Don’t Ask Questions. Just Do What We Tell You.

by James A. Bacon

Walter Smith, a University of Virginia alumnus, was miffed when UVa leadership mandated that all students must be vaccinated if they are to return to the university in the fall. His daughter, a UVa student, had caught the COVID-19 virus, lived through 10 days of quarantine, acquired natural immunities, and was at near-zero risk of spreading the virus. He saw no purpose in exposing her to whatever dangers might be associated with taking the vaccine. Moreover, he had concerns about health-privacy violations as well as philosophical objections of a civil-liberties nature.

You may disagree with Smith’s characterization of the vaccination mandate — which has been adopted at most other Virginia public universities, incidentally — as “un-American, un-scientific, [and] totalitarian.” But if you believe in transparency, then you should be concerned about what happened when Smith tried to ascertain UVa’s reasoning for the requirement.

News reports were worthless. In May Smith wrote UVa President Jim Ryan and Rector James Murray to ask the justification for the mandate. Ryan did not respond, but Murray did. He wrote:

The University’s vaccination policies were developed by the administration closely following advice from doctors, infectious disease specialists and public health experts at the UVA Medical School and Health System. We appreciate that you might have made different decisions.

To Smith, that wasn’t much of an answer. He fired back to Murray: “Persuade me why the vaccines are superior to her natural immunity. Persuade me why the [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccines are known to be safe — you can’t because they are not known to be so — you suspect so, and I deserve- – every parent deserves — some display of the calculus that led UVA” make its mandate.

Smith received no answer.

Determined to find out what advice the doctors, infectious disease specialists and public health experts at the UVa medical school might have provided, Smith filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

The response from UVa’s FOIA officer, Jennifer Mackrous: “Records responsive to the portion of your response requesting ‘advice, in all forms’ have been determined to be working papers of the President of the University.”

Smith was irate. He had not requested Ryan’s working papers, which are, properly defined, records prepared by or for a public official subdivision for his personal or deliberative use. Smith wanted to know what advice Murray and fellow members of the Board of Visitors were following when they approved the mandate.

“Does the BoV not need to see any paperwork and just accept President Ryan’s recommendations as Holy Writ?” he asks.

“Parents and students deserve to know how this decision was made and if it makes sense,” Smith says. “My child is my child, not UVA’s. I do not believe it is medically warranted or necessary on a public health basis, and I do believe it is illegal under federal law. … If President Ryan and the BoV and the [Attorney General] are so sure of the propriety of the vaccine mandate decision, why not let this history major try to shoot holes in it? Prove me wrong. Why not appear to believe in a fair process and the rational pursuit of truth?”

Bacon’s bottom line: I’m not as agitated as Smith is about the vaccination mandate. But the decision to require vaccinations is a significant judgment call affecting thousands of students, and I do believe parents and students are entitled to know the thinking behind it.

Why would the university shroud its reasoning? COVID-19, after all, is a public health emergency. Shouldn’t the public be informed of the thinking behind public health measures? Isn’t transparency all the more called for at a university that prides itself on its Jeffersonian tradition of open inquiry?

Just because his working papers are protected doesn’t mean Ryan cannot release them if he chose to. Why would he not want to explain the thinking behind this most consequential of decisions? Wouldn’t everyone be better off knowing the reasons?

Full disclosure: Smith and I both serve on the board of The Jefferson Council, an organization devoted to preserving the Jeffersonian tradition at UVa.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


194 responses to “Don’t Ask Questions. Just Do What We Tell You.”

  1. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    I would find it curious that any institution can mandate a vaccine on any terms that hasn’t received full FDA approval. As we sit all are still operating under EUA’s.

    That being stated, should people get it, yes. However, the debate between acquired immunity (through infection) or vaccinations will rage.

  2. vicnicholls Avatar

    That should go as a fake FOIA charge. Working papers, my butt, abuse of FOIA because they have NOTHING to prove/show it. They got caught with their pants down.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The issue is how far you can reach into an organization internal discussions. The FOIA laws are not carte blanche nor should they be IMHO.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        Do you think a publicly-funded university should be able to refuse to describe the decision-taking process they used to reach a policy decision that affects every student at said university?

