ANALYSIS

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, April 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — One day prior to opening a large “clinic” on campus to provide students with the opportunity to receive injections of the experimental Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, the University of Notre Dame’s executive officers, including President Father John Jenkins, sent a letter to the campus community announcing that all students returning to campus for the fall 2021 semester will be required, with some standard exceptions, “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

“The safety of the University and local communities is always our highest priority,” Jenkins said. And thus, the Notre Dame administration went to the trouble to make the free two-shot injections available to everyone on campus with two scheduled intervals in April and May.

Suggesting an equivalence with this mandate, the report goes on to indicate that Notre Dame already “requires enrolled students to be immunized for hepatitis B, meningitis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus and chicken pox,” again, with standard exceptions.

However, when it comes to the currently available COVID-19 injections, there is little equivalence with these other vaccines, as the former do not enjoy approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but are only made available under an “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA). This means these biological agents are merely “experimental,” and thus investigational studies regarding their safety and effectiveness continue.

As explained by Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), “If you take the [COVID-19] vaccine” you are not receiving an FDA approved treatment, but this “means you have enrolled yourself in a medical trial … [and] most people are not aware that that’s what they’re doing.”

Following the tragedies of World War II when the Nuremberg hearings revealed that Nazi doctors had forced or coerced prisoners of war and others into abusive and even deadly human experimentation, leading to convictions and executions, the court helped create the Nuremberg Code of 1947 which established broadly recognized international norms for ethical experimentation on human subjects.

The Code’s first and most extensive principle provides the strict conditions for establishing voluntary consent from those submitting to human experimentation, including that the individual may not be exposed to “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”

To coerce means “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.”

Clearly, Notre Dame’s mandating their students to receive these experimental treatments is, by definition, coercive and violates this first principle of the Nuremberg Code rendering it, on this point alone, nakedly unethical.

As summarized by AFLDS, “The Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki led to universal acceptance that no person can ever be coerced or mandated to taking an experimental treatment.” Furthermore, these principles have been upheld “by all reputable governments, NGOs, organizations, policy leaders, and physicians for many decades.”

Nuremberg Code’s 6th principle against disproportionate risk

Violation of the Code’s sixth principle is in play as well with the golden domers’ mandate. It states “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.”

Yet checking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “best estimate,” we find COVID-19 survival rates for those under 20 years of age are 99.997%, and for those between 20 and 50 years old, 99.98%.

In other words, COVID-19 is essentially an “irrelevant” threat to virtually all of the students at Notre Dame who are subject to this mandate. Indeed, as the statistics show, for those under 70 years of age, influenza is a more dangerous infection.

Thus, for this young population, what can possibly be the rationale for seeking to mandate this experimental gene-based vaccine which has been rushed through the process of development, testing, approval, and now distribution, with a new “messenger RNA” technology, no industry-standard animal trials, nor any sufficient studies on long-term effects?

Of significant concern, especially for the young, is the impact these chemicals may have on a person’s fertility. One U.K. government-produced instruction for the Pfizer experimental vaccine affirms that “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”

Responding to this lacuna, in considering the risk vs. benefit analysis for this demographic, Dr. Gold stated, “I would never let a woman of child-bearing age take this [experimental vaccine]. I would fight tooth and nail [to prevent it].”

Other dangers include “allergic” and “potentially fatal reactions,” the risk that these injections may cause an increased vulnerability to the virus while also presenting unacceptable dangers of long-term effects due to a lack of proper testing.

The FDA also drew up a document last fall listing the possible side-effects from an experimental COVID-19 vaccine, including strokes, encephalitis, auto-immune disease, birth defects, Kawasaki disease, and death.

Of note, the CDC released data last Friday from its VAERS system showing “56,869 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,342 deaths and 7,971 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 1, 2021.”

Of course, with the VAERS database, causation is not necessarily confirmed, nor can one presume all such events are reported. However, one study in 2010 found that “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS, suggesting the actual numbers of deaths and injuries are significantly higher.

In an analysis of these vaccines, AFLDS affirms there is a significant contrast between “taking a medication for an actual disease,” and the reception of a vaccine. The individual “who takes a vaccine is typically completely healthy and would continue to be healthy without the vaccine. As the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: do no harm, vaccine safety must be guaranteed. That has not yet happened” with the COVID-19 experimental vaccines.

