Finally--Cal. professors demand satanic University END poison vaxx mandate or be willing to be sued for injuries/deaths resulting


Guest Columnist

11 Professors Demand University of California End COVID Vaccine Mandates Or Accept Legal Liability For Jab Injuries​

by No College Mandates | Substack
November 27th 2022, 4:41 pm


Professors urge the UC to reverse its shift in policy suggesting that boosters will be mandated in perpetuity or accept personal responsibility and legal liability for harms.

In September, the University of California (“UC”) mandated bivalent COVID-19 boosters for the 2022-2023 academic year for all faculty, staff, and students, in effect shifting its policy from fully vaccinated to up-to-date and suggesting that boosters will be required in perpetuity. We the undersigned, eleven members of the UC faculty from several campuses, sent the following letter to university administrators calling on them to reverse this new mandate. To date, we have received no response. In addition, we sent the letter to nine UC student newspapers for publication as an Op-Ed. The Op-Ed editors from two of these newspapers, the Daily Bruin (UCLA) and the Daily Cal (UC-Berkeley) initially agreed enthusiastically to publish the letter. However, they subsequently withdrew their decision to publish, we presume in the face of pressure from higher up to censor us.

We write to register deep dismay over UC’s September 22, 2022 memorandum mandating a fall 2022 COVID-19 booster for all students, staff, and faculty. Our concerns are driven by the scientific information on the virus and on the vaccines that we have now accumulated nearly three years into the outbreak.

Our concerns in brief:

First, University of California Office of the President justified the original mandate on the assumption that vaccination would protect against COVID-19 infection and prevent transmission. We now know it does neither, a fact acknowledged by the CDC, the FDA, the HHS, the WHO, health ministries and medical researchers around the world, and now, by Pfizer itself. Moreover, more than 150 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that natural immunity acquired by recovering from a COVID-19 infection is equal to if not superior to vaccination, and that paradoxically, over time, COVID-19 shots increase rather than decreasethe risk of contracting and spreading the virus. One May 2022 article in the high-impact British Medical Journal has warned that “mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good.” The CDC has “recommended” and not mandated the new booster. The University’s decision to mandate boosters at this time is therefore not in accordance with CDC guidelines. Moreover, the CDC recently greatly relaxed its COVI-19 guidelines and no longer recommends making distinctions based on a person’s vaccination status.

Second, mounting evidence demonstrates serious risks associated with vaccination, especially for healthy males 18-39, where risks may outweigh benefits. A Florida Department of Health analysis of mortality following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, to cite one study, reported an 84 percent increase in death for men 18-39within 28 days of vaccination. Also, well documented is the elevated risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, and emergency cardiovascular events among those under 40, a demographic that includes the vast majority of our student body and large portions of staff and faculty. The Florida study also showed that males over 60 had a 10 percent increased risk of cardiac-related death in the same 28-day period, and that non-mRNA vaccines did not have those increased risks in any population. Multiple data sources show that young healthy people who contract COVID-19 have a recovery rate of 99.995 percent.

In March 2022, a court order compelled Pfizer to release 55,000 pages of internal reports on vaccine effectiveness and side effects. Among the 1,246 different adverse effects in Pfizer’s own documents were cardiac arrest, deep vein thrombosis, immune-mediated hepatitis, myocarditis, brain stem embolism and thrombosis, interstitial lung disease, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, liver injury, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Another study by medical researchers, including one of our colleagues at UCSF, found that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalization, and that “booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity.”

Data from CDC’s official Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) released on July 15, 2022, show 1,350,950 reports of adverse eventsfor all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,635 deaths and 246,676 serious injuries. It is well documented that fewer than one percent of all vaccine-associated adverse events are ever reported to the CDC’s VAERS. This means that actual morbidity or mortality is many times greater, as pointed out, among other sources, by a recent HHS-funded Harvard Medical School vaccine injury study. Another study published by UCLA Professors Sander Greenland and Patrick Whelan and others in the high-impact journal Vaccine in September, 2022 lamented the lack of “full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data” and called for a harm-benefit analysis of the vaccines.