        If yes, then what legitimate exemption to FOIA would you use to justify them doing so?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yes I do. And I am a proponent of FOIA but this is just silly abuse. You cannot FOIA internal discussions and should not be able to do so.

          DO you REALLY want to stop full and open internal discussions in any govt or public entity?

          This is stupid stuff IMHO. The product of asshats who will, if they can, tear down our institutions’ ability to actually operate effectively by wanting to FOIA all internal discussions.

          The fact that Universities – ACROSS THE COUNTRY, each had their own internal discussions – came to a similar policy show that it is reasonable to MOST – by the simple fact that MOST got to the same place.

          Unless, of course one wants to take the conspiracy explanation.

          1. WayneS Avatar

            “DO you REALLY want to stop full and open internal discussions in any govt or public entity?”

            No, and I did not state, nor did I imply, that I wanted to do so.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            but that’s what would happen if everything said in internal discussions was FOIAable.

            That’s, in fact, the reason WHY internal discussions are not FOIAable.

            It’s not the intended purpose of FOIA to begin with and for good reason.

            This guy would FOIA VDOT to ask how they chose one road project over another or how they decided to put up a stop light or not.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            When/where did I say that every internal discussion should be subject to FOIA.

            No matter how hard you work to twist my words, “describe a decision-taking process” does not equal “you must release every internal discussion”.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            not twisting your words – you’re supporting his right to FOIA internal discussions, no?
            So I’m asking if he could – and ALL of them – then what?

            Are you supporting his “right” to FOIA any/all internal discussions or not?

            Do you think a publicly-funded university should be able to refuse to describe the decision-taking process they used to reach a policy decision that affects every student at said university?”

            Yes I do – because if you can FOIA one item, then what keeps that from being all?

          5. WayneS Avatar

            “Are you supporting his “right” to FOIA any/all internal discussions or not?”

            I just said I am not, and I proved it.

          6. WayneS Avatar

            “This guy would FOIA VDOT to ask how they chose one road project over another or how they decided to put up a stop light or not.”

            And VDOT would answer him and provide him copies of the study/studies they used to justify their decision(s).

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            They WOULD but they WOULD NOT provide him with the rationale that went into design choices.

            They would cite traffic numbers, but not the rationale for design differences based on the traffic numbers.

            THey may specify a roundabout and they would cite the numbers that led to the choice of the roundabout but they would not discuss the specific professional discussions that led to the choice of the round-a-bout over a traffic signal except in the most general terms nor would they talk about the geometric design of the entry points, lane width, signage, lane stripings, drainage, etc, etc, etc… down in the weeds stuff that professional are knowledgeable about that the average person does not have the background or knowledge to really understand.

            They would cite FHWA “standards” and not get into discussions about the standards and why.

  3. Wonder if he was this outraged when his daughter had to get vaccines, like the measles, in order to go to elementary school? Did he file a FOIA request with the local school district?

    1. WayneS Avatar

      The vaccines for measles and other childhood diseases have full FDA approval. The Covid vaccines do not. They are essentially still in the experimental stage.

      1. The novelty of the vaccine isn’t his concern. He doesn’t like the mandate. Called it “totalitarian”. Having to get a mumps vaccine is no different under that reasoning, as with a 1000 other things that a local, state or federal gov’t may require. Is paying taxes totalitarian? Following the speed limit?

        1. WayneS Avatar

          “He saw no purpose in exposing her to whatever dangers might be associated with taking the vaccine.”

          He called the mandate totalitarian after the school refused to offer scientific justification for said mandate.

  4. Steve Gillispie Avatar
    Steve Gillispie

    Actually, there are now papers declaring that those who caught the virus have the same immunity as those who have been vaccinated. Additionally, there is published evidence that while COVID is not a serious threat to young people, the vaccination might be as serious a threat as Covid or moreso.

