Yesterday, I gave you some good news about the UC’s tactical retreat in our lawsuit seeking to overturn the UC’s flu vaccine mandate. Here is that post. https://rickjaffeesq.com/2020/10/01/breaking-news-uc-makes-a-tactical-retreat-with-its-new-executive-order-and-its-good-news-for-students-albeit-temporary-and-only-for-some-students/
Basically, the UC decided that treating students differently from faculty staff was an outrageous violation of the students’ equal protection and First Amendment rights as alleged in our Fourth Cause of action. Rather than face a certain ruling of unconstitutionality from the judge in our preliminary injunction motion, I think the UC made a tactical retreat so as not to allow that dead loser drag down the rest of the flu mandate. And I would like to believe that the deciders realized how particularly unfair it was to students. If so, then good on them for letting a small amount of fairness and reason finally play a part in the decision-making process.
However, in my view, it is now abundantly clear from the declarations of Dr. Byington (provided in yesterday’s post and again here) and from the declaration of Janet Napolitano, that the decision to mandate – as opposed to recommending – the flu vaccine was based on the recommendation of just one person, that being Dr. Byington. I’ll explain that more in our reply papers which we will file on Tuesday. But if you read the two declarations together closely, you’ll be able to figure it out and be mindful of the carefully chosen, and likely highly vetted-by-attorneys language used in their recitation of events from January, and especially April until July 2020. Here they are.
In addition, I have reason to believe that the committee referred to in these two declarations was advised that a flu mandate would probably be struck down by the courts, and that might have been one of the reasons the committee itself did not actually recommend a mandate, but only a recommendation. (You will need to read the two declarations closely to really understand this.)
Somehow, despite this legal advice, the recommended recommendation was transmogrified into a mandate, again, based on these two declarations, literally based on the advice of one person. I find that to be fairly outrageous and I hope the judge hearing the case will also think so.
And as expected, in defense of the indefensible, the UC has trotted out some of the country’s leading proponents of vaccines. I refer to them as the High Priests of Vaccinology because if you read their declarations, they sound more like religious cult leaders than scientists, because the arguments and tactics employed in the declarations are
1. argument by authority, (look who I am, what I have done, how many committees I am on, how many people and entities have praised me for my work, and did I tell you that I have worked for Bill Gates who is a really rich guy and funds vaccines all around the world, blessed be his name)
2. a dismissive attitude towards gold-standard clinical trials evidence which refutes their (religious) beliefs
3. An almost received-religious based assumption like when Moses received the 10 Commandments, that the flu vaccine like all vaccines are safe during a pandemic even though there are no high-quality studies showing that to be the case,
and lastly, an almost Calvinistic fire, brimstone, and damnation fear that because COVID 19 is so horrible unless all adhere to their Gospel of Public Heath, damnation, ruin and hospital bed shortages (and now per the revised justification, medical resource shortages in general) will rain down upon the Flu vaccine non-believers, (and everyone else) and the earth shall open up and swallow the heathens, and that means you, Mr. Superior Court Judge on the case.
I have this image in my mind of all these old guys and gals sitting at their desks in front of their computers in Puritan black robes with white doilie collars with their black high hats (with a silver buckle in the front), and it just cracks me up. I hope the judge will think of that image as well, hmmmm.
Here are the expert declarations which the UC has submitted to the judge in opposition to our preliminary injunction motion. You all can reach your own conclusions. Feel free to share any comments you have about them in the comments section. Best comment or three might get cited in our reply papers.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.