Third, while we are not against vaccination for those who chose it, we are deeply concerned about the coercive nature of this medical procedure. Any medical treatment must be an individual choice and should be made in consultation with one’s physician. Never before in medical history has an entire population been required to receive a vaccine approved only for emergency use, for which there are no long-term data, and without informed consent, that, as a matter of law and ethics, requires that no one be coerced into a medical treatment. The shift in UC policy from fully vaccinated to up-to-date signals anticipation of an open-ended process of continuous vaccinations and boosters that goes far beyond addressing a temporary emergency.

The LAUSD (among others) suspended its vaccine mandate for students (but not staff) in September 2022, after a Superior Court judge ruled that the school district did not have the authority to mandate vaccination. The State of California has not mandated boosters for anyone except health workers. Nationwide, the trend is toward eliminating all mandates. The rate of hospitalizations is radically down and COVID-19 related deaths now appear to be about on par with annual deaths from the flu. In contrast, “excess,” sudden, unexpected unexplained deaths have skyrocketed since the rollout of the experimental vaccines. Even Bill Gates, who helped finance and promote the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, has now acknowledged: “We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate and that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like flu.

If UC leadership continues to insist on this ill-advised action, are they ready to accept full personal responsibility and legal liability for the multitude of harms certain to result?

Carole H. Browner
Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Science
University of California, Los Angeles

William I. Robinson
Distinguished Professor of Sociology
University of California, Santa Barbara

Roberto Strongman
Associate Professor of Black Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara

Arvind Thomas
Associate Professor of English
University of California, Los Angeles

Anton Van Der Ven
Professor of Engineering
University of California, Santa Barbara

Hugo Loaiciga
Professor of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara

Aaron Kheriaty, MD
Former Professor, School of Medicine
Former Director of Medical Ethics Program
University of California, Irvine

Gabriel Vorobiof
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of California, Los Angeles

Lazlo Boros
Assistant Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics, Endocrinology and Metabolism (retired)
University of California, Los Angeles

Patrick Whelan
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Ob/Gyn, Reproductive Sciences
Professor Emeritus, School of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco


Guest Columnist

As an Oncologist I Am Seeing People With Stable Cancer Rapidly Progress After Being Forced to Have a Booster​

by DR ANGUS DALGLEISH | Daily Sceptic
November 27th 2022, 8:25 am


There follows a letter from Dr. Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s University of London, to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ. It was written in support of a colleague’s plea to Dr. Abbasi that the BMJ make valid informed consent for Covid vaccination a priority topic.

Dear Kamran Abbasi,

Covid no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of Covid in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling.

The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy. (We predicted these side effects in our June 2020 QRBD article Sorensen et al. 2020, as the blast analysis revealed 79% homologies to human epitopes, especially PF4 and myelin.)

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practising oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel.

Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters. They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster – one developing leukaemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long Covid since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes that many suggest, especially as the same pattern is being seen in Germany, Australia and the USA.

The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control – and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments.

This must be aired and debated immediately.

Angus Dalgleish MD FRACP FRCP FRCPath FMedSci

Angus Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London.