    UVA’s capitulation to far left ideological indoctrination, it’s incredible burgeoning of administrative cost for non-educational purposes, its unconscionable tuition increases combined with its seeming arrogance that it can screw its prospective students and alumni with impunity…

    I am embarrassed to hold the degree I do from them and certainly will not consider a dime of further contribution as long as this administration is in place.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I missed those papers that say that the vaccination might be as serious a threat as COVID or more so. Could you provide me a link to them?

  5. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    The vaccine mandate violates federal law. An EUA cannot be mandated. In addition Northam’a EO79 (mask mandate) falls under the same category.

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        The article needs to be read carefully. Every syllable matters. The author was not precise. But do note that no where in the article does it state that an employer can mandate the vaccine. In fact, to quote, “may authorize a ‘drug, device, or biological product’ for use in an emergency. That does not mean may mandate. Go through the article again as they skip around the clear distinction between “may authorize” and “mandate.” Here’s a WebMD article explaining why they may not mandate: “The post-9/11 statute that established the EUA process says that individuals must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the [EUA-approved] 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.”

        And if that doesn’t satisfy you, read the FDA’s own information:

        And some unsolicited advice: Don’t trust journalists. Check for yourself. Journalists have developed this bad habit of not being accurate.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What federal law does it violate?

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        Thank you for asking.

        Federal law 21 US CODE 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(iii) governing EUAs requires that:
        (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed-
        (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
        (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of
        the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and (III) of the oon 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.

        (iii) Appropriate conditions for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the emergency use of the product.

        Any product issued under an EUA is considered investigational or experimental for the purpose intended., This federal law is in place so that the patient is made aware of the potential risks and benefits of the medical intervention, the right to refuse, and the appropriate place to report adverse reactions.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          There is nothing in that law that says that institutions of higher ed cannot require vaccination as a condition of attending.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            I beg to differ. Look at “(III) to accept or refuse administration of a product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration.” That literally means it cannot be mandated if you have the right to refuse. Unless we have different definitions of “mandate.”

        2. the interpretation that state or private employer mandates are illegal is incorrect. It’s unclear at best. Federal mandates are much less clear but untested in court, except for military.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            It literally states you can accept or refuse.
            And let’s not forget the Article VI states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” What else is in the Constitution? Oh, yeah, due process of law in both the 5th & 14th Amendments. That means there must be due process before the government can take your life, liberty, and property. The VAERS data illustrates the large number of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccine: Don’t forget it’s a passive system and most likely only 1% of reporting. These vaccines do not give due process nor do they give informed consent.

            According to the CDC you have a 99.7x% of surviving covid and only 6% of the deaths of covid are covid only. Look at Table 3. Right there on the CDC website.

            It’s an experimental vaccine, not yet approved. Literally you are more likely to suffer an injury from the vaccine than the disease. Yeah, I know the “fact-checkers” are stating it’s false (and they’ve been so wrong this year – just follow the links in this article to confirm for yourself – and according to Rep. Thomas Massie the and the CDC have ties to vaccines companies – yes, the same companies that have been fined criminally and civilly trillions of dollars) BUT the truth is that there have been many attempts to make coronavirus vaccines in the past and they have been an utter failure. Here’s a well-researched article. Click the links and and do research for yourselves.

            It absolutely makes zero sense with the chances of surviving covid at 99.7x and the treatments of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (which is why the vaccine is an EUA with numerous documented risks).

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            If there actually is a “due process”, can rules then be made that will safeguard others by restrictions on those deemed a danger to others even if some disagree with the determination? Is “due process” delegated to an authority that decides, no matter what some members of the public believe?

            Does government have the right to ban smoking in restaurants even if there is no proof of direct harm to others?

            Can the government force you to stop at a traffic signal even when there is no other cross traffic?

            Can the government stop you from going through a crosswalk if others are using it?

            On what basis, can the govt restrict you in the above behaviors?

