR THE PUBLIC SERVANTS TO OBEY THE LAW.

            Now, for your benefit – CAN YOU READ?
            Where am I wrong that the federal statute is being violated to abrogate the right to refuse an “unapproved” drug?

            And now picking up Dick’s point – why should ANY CITIZEN have to sue the government for openly, brazenly violating a law?
            Qualified immunity was invented for police in split second interactions to avoid personal liability. It has now been extended to nameless, faceless bureaucrats INTENTIONALLY violating student rights. In this case, Jim Ryan clerked on the Supreme Court, was on Law Review, taught at UVA Law…
            If anybody can read the law and know what it says, he does. PROVE ME WRONG.

          6. Since you won’t say no, then it’s safe to assume that you stand by your original call to arms. But let’s move on.

            One final question, let’s say the lawsuit against the vaccine requirement fails and they are ruled legal, will you abide by that decision?

          7. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            You’re an idiot.
            Let’s say the government decides everyone must be sterilized to protect the Earth as part of the Green Nude Eel. You sue, but the lower level hack judge says it is A-OK. Will you obey the law?

            One more time for OBTUSE BOY – I want the University of Virginia, and all schools everywhere, TO OBEY THE LAW.

            You know what, I think those who don’t obey the law on a mass basis are the “insurrectionists” tearing down the rule of law. How’s that? You approve of our “public servants” breaking the law? You are treasonous and ruining the Constitution. Call Joe Biden’s goons and turn yourself in. Now!

          8. Ad hominem arguments finally show up. Surprised it took this long, but nonetheless just exposes your argument for what it is.

            I ask pretty simple questions which you never answer. You made a call to arms over a vaccination requirement. I want to understand if you mean what you say or you just bring all this up to get people wound up. Other people give you pretty sound arguments which you dismiss and then attack them personally because it doesn’t match your world view.

            Just because you are convinced something is true, doesn’t mean that it is, and if nothing else, I’m reminded of Sgt Hulka’s line to Francis in Stripes.

          9. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Read the statute. Better yet, since you refuse to – here is the relevant part – close to eyes to stay pure! –
            (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

            By the way – NO ONE – has given a sound argument refuting. Because they can’t. The statute says what it says.

          10. I’ve looked at everything that gets sourced, but I also look at what’s going on outside of my thought bubble. Your view may eventually be found to be correct, but it’s far from settled today, regardless of how convinced you are. I offer this article below, but you can find similar ones everywhere that outline why the question is unsettled. I repeatedly called you out because the seditionary talk and Nazi comparisons deserve to be called out. You don’t answer direct questions, but most now or have understood why. “Democracy thrives in Sunlight”, but crazy talk doesn’t. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/vaccine-mandate-lawsuits-sparked-by-shots-emergency-status

          11. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Yes – the employer won the lawsuit today in Houston Methodist, but it is not over. The Judge sidestepped the EUA status. It will be overturned. The lawyer commenting on it noticed that in the email. EEOC guidance is routinely overturned. But, purely as a statutory matter, the mandate violates the law.

            I am not calling for insurrection. I am not saying a vaccine is equivalent to the Nazi medical experiments. I am using the history of WHY the Nuremberg Code was developed, and the events that Patrick Henry was referring to to cause people to WAKE UP. Our so-called betters are intentionally violating the law. Why is that acceptable? It’s not, and should never be in any sane system of self-governance.

            Should people obey the law? Yes.
            Should the leaders be held to a higher standard in obeying and enforcing the law? Yes.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Presumption of Constitutionality doesn’t apply in cases involving Civil Rights (i.e 1st and so on, that was stated by Justice Bushrod Washington).

      What you’re outlining is why we have a litany of laws that encroach on peoples civil rights without repercussions. Those who are suffering via the Law simply cannot afford to take the Government (unlimited resources) to court.

      Look at the protracted Legal review of the PPACA as an example. It was defined as Constitutional after Chief Justice Roberts assigned it so exercise of taxation powers. Which ran contrary to the wording of the Statute as it was drafted and passed.

  3. What happened to ‘My body, My Choice!’?

    Given that the median age of those who have passed was beyond the life expectancy median age; and 80% of those deaths happened to obese patients. Not sure how sticking 18-21 year olds is prudent.

    Shouldn’t we fist test for post virus antigens before forcing a vaccine on any person?

    What happened to the ‘herd immunity’ plan — if 60%, wait Dr. F increased that to 70%…oh never mind he then increased that to 80% — then we’re all safe? Of course he then admitted he made all those numbers up.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      contrary to what some think – the govt DOES have the Constitutional power to forcibly quarantine you:

      ” Does the Government Have Legal Grounds to Force People to Quarantine?

      Yes. The federal government can quarantine people, mainly based on the powers it derives from the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution. Also, section 264 of the Public Health Service Act gives the federal government the authority “to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.”

      States also have broad police powers, granted to them by the Constitution, to ensure the health and welfare of their citizens are protected.