Guest Columnist

MSM Admits: Majority Of Americans Dying Of COVID Received At Least 2 Shots​

by Mac Slavo | Nov 26, 2022



The mainstream media is finally noticing that the information is going to be impossible to hide. The Washington Post is now admitting that the majority of Americans who have died of COVID have received at least their primary series (meaning two shots).
Their article was even titled: Covid is no longer mainly a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Here’s why.
For the first time, a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.
Fifty-eight percent of coronavirus deaths in August were people who were vaccinated or boosted, according to an analysis conducted for The Health 202 by Cynthia Cox, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. –The Washington Post
Although the data is probably skewed and the numbers are much higher than that for the unfortunate “vaccinated” folks out there. The data coming out of the United Kingdom is much worse:
Devastating Data: 90% Of COVID Deaths In The UK Happened In The “Vaccinated”
It gets worse though. The Washington Post admitted that the efficacy percentages were based on “hope” not “data.” So the public was being coerced into getting a shot based on “hope?” The promise of safety was also based on hope. Anyone with a few brain cells to rub together could tell that there were a lot of nefarious actions, data manipulation (or outright lying) in order to convince people to get these injections.
The FDA’s promises of efficacy – 91% for the Pfizer vaccine and 93% for the Moderna vaccine – were always based on hope, not data. So too were the promises of safety. At the time of the official approvals, both Pfizer and Moderna hadn’t submitted any type of long-term numbers on effectiveness. Their trials were polluted with the unblinding of participants and their safety studies are “ongoing.” –The Washington Post
Even after admitting that we’ve been lied to and sold “hope”, the ruling class insists we trust them and still get more shots.
Anthony Fauci, the nation’s preeminent infectious-disease expert head medical tyrant, used his last White House briefing yesterday ahead of his December retirement to urge Americans to get the recently authorized omicron-specific boosters. “The final message I give you from this podium is that please, for your own safety, for that of your family, get your updated covid-19 shot as soon as you’re eligible,” he said.

The rulers claim that the “vaccines” lose their effectiveness over time and that you should continue to get injected upon the command of your master.
Vaccines lose potency against the virus over time and variants arise that are better able to resist the vaccines, so continued boosters are needed to continue to prevent illness and death. –The Washington Post
UK Quietly Released Data Showing Vaxxed Account For 9 Out Of 10 COVID Deaths
In spite of the constant fear-mongering, Americans are not getting the new booster shot either. This is definitely upsetting the rulers and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media.

This manipulation will not end and no amount of data will convince those who refuse to look logically at what’s going on around them.


Guest Columnist

'Negative Efficacy' Should Have Stopped COVID Vaccine Recommendations In Their Tracks​

TUESDAY, NOV 29, 2022 - 11:05 PM
Authored by Dr. Sean Lin and Mingjia Jacky Guan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),


Recently, various health agencies around the world have approved and are actively pushing for another COVID booster shot, meant to enhance the vaccine efficacy against a COVD-19 infection.
However, many studies have found that the boosters do not make a significant difference in protection, especially in terms of protection against reinfection. In fact, the latest data shows vaccine efficacy against the coronavirus tends to even drop into the negatives after just a few months.

What Does Negative Efficacy Mean?​

It is a well known fact that COVID vaccine effectiveness wanes quickly as time goes on; this is confirmed by countless studies.
Although the official narrative for COVID-19 vaccines nowadays only emphasizes its efficacy on protection against ICU admission and death rates, it actually implies the indisputable fact that vaccines don’t protect, contrary to their design, against infection or even symptomatic infection, especially after the emergence of various Omicron variants.
Even the protection two shots offers against hospitalization drops to about 40 percent after less than a year. It’s actually looking worse for protection against severe symptoms, as efficacy rates seem to drop into the negatives about five months into full vaccination.
When a vaccine’s efficacy drops into the negatives, it means that vaccination actually elevates the risks of hospitalization and severe diseases rather than reducing the risks. In simple terms, it does more harm than good when the efficacy is negative.
During the time prior to the pandemic, any vaccine with an efficacy less than 50 percent would be regarded as a poor product. When a product shows negative efficacy, it should be banned. It seems that the pandemic isn’t only bad for our health, but also is tugging at our common sense.

COVID Vaccines’ Declining Usefulness​

It has been around three years since the first COVID-19 case was discovered in Wuhan, China. Since then, more than 600 million cases of the virus have been recorded, translating into a little less than 1 in 10 people around the world already being infected with the virus. In many countries, “living with COVID” has become the norm, along with getting “fully vaccinated” and getting those booster shots.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is recommended that everyone 6 months and older should receive a full vaccination and everyone 5 years and older should receive a booster shot. Booster shots are recommended as they “are an important part of protecting yourself from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19” according to the CDC.
However, emerging data paints a different picture.
At its crux, the vaccines were developed with the earlier strains of the coronavirus, meaning developers primarily used the original Wuhan strain in their testing. The Delta strain that came along was particularly infamous as it was known to have a high death rate, but vaccines fared quite well against it. The results, however, went south as time went on and as the Omicron strain rolled out.