          3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Good point. The Supreme Court with the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth decision eviscerated the 5th and 14th Due Process clauses in violation of Article VI supremacy clause. It’s despicable that the pharmaceutical companies who have been convicted criminally and civilly in the trillions of dollars gets a free ride on the injuries and deaths it creates based on the false information that “vaccines saved us.” Not true. Go to the CDC Vital Statistics to see we’ve been lied to. The diseases were well on their way out until the vaccines. There are scientists and doctors who question whether the vaccines perpetuated the diseases. In fact, the data appears to illustrate vaccines are causing more injuries/deaths than the diseases.

            The bigger question with the deplorable track record of vaccine manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry at large is why we trust them. They have proven themselves untrustworthy in every other manner. But yet we think they’re honest when it comes to vaccine? What kind of logic is that? And if you would do your own research, and not listen to the pharmaceutical industry, you would realize just how much they’re lying to you.

            To answer the other question, yes, states have their police powers and rightly so.
            What would need to be examined in specific examples is whether the police power actually belongs to the state or the federal government (Remember the 10th Amendment) and whether either the federal government or the state actually has the authority to do what they’re doing. This all gets down to the lawmaker’s will or the rule of law – I suggest you take the time to get the distinction between these two. Just because a lawmaker decides he wants a law to pass doesn’t make it a legal law. We are a country that is supposed to be based on the rule of law, not the will of the lawmaker. Are you promoting just because a law is enacted it should be followed? Hitler did that. His will changed the laws of Germany so that they could commit crimes against humanity. Note that Hitler’s subordinates didn’t get a free ride to say that they were following orders. There are thousands of doctors, scientists, and lawyers all across the globe that are questioning what happened with covid and many have stated that crimes against humanity have been committed. Yes, true, our federal government and state governments are well beyond their authority in so many instances.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Is the USA approach to these issues substantially different than the other developed countries? In other words, is our form of govt and how we deal with these issues really different and much worse or are we pretty much aligned similarly? Your view?

          5. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Haven’t thought about this much. Having said that, I would suspect that all the developed countries are similar in governmental structures (democratic-type with some form of constitution, written/unwritten). It is my memory that the WHO grants the same blanket liability free pass to the vaccine manufacturers as the US does. Certainly during world health issues they have addressed the same issues – sometimes on the same page; sometimes not.

            It’s been a long time since I studied developing and underdeveloped nations’ governmental structures and am not prepared to answer on that front. As far as the WHO, as I understand they are in all those countries. The WHO – answering to world’s health ministers – and CDC – answering to the executive and legislative branches – are separate organizations and have many times issued contrary advice.

          6. That rule applies to federal officials. It does not say private or state. Whether it will apply to them in the future will require litigation. Diversity of news sources is important for one’s daily health. Try it sometime.

          7. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Suit yourself, Martha. And, by the way, whether federal or state police powers one must be given informed consent. In addition, the EUA is an EUA, and EUAs cannot be mandated. The “E” stands for experimental. We do not have to consent to be experimented on. Yes, it is unconstitutional to demand a person to subject to injuries/deaths without due process of law. Remember the incorporation doctrine of the Bill of Rights? This means the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

            Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law § 44-146.13. Short title Article XII. Validity states:

            This compact shall be construed to effectuate the purposes stated in Article I. If any provision of this compact is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected.

            EO79 is clearly a violation of the Constitution of Virginia, Article I Section 1. Equality and rights of men:

            Section 1. Equality and rights of men. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety

          8. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            oh, and diversity of facts – I supply sources that go straight to the original facts. How’s that? I don’t trust journalists unless there are links I can verify. So you’re shooting stray arrows.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            facts – EUA = Emergency Use Authorization


          10. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            I stand corrected. Yes, EUA is Emergency Use Authorization. But it is labeled EUA due to it not being approved which means it is experimental. Here’s RFK Jr’s legal opinion that mandating covid vaccines violated law

            Date: April 12, 2021

            To: Whom It May Concern:

            Re: Covid-19 Experimental Vaccine Candidates

            Any compulsory Covid-19 vaccination requirement is a violation of federal law. I urge you to advise all students that they have the right to refuse or to take any COVID-19 vaccine. Any other action is contrary to federal law.