      Note, the federal and state governments may both impose certain quarantine obligations on citizens. However, if there is any conflict with the state and federal orders, the federal law will be given priority.

      Is There a Uniform “Self-Quarantine” Law?
      No. States and cities usually draft their own quarantine laws. These laws can either be general or specific, depending on what best achieves their purpose. Look at the National Conference of State Legislatures for an exhaustive list of each state’s laws on quarantines.

      How Are Quarantines Enforced?
      If a communicable disease is identified in the country, either the Center for Disease Control (CDC) or the states may issue a quarantine order. An example of such order is the Quarantine Order for the Novel Coronavirus issued by the CDC, outlining reasons for the order as well as what is required of citizens.

      If people do not comply with such orders, the police and other enforcement organs can get involved. Federal law also gives U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Coast Guard officers authority to enforce quarantine orders..”

      https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/other-constitutional-rights/can-you-be-legally-forced-to-self-quarantine-in-the-united-state.html

      These folks that blather on and on about “Constitutional” don’t really know it and they have simplistic ideas about what it means that is not at all what the courts have said.

      It’s just bonkers.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Ships still fly a yellow flag…

      2. WayneS Avatar

        The issue is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as your “findlaw.com” link might have you believe:

        https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          The police powers of the government are pretty powerful and I see no big Constitutional challenges on the issue and there are no shortage of groups these days willing to file such lawsuits.

          So I suspect this is not really a question these folks really want the courts to answer in the first place.

          The government has the power, but they are reluctant to use it unless they have no choice.

          In fact, the argument seems to not be over the fact that they can – but for how long and the answer to that is one the courts would have some trouble with because that answer is not in the Constittuion.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      no numbers made up, numbers change as they learn more – assessments/guidance comes from latest available info .

      Not just F – around the world , thousands of pubic health scientists …. all citing data and evidence not wild conjecture those without knowledge.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      He forgot the Magna Carta. Of course, the DoI is more of religious document closer to the 95 Theses than a document on governmental philosophy.

      Funny, he wants people to be ‘woke’.

  4. Sharon Brockman Avatar
    Sharon Brockman

    Mr. Smith, As the parent of a student at another school in Virginia, I thank you for your article.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Oh boy! Another Nazi comparison. Goons and Brown Shirts and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Trump and the 1st Amendment in the marketplace. Whoopee, we’re all gonna die!

    1. WayneS Avatar

      When was that verse added to the song?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Goons and Brown Shirts and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Oh Jeez!”

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Wacdadoodles on parade….

      you realize, of course, that according to Sherlock and Gillespie and others, we’ve just turned yet another blog post into pig slop….and Dick joining in!

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Comments monitored for decency.
        Articles for intelligence… not so much.

  6. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    You have eluded the essence of public health safety. I don’t see your reference to Nazi’s at Auschwitz relevant. Mendele was no hero. If you expect people to begin agreeing with you, then references to Nazi’s might not be the way to go.

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      And being intellectually lazy is not an excuse. Read Article 1 of the Nuremberg Code to understand why the federal statute says what it says. It is abhorrent to force people to do medical things against their will.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      not sure what was expected by the “anti” folks… hyperbole is how they actually think…it’s pretty much the standard rhetoric on the right these days.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        …and the left.

  7. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Since no one has refuted what I wrote about the illegality of the vaccine mandate…
    A few comments – I don’t expect to convince the Larrys and Nancys of the world.
    I do hope that the Dick Hall Sizemores of the world will actually think about such a Cavalier (pun intended) disregard of the law and not think it is OK to just say “sue the government.” I rummaged through my sofa and all the cubbyholes of the house and couldn’t a find a few extra hundred thousand $ laying around to take on a foe with unlimited resources and no personal risk.
    It looks like ARL is a government agent trying to get me branded an insurrectionist. I admit I am guilty of CrimeThink – DoublePlus UnGood CrimeThink!

    So let me ask a question for any fair thinking people out there – this excludes a number of people and you know who you are –
    How come UVA’s own patient policies have this language?
    End of Life Issues
    • According to Virginia and federal law any person above the age of 18 has the right to make decisions about his/her health care including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment.

    If one can refuse treatment to choose to die, one can’t refuse treatment as a choice to live? Or does the student need to say, in refusing the vaccine mandate, that he is choosing to die? How come you can choose to abort a clump of cells, and it doesn’t bother you Leftist Libtards (I am being provocative on purpose), but you can’t refuse a shot you don’t need?
    What if, consistent with Leftist orthodoxy, the student says “I currently identify as a patient who wishes to die and I refuse this medical treatment against your and Ryan’s and the CDC’s and the VDH’s wishes?” That should be sufficient, shouldn’t it?

    OK, I’m done toying with you…for now!

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The argument over whether you can seek to mandate a vaccine still not fully approved, and do it would express GA action, is a valid one for a court. Or the court of public opinion. The comparisons to Nazi Germany are insulting, disgusting, and really lower my opinion of all involved. You are seeing me less and less on this blog for a reason, which is getting stronger by the day. A plague on all your houses.