Trying to Outrun Nature​

Making its debut in South Africa, the Omicron strain started to dominate the world by the beginning of 2022, which caused even more turmoil in terms of vaccine efficacy. The most shocking result is the extent it dragged down the vaccine’s efficacy against infection. Data shows that the vaccine used to be around 90 percent effective for weeks on end after vaccination.
After Omicron came along, infection prevention dropped to less than 50 percent after about a month after two shots and dived into the negatives four months later. It doesn’t seem to stop after that.
This clearly suggests that the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns should’ve been suspended as soon as the Omicron variant began to dominate over Delta.
In a study which analyzed COVID-19 cases from the beginning of this year in children that were previously infected, it was discovered that vaccine effectiveness wasn’t keeping up with pre-Omicron levels. The effects of a full vaccination against a second infection drops into the negatives within a few months, and it seems that the earlier one got the vaccination, the more likely it would lose its efficacy during the omicron waves.
The results from a September 2022 British Medical Journal study highlights again the fact that vaccine potency drops rapidly with time. It concluded that protection against severe symptoms drops well below half within a few weeks of administering the full two doses, or even after a third dose is administered. It also showed that in the immunocompromised, two doses never had an efficacy rate against hospitalization over 50 percent. Things do look a little better for three doses, but not by much.
Another study published data on the efficacy of the third dose relative to primary doses and found that the mean efficacy of three doses of the Moderna vaccine against the Omicron variants are, in fact, below 0.
It is interesting to note a logical assumption made by many, which is that the more you take the vaccine the better prepared you are against the virus, isn’t necessarily true.
Data published shows that neutralizing antibody count doesn’t necessarily correlate with the number of doses.
They found that people who took the fourth dose sometimes had higher, but mostly lower, antibody concentrations in the body compared with those who took the third dose.
Also, the hazard ratio calculated by researchers for the third and fourth vaccine doses provide us with mixed results. Sometimes, it seems like a good option to stick with the third dose, as the hazard ratio actually rises for taking the second booster compared with the first one.
One possible reason vaccine data is going downhill after Omicron appeared is that the new variant had a lot of changes in its spike protein composition.
This changes the way the virus enters the body and allows it to better “bypass” the security system set up by the old vaccines, which were developed from the very first SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain. One can understand it as if the variants have new toys to play with the old security guards.
Another potential mechanism that leads to the significant decline of vaccine efficacy is that repeated vaccination also damages people’s immunity via immune imprinting, a phenomenon in which an initial exposure to a virus–such as the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, by infection or vaccination–limits a person’s future immune response against variants.
Meanwhile, there are numerous underlying factors that would contribute to the disease’s progression from mild to severe, or even into fatal stages. Even if the vaccination groups during clinical trials were carefully chosen to have similar comorbid medical conditions as the control or unvaccinated group, there are still many other unknown factors that would dictate the outcome of the disease progression.
It is inconceivable and overtly overambitious that any pharmaceutical company would aim so high to design a vaccine which can protect against severe diseases from the onset of research, especially since the resulting vaccine can’t seem to keep up with preventing infection in the first place.
If a vaccine reaches negative efficacy, it means that people have higher chances to get infected than if you didn’t get the shot in the first place, meaning that not getting vaccinated might just reduce the chance of infection, unwanted symptoms, and severe disease. This is not just a vaccine failure or breakthrough infection issue, but a good time to halt COVID vaccines for good. Humans will never win in this cat-and-mouse game against nature.