            Covid-19 Vaccines are Experimental.

            Covid-19 vaccines are not approved by the FDA. The Covid-19 vaccines are only approved under an Emergency Use Authorization, for investigational use only. Covid-19 vaccines lack requisite studies and are not approved medical treatment. The FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”

            Title 21, Section 360bbb-3 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the permissive authority to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (“EUAs”) providing that appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed:
            that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product; of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and 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. 1

            The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the United States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. It is unlawful to conduct medical research, even in the case of an emergency, unless steps are taken to secure informed consent of all participants.

            The following Emergency Use Authorizations have been issued for Covid-19 vaccinations:

            12/11/20 Moderna – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for recipients 16 years of age or older.

            12/18/20 Pfizer/BioNTech – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine for recipients 18 years of age or older.

            2/27/21 Johnson & Johnson – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (aka Janssen vaccine) for recipients 18 years of age or older.

            Each of the above EUAs was issued in conjunction with a similar Fact Sheet from the FDA. For example, the Janssen fact sheet contains the following notice:


            As the vaccination provider, you must communicate to the recipient or their caregiver, information consistent with the “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” (and provide a copy or direct the individual to the website to obtain the Fact Sheet) prior to the individual receiving the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, including:

            FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA approved vaccine.

            The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.

            The significant known and potential risks and benefits of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, and the extent to which such risks and benefits are unknown.

            Clearly, any attempt to force anyone to take a Covid-19 vaccine is a violation of federal law and the conditions under which the Covid-19 vaccine has been authorized for use. The law is clear, experimental medical treatment cannot be mandated.

            Businesses are not shielded from liability with experimental agents.

            Under the 2005 PREP Act enacted by Congress, pharmaceutical companies that manufacture EUA vaccines are shielded from liability related to injuries and damages caused by their experimental agents. However, 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.

            You are hereby on notice that if you illegally or irresponsibly mandate EUA medical therapies on students, such as the experimental Covid-19 vaccine candidates, I may have no choice but to take legal action, and you may be personally liable for resulting harm.

            I urge your institution to comply with the FD&C Act and the terms of the EUA and its accompanying Fact Sheet, and to advise all employees of their right to accept or refuse any Covid-19 vaccine. Any other course of action is contrary to federal law.

          11. I’ll just say it one more time. That does not explicitly say state or private, which makes it unclear but not illegal. Do your research.

          12. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            See the RFK Jr.’s legal opinion above. I have done my research. Seen other legal opinions.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      What happens if the FDA removes the E part of the authorization? Anti-vaxxers are a POX on society!

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Then you can mandate it and the first to do so will be the military. However, until that EUA exists you’re not going to pass any legal measure that compels someone to take it.

  6. Davy Buck Avatar
    Davy Buck

    “devoted to preserving the Jeffersonian tradition at UVa.” LOL. While I admire your goal, that shipped sailed a LONG time ago. There needs to be a nationwide, class action lawsuit on this type of totalitarian nonsense.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    Isn’t this the classic Anti-Vaxxer argument?

    Same church, different pew.

    I fully expect to see new challenges to K-12 elementary schools vaccine rules based on the same logic and perhaps Red states “undoing” laws for school vaccinations – across the board – all of them. Florida and Texas first.

    A degree in Law is looking more and more lucrative!

  8. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The reasoning for requiring vaccination is simple and obvious: college kids can come down with COVID (as Mr. Smith obviously knows) and, being in classrooms, dorm rooms, and fraternity parties next to each other would increase those chances. While Mr. Smith is outraged that the university is requiring students to be vaccinated, I would wager that many, many parents of returning students are relieved to know that the students that their kids will be associating with will be vaccinated.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Mr Smith is upset that his daughter (who has natural immunity) is being forced to get vaccinated for no good reason other than an asshat’s decision to vaccinate everybody.