    Got the Texas grandkid with us this week, too young for the shots, so she’s still having to be masked several places. Something her parents want. The unvaccinated fools do not simply risk themselves. When the deaths start up again, perhaps Jim will wake up. By October, once again the Democrats will be up on their soapbox claiming Republicans don’t care about their neighbors…

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      It is not a Nazi “comparison.” I am showing from history that a reason for execution of the Nazi doctors was the medical experiments. This is the reason for the codification of the “right to refuse.”

      This has been in the law for a long time, and now the world freaks out?

      I hope you enjoy your grandkids and they can wear masks, get or not get vaccinated – it’s not my call. It’s the parents’ call.

      Why is that offensive or hard to understand?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Of course it is your intent to compare a vaccine mandate, following a massive and actually quite transparent international development effort with published Stage 1, 2 and 3 trials reviewed around the world, to sicko Nazi monsters cutting up living people or infecting them with unknown substances. It is truly despicable. And also a very cheap debaters trick, a sign you need to prop up your arguments with emotional reactions.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          No it’s not. When death camps get opened and people get rounded up, then calling them Nazis is accurate. Recounting a real lesson from history to explain why the language is in the statute is history. The statute and all medical codes say right to refuse and informed consent. There is a reason. I don’t need to prop anything up – it is what the law says.
          Why is it controversial? Why not obey the law, drop the mandate, and let people CHOOSE to get vaccinated? Like has been the historical norm? So we do need a pandemic exception to the Constitution? And if that is the case, then why can’t we have a public debate about it?

          “Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?”

          They are breaking the law. I have a problem with that. If they pass a law requiring Covid vax, and it gets FDA approved, maybe, or maybe not, I would choose to get it. That would be consistent with historic norms. If they disallow the right to refuse, then THAT would bring up the Constitutional and natural liberty arguments. But somehow, the country has survived with Christian Scientists, and anti-vaxxers (like Robert Kennedy Jr!) and it has NEVER been an issue. Why now?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            There is no GOvt mandate much less death camps.

            This is what is happening to Conservatives these days… even other Conservatives are seeing it happen.

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Um…Larry – you are not aware that 450 colleges and universities, and who knows how many other K-12 schools are mandating Covid vaccination?
            UVA is an instrumentality of the State. So are K-12 schools. That’s a Government mandate.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Good on you for calling out this crap. There is NO Govt “mandate” , much less all this crap about Nazis and death camps.

          This does show the width and depth of the right these days because, truth be known, Steve is on the edge of being pushed out by others to his right.

          But even as his right flank is chewing him, he reflexively blames the “left” who for the most part advocate the same common sense that Steve supports for vaccines and even masking – i.e. “wear the damn mask”.

    2. WayneS Avatar

      Wow. I hope I am not part of driving you away.

      The other day when I “questioned” whether you were a tax and spend liberal I WAS joking. You know that, right? Your response at the time left me wondering. In any event, I certainly did not mean to offend you and I apologize if I did.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Oh, he makes that threat on a regular basis!

        😉

        he’s truly caught between the “left” and the party he used to be part of.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The Defense of the White Man obsession is really getting on my nerves. That and the shocking revelation over and over that university faculties are filled with libs and actual reds. That and repeated COVID nonsense are about 92% of the content now.

    3. Robert Taylor Avatar
      Robert Taylor

      You can say that “comparisons to Nazi Germany” are insulting, and, assuming that such “comparisons” are actually being made, you might be right (the jury on such a comparison becoming “apt” is, obviously, still out but, equally obviously if admittedly unlikely could still come to pass)… but that does not make any mention of the Nuremburg Code, the provisions of which concerning medical experimentation are EXTREMELY apt and important whoever might be doing the experimenting, inappropriate. Those are important provisions of international law… reflective of fundamental human rights that should never be violated… that should never be forgotten… And I think past victims of such experimentation would agree.

  9. Robert Taylor Avatar
    Robert Taylor

    What you also failed to mention is that the AG’s opinion on which UVA/Ryan and the other public universities are relying specifies, repeatedly, “approved” vaccine… That term “approved” has very specific meaning in drug approval and FDA parlance, and explicitly does NOT include the current vaccines. The FDA’s own tear sheets on each of the vaccines explicitly states that these vaccines are NOT approved to treat Covid and that, in fact, there is no “approved” vaccine for treating Covid. https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download The FDA has authorized the administration of the vaccines under it’s authority to grant EUA’s, but they are careful to state that the vaccines are not yet “approved”. As such, the opinion of the Attorney General (who is a highly trained lawyer and whom we must assume is not an idiot) does not, at present, provide the authority or legal cover to the Universities that Ryan seems to think it does.

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Yes. That, too.
      And let’s be honest – Jim Ryan knows this.
      He went to Yale and UVA Law.
      He was on Law Review.
      He clerked at the Supreme Court.
      He taught at UVA Law.
      You think it is in the realm of possibility that he doesn’t know?
      Nah…neither do I.

Leave a Reply