Are Previous Infections Still Protective?​

As time goes on, the likelihood of reinfection is quite high. Studies do show that in reinfected people the chances of death, hospitalization, and some form of sequela is much higher in those infected for the first time. It also seems like a logical conclusion for the CDC to recommend that everyone gets vaccinated.
However, the data we have is rather conflicting as the aforementioned study doesn’t show much of a difference between the unvaccinated, the half vaccinated, or the fully vaccinated. They all have just about the same values for cardiovascular, thrombotic, renal, or pulmonary sequelae post infection, or chances of getting a tough COVID-19 infection in the first place.
Data also shows that previously infected and unvaccinated children were better at preventing a second infection compared with children who were in the same age category but who were vaccinated. Generally speaking, vaccine induced immunity doesn’t seem to be quite as effective as that induced by a previous, natural infection.
What this essentially means is that the vaccines cannot keep up with the constantly emerging variants and that a waning efficacy was frankly inevitable. The only question left is, what is the driving force behind the Omicron variants, or SARS-CoV-2 variants on a broad scale? What accounts for variants emerging at the same time around the world?
Microevolution cannot explain everything.
Over the past 3 years, scientists have applied the theory of evolution to describe and explain the trajectory of SARS-CoV-2. Delta was the deadly variant and now Omicron is the road runner. In theory, the virus developed these strains to best adapt to the objective environment, yet scientists are still looking for more answers.
For example, when much of the world’s population was in different degrees of “lockdown” or restriction of movements, when international travel was severely impaired, how did the Alpha and Delta variants emerge and quickly spread widely, and even become dominant globally?
If the only factor that determines which variant to become dominant or not was its fitness, i.e., its transmissibility and replication efficiency, why were there not multiple variants with better fitness that emerged and all became dominant regionally, just like how divergent strains of flowers blossom at the same time in distinct locations? Why does it appear as if there is a coordinating force behind the virus such that one strain was able to uniformly retire the previous one?
In order to answer all these questions, I believe that there needs to be a more holistic evaluation of the current pandemic. At the same time, it’s important to note that viruses adapt to the vaccines, and not the other way around.

Read more here... [see]


Guest Columnist

Active US Military Service Members: Significant Increase in Cancers, Myocarditis, and Pericarditis Resulting from Covid-19 Vaccine​


Whistleblower faces involuntary separation from Army​

By Ella Kietlinska and Joshua Philipp
Global Research, December 04, 2022
The Epoch Times 23 August 2022


All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on August 24, 2022
A medical Army officer who discovered a sudden increase in disease coinciding with reports of side effects alongside COVID-19 vaccines—which the Army has dismissed as a data glitch—said he faces involuntary separation after being convicted but not punished for disobeying COVID-19 protocol.

In January 2022, First Lt. Mark Bashaw, a preventive medicine officer at the Army, started noticing some “alarming signals” within the defense epidemiological database.
The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which tracks disease and injuries of 1.3 million active component service members, showed during the pandemic a significant increase in reports of cancers, myocarditis, and pericarditis; as well as some other diseases like male infertility, tumors, a lung disease caused by blood clots, and HIV, Bashaw said.
All these illnesses are listed in FDA documentation as potential adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines, Bashaw told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program in an interview on Aug. 1.
Seeing increases in cases of these illnesses as high as 50 percent or 100 percent in some situations, Bashaw stepped forward as a whistleblower to raise concerns about his findings.
Bashaw’s whistleblower declaration, submitted to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who is facilitating the sharing of information from early investigations of COVID-19 products with Congress, said he saw the increasing incidence of these disorders observed in DMED as “very troubling.”
Specifically, the number of cancer cases among active service members in 2021 nearly tripled in comparison with the average number of cancer instances per year from 2016 to 2020, Bashaw said in his declaration.
Bashaw’s responsibilities as a preventive medicine officer, with a specialty in entomology, include “participating in fact-finding inquiries and investigations to determine potential public health risk to DoD [Department of Defense] personnel from diseases caused by insects and other non-battle related injuries.”