      Once upon a time UVa decided not to require employees to get vaccinated. Don’t employees go into classrooms, cafeterias, etc?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Students have had to provide immunization records in the past for several vaccinations. Why should COVID be treated differently?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          certainly not because of safety reasons.

          Of out the millions who have been vaccinated, how many have died from the vaccine?

          How many countries have approved it’s use also?

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          Because the COVID19 vaccine is not FDA approved yet. And because asshats like Jim Ryan and Ralph Northam don’t get to dictate to people.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            They’re hiding behind that. The vaccine is PROVEN to be safe and effective with few side effects. They are as safe as the approved vaccinations.

            The asshats are the “give me my liberty” fools.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            There is 18 months of data for the vaccine, proven is not word that should be used.

            It’s effective, we don’t know the long term sides of that or the virus itself.

            Again, it’s EUA it’s not approved.

          3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Nope, they’re lying to you. They have not been proven effective. See the raw data here – notice all the times it says “not yet released.”

            Look at the analysis that was published in the BMJBlog. “Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)”.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            No one is lying. Are you saying that around the world “they” are lying? WHO is “they”?

            The COVID vaccines seem to perform on a similar level to other approved vaccines like polio, mumps, measles, etc.

            Can I ask , do you think the existing vaccines are safe and effective and that it’s right for the govt to require them?

            Is it only COVID you are opposed to?

          5. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Well, somebody is certainly lying. There was mocking that there’s no way covid came from a lab. Lo and behold, former CDC Director Redfield has recently explained why he believes the Covid-19 came from a Chinese lab. And if you have been paying attention, Fauci’s FOIA’d emails illustrate he has been lying on taxpayer money going to Wuhan Labs and the “gain of function” research. He has also been wrong on AIDS and masks.

            Well, your assessment that “covid vaccines seem to perform” is just absolutely incorrect. In fact, covid-19 is not even a vaccine. It’s gene therapy and alters your DNA. “While many “fact-checkers” have declared this claim as false, a video of a TEDx Beacon Street talk by Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, Inc., one pharmaceutical company manufacturer of the experimental mRNA technology injection, confirms mRNA injection for COVID-19 can change your genetic code or DNA. This TEDx Beacon Street talk occurred in 2017. H/T to YouTube channel Silview Media Backup Channel.”

            No, I do not think the existing vaccines are safe and effective, and, no, it’s not right for the government to require them. I am directing you to FACTS, not theories. Go to ICanDecide.Org to see that HHS and FDA has admitted in court that they cannot say vaccines do not cause autism. FOIA’d materials illustrate not one vaccine has been tested against a placebo and in some cases only tested for days. Go to the CDC website and look at the excipients. Take those excipients and look up the material data safety sheets, and you will discover that many have not been studied for carcinogenic nor mutagenic effects nor are they ingredients that belong in the human body. Look at the excess amounts of aluminum being put in vaccines and the safety concerns there. For instance the National Cancer Institute indicates the formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Yes, that’s in the vaccines and it’s not the “small” dose that’s harmless as they claim.

            Like I’ve stated previously, I know so much about vaccines that I could talk for days without taking a breath nor repeating myself (hyperbole). That barely touches the surface of what’s wrong with the entire vaccine narrative told to you by the pharmaceutical industry that is in the HHS and CDC, which, by the way, has been civilly and criminally fined trillions of dollars. They have not proven they are trustworthy. So why do you trust them on vaccines? Not honest anywhere else, but honest with regards to vaccines? Malarky.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yep , I do trust the science, the alternative is to think there is a worldwide conspiracy that includes scientists and governments and I can’t go there.

            When I say “trust” I mean not every little detail and especially so the areas where science is still not in agreement, but I’m certainly not going to put my trust in non-scientists, bloggers, and conspiracy theorists and such that also includes the media as part of the grand cover-up.

            No can do.

            You and Mr. Smith sound similar themes.