Furthermore, there is no data on whether or not these experimental agents are actually capable of stopping transmission of the virus, and thus it remains quite possible that vaccinated persons could still be infected by COVID-19 and pass it along to others, negating a primary purpose of the vaccine itself.

In order to put a face on the risks being imposed on the Notre Dame student body, Fr. Jenkins may want to take a little drive down the road to Evansville, Indiana, and visit the family of Haley Brinkmeyer, a beautiful young 28-year-old physical therapist who died two days following her experimental COVID-19 vaccine injection. Or, he could drive west to Rockford, Illinois and interview the family of Sara Stickles, another 28-year-old, and mother of a young son, who died just five days following her second injection. Other examples unfortunately abound.

From all indications, these young adults, who were under no threat from COVID-19, were otherwise “healthy and would continue to [have been] healthy without the vaccine,” had they not been subjected to these experimental biological agents, ending their short lives.

As recently affirmed by eminent doctor Peter McCullough, M.D., “[For] people under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, there’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated” against COVID-19.

In a recent interview with this writer, Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory, who retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, admonished those promoting and administering these experimental vaccines:

Do not give [this gene-based vaccine] prophylactically to healthy people. Anyone listening to this who happens to be doing it, you should be ashamed of yourself. Why are you giving new technology vaccines for which we’ve got very little short-term data and no long-term data? Nor are there any previous examples to go on. Why are you giving these things to people who have got essentially zero chance of dying from this virus? They have a bigger chance of being injured by, or killed by, the vaccine. So, what has happened to your “First, do no harm” [medical ethics]? You should change what you are doing this very day.

Summing up the entire situation in another interview, Yeadon said:

It is illegal under various international treaties, to coerce somebody to receive a medical treatment. And it derives from the trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany where Josef Mengele, and other people, performed experiments on living humans who were of course not volunteers, sometimes killing them. And this is a faint echo of that.

You must not be put in a position, and our law prohibits it, where you are coercing or mandating someone to take something certainly that’s an experimental treatment, where the outcome is not reasonably certain. And that’s definitely true of these new vaccines. They have not been around long. No one can tell you what will happen. And, so instead of taking the vaccine … just say “no.”

Despite the saturating government and media mantra promoting the myth that COVID-19 is a highly lethal infection demanding desperate measures, including injections of virtually the entire population with experimental gene-therapy vaccines, the risk/benefit analysis for this demographic is unequivocal. The emperor, or rather the leprechaun, has no clothes. “There’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated” against COVID-19.

Vaccine mandates violate Catholic Church teaching

Given Notre Dame’s Catholic identity, besides the moral law being affirmed by international norms such as Nuremberg, what the Church has to say on the question should be of some relevance as well.

Therefore, as confirmed by the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), especially since the long-term effects of these vaccines have not been sufficiently tested, “coercive measures requiring persons” to take such a vaccine are “ethically unacceptable.”

Of note, Dr. Joseph Meaney, president of the NCBC, affirms that for these experimental vaccines, “full informed consent” is not “[even] possible … [since] science simply does not know the long-term effects.”

Violation of federal law?

Finally, in addition to violating the Nuremberg Code, and the teaching of the Church on this matter, it is likely the Fighting Irish mandate is a violation of U.S. federal law as well.

According to AFLDS, such products “approved for emergency use are prohibited from being mandated by federal law.” The EUA specifically states that individuals must have the free “option to accept or refuse” these vaccines. The prospect of being prohibited from returning to your university to complete your degree, would certainly undermine such necessary freedom.

In addition, while the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 shields pharmaceutical manufacturers from any liability due to injuries or death caused by their products (which is significantly problematic in itself), there is no such shield for employers, businesses, or schools who attempt to mandate vaccination. Therefore, should they do so, they may be held liable for any resulting harm.

For this reason, AFLDS has provided a template letter to put any such employers, schools, or universities on notice should they attempt to mandate such experimental injections upon employees or students.

“The law is clear. An experimental vaccine cannot be mandated,” the introduction reads. And the text, drafted in the second person to the mandating authority states, “any employer, public school, or any other entity or person who mandates experimental vaccines on any human being is not protected from liability for any resulting harm. While vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability, your institution is not protected, and neither are you” (source).