Glitch in DMED

A week after this information was brought out in January in a “COVID-19: Second Opinion” roundtable organized by Johnson, the data in DMED changed, Bashaw said, and all of these troubling spikes in diseases and injuries “seemed to have disappeared and been realigned with previous years.”
Curiously, the glitch didn’t affect the data from 2021, which remained the same. Instead, the corrected data saw the data for prior years increased, which made the 2021 data look normal and in line with the running average, Bashaw explained.
In response to the whistleblower claims, spokesperson for the health agency of the Department of Defense Peter Graves told The Epoch Times that the data in DMED “was incorrect for the years 2016-2020,” so the system was taken offline to correct the root cause of the data corruption, which didn’t impact data from 2021.
After the roundtable, Johnson sent three letters to the Department of Defense (DoD) requesting an explanation of the sudden increase in medical diagnosis and the changes in the DMED data.
“The concern is that these increases may be related to the COVID-19 vaccines that our servicemen and women have been mandated to take,” Johnson said in one of his letters.
The senator also sent a letter to the technology company that manages DMED asking for clarification of all data integrity issues uncovered in the database.
Although Johnson received some responses from the tech company, there has not been still a “solid, rational explanation” as to why a glitch occurred in the database and what it was, Bashaw said.
After the glitch, Bashaw pulled out data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for injuries related to viral vaccines to compare to his findings on DMED. He compared the average of the last 24 years to data for 2021 and found an eleven-fold increase in the number of suspected adverse incidents reported in 2021.
“I compared it to the average of the last 24 years, it’s a 1,100 percent increase in 2021. And the only difference we had in 2021 was the rollout of these experimental emergency use authorized COVID-19 vaccines,” Bashaw said.
VAERS is managed by agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and serves as “a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines,” according to HHS’s website.
Though reporting to VAERS is voluntary for individuals, “healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events, and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention,” the website says. However, non-professionals are also able to make entries.

Emergency Use Authorized Products

Bashaw tried to raise his concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines to his leadership at the army through the proper channels, recommending that it change its risk communication strategy for the vaccine from ”safe and effective “ to “there might be some problems.”
However, his concerns were not addressed, Bashaw said. “And then, later, I was targeted due to my own [COVID-19] vaccination status.”
Bashaw said he was “forced into an experimental emergency use authorized testing protocol, which was only for the unvaccinated.”
He questioned the policy, saying that forcing unvaccinated individuals into such a testing regimen seems “coercive” and “kind of punitive.”
Bashaw invoked the provisions of the United States Code, which gives liability protection for epidemic products authorized for emergency use to manufacturers and distributors of the product, the government, and medical personnel who administer the product.
However, the perspective of the individual who chooses to use these products or to whom the product is administered is not considered by this law despite their taking on all the burden of risk. “For this reason, [they should have] the ability to accept or refuse these products,” Bashaw said.
“It’s my job as a medical officer in general, to warn individuals, or at least try to communicate [to them] what they might be getting themselves into with these products.”
Bashaw pointed out that the individual’s right to accept or refuse administration of these products and to informed consent has also been written down in the United States Code, specifically 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3.
Individuals to whom the product is authorized for emergency use should be informed “of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown,” the said law stipulates.
This applies not only to the experimental vaccines but also to COVID-19 testing procedures and the wearing of masks, Bashaw said.

Targeted for Disobeying COVID-19 Rules

Bashaw has been court-martialed for disobeying the mandated COVID-19 protocol. He challenged the accusation saying that the order to follow the protocol disregarded the individual’s right to informed consent guaranteed by U.S. law.
The court convicted Bashaw, but the judge did not hand down any punishment and recommended to the commanding general to drop the conviction, Bashaw said, but the general upheld the conviction.
After the conviction, the Army initiated Bashaw’s involuntary separation from service after 17 years of honorable service. His expected promotion to captain was also withheld, the officer said.
The justification for his discharge was that the army lost trust in his “capabilities as an officer over the past seven months,” Bashaw explained.
Bashaw filed a rebuttal, hoping to reverse its course.
In addition, Bashaw filed a whistleblower complaint at DoD, but the decision was made that there was no retaliation against him, and the case was closed out. He said that he then filed another complaint which exercises his right guaranteed by the code of military justice to challenge such decisions.
The Epoch Times reached out to the Army Public Health Center and the Department of Defense for comment.
Recently, Bashaw has petitioned the Judge Advocate General of the Army, asking the general to review what he has brought forth in official documentation.
This is concrete evidence, and it is well founded on the law to protect service members and individuals in general, Bashaw said. “I wouldn’t be risking 17 years of my service [and] the health and welfare of my family on some flimsy argument.”
Bashaw said that he is concerned with the integrity of the data that the leadership is basing their strategic decisions upon. If data is being manipulated in some way, or if there is a data glitch, then these senior-level leaders make decisions “based on something that might not be the case,” he explained. It is especially “a serious sign of concern” if a private contractor manages the medical information of service members and has glitches with it.
“And so it’s super important to have solid data and trustworthy sources.”
Bashaw said he decided to bring his concerns to his leaders’ awareness to honor the oath he took to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to glorify God.
“I will absolutely do everything in my power to warn my brothers and sisters in uniform. And that’s my job as a medical officer, to communicate risks and potential harms,” Bashaw said. “That’s my duty.”


Guest Columnist

The Ongoing COVID Deceptions: How Ruling Elites Lied About Masks And Mask Mandates​

THURSDAY, DEC 08, 2022 - 06:00 PM
Authored by Lipton Matthews via The Epoch Times,


The mishandling of the covid-19 pandemic by global elites has severely eroded confidence in expert opinion. New information is emerging that senior officials doubted policies that were foisted upon the American public. By sharing the results of his deposition with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt exposed Fauci’s advocacy of face masks as insincere:
Another tidbit from the Fauci depo: In Feb 20 he emailed a friend advising her that masks were ineffective.
Confirmed again on Mar 31.
On April 3 he’s adamant masks should be worn even though he couldn’t cite a single study to prove it.
Mandates followed—Lives ruined.
Numerous studies disputed the efficacy of face masks, yet mask mandates rose to national prominence. During the apex of pandemic hysteria, the American Institute for Economic Research ran a series of scathing articles debunking the usefulness of face masks. In fact, one prominent 2020 study boldly admitted that mask use is primarily symbolic:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes...
The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflective reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
Not even children were spared from the covid-19 hysteria. Masks became commonplace in schools across America and the wider world, despite the large volume of research arguing that they could harm minors. One study from Germany noted that parents raised concerns about mask use having adverse effects on children. Moreover, evidence suggests that mask use limits the expressive capacity of children. Reading the facial expressions of teachers and peers aids a child’s language development, but unfortunately, masks were even required during intergroup conversations.

A recent paper published in the journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications argues that mask use has hindered face recognition abilities in children. The researchers posited that impaired face recognition abilities have negative consequences for the emotional development of children, saying that “changes in face recognition performance and alteration in the processing of partially occluded faces could have significant effects on children’s social interactions with their peers and their ability to form relationships with educators.”
Widespread mask mandates failed to benefit children, and instead of averting covid-related deaths, they led to people dying. According to Dr. Zacharias Fogen of Germany, “Mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or [approximately 50 percent] more deaths compared to no mask mandates.” Dr. Fogen theorized that the re-inhalation of hyperconcentrated droplets caught by masks led to worse ailments and fueled fatality rates.
The scandal of covid-19 has demonstrated that elites deliberately misinformed the public at every corner. Citizens were scolded for ignoring mask mandates, even though the evidence was clear that they don’t work. The vilification of those who refused to endorse covid-19 vaccines was even more egregious.
Vaccines are usually successful, but covid-19 vaccines were imposed on the public without proper research. Contrary to the claims of politically motivated actors, the latest research on covid-19 vaccines is astoundingly negative. Scientific research shows that rates of myocarditis are higher among the vaccinated and that natural immunity offers great protection against the virus. Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence that the highly touted lockdowns were a disaster. After the ruling elite’s orchestrated deception of the public, we would be foolish to trust their proposals.
The pandemic has rightly taught us that governing elites will fabricate evidence and misuse data to promote their agenda at our expense, and it is unlikely that they will ever be able to regain our trust.