          7. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            I am not asking you to be a conspiracy theorist. I am asking you to look at the facts for yourself and to think for yourself. Look for yourself at the Fauci emails. Look at the facts for yourself. What if I am right and they are lying to you? Wouldn’t you want to know? By the way, I have been sick to my stomach for years as I would look for myself and realized what they have been lying to us about. I can tell you that information is coming out about their lies. Wouldn’t you want to deal with the cognizant dissonance sooner rather than later?

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            Who is they?

          9. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            In this instance just go read the emails. I provided the link for you.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            No I’m asking you. Tell me who “they” is in this vaccine issue.

            Name the people. Name the organizations.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            They are proven effective and the data contained at your link says so. Safety is relative and would require more data and time (as I indicated).

          12. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            THE VACCINE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN SAFE. You seem to believe the pharmaceutical talking points within the CDC and HHS and clearly have done zero independent research on your own. It wouldn’t be an EUA if it has been proven safe. That’s why it’s not FDA approved. Go to the VAERS database and see for yourself. Remember only 1% of injuries/deaths are reported as it is a passive reporting system in violation of the law that was set up that started this whole BS where you can’t sue the vaccine manufacturer for injuries/deaths.

            VAERS data released today showed 294,801 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 5,165 deaths and 25,359 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 28, 2021.”

            “Of the 5,165 deaths reported as of May 28, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 16% occurred within 24 hours and 38% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

            This week’s data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

            4,740 total adverse events, including 117 rated as serious and four reported deaths among 12 to 17-year-olds. The youngest deaths reported include two 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 1187918 and 1242573), a 16-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1225942) and one 17-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1199455). There were other reported deaths in children under 17 that could not be confirmed or contained obvious errors.

            635 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to17-year-olds with 97% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 2% to Moderna and 0.31% (or two cases) to J&J.

            40 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) all attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

            16 reports of blood clotting disorders, all attributed to Pfizer.

            This week’s total VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 28, 2021, for all age groups show:

            17% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.

            52% of those who died were male, 45% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.

            The average age of death was 74.4.

            As of May 28, 1,831 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 596 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.

            Of the 2,876 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 52% were reported after Pfizer vaccinations, 41% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 253 cases, or 9%, of Bell’s Palsy cases were reported in conjunction with J&J.

            280 reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome with 46% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 40% to Moderna and 20% to J&J.

            83,684 reports of anaphylaxis with 40% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 51% to Moderna and 9% to J&J.

            5,159 reports of blood clotting disorders. Of those, 2,213 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 1,617 reports to Moderna and 1,289 reports to J&J.

            Seven cases of heart inflammation reported in teen boys, new study shows

            On June 4, The Defender reported seven boys between the ages of 14 and 19 in the U.S. reportedly developed chest pain and heart inflammation within four days of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, according to a study published today in Pediatrics.

            Heart imaging tests detected a rare type of heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis and pericarditis. None of the teens were critically ill but all were hospitalized.”

            Read more:


          13. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I notice that in the state that you seem to admire, Maryland, the state university system has said that it will require students to have been vaccinated against COVID. I guess it is run by asshats, as well.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar

            naw. Only Virginians are asshats… 😉

          15. DJRippert Avatar

            I don’t admire Maryland. I admire the Chesapeake Bay. But I will give Maryland credit for one thing … they have a consistent policy across all the public universities.

          16. LarrytheG Avatar

            yes, the very same one that UVA has?

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          As has been stated, COVID-19 vaccinations are EUA. They have not achieved full FDA approval. I think this will end with a legal review.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            There has been a legal review. The AG has said that higher ed insitutions may required COVID vaccinations as a condition of enrollment.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            His opinion being stated, I await the plethora of lawsuits AG Herring will be named personally.

            “Federal law states that when a drug is under emergency use authorization, as the three COVID-19 vaccines in use in the United States are, citizens must be given the option to accept or refuse the drug. If they refuse the drug, they must be made aware of the possible consequences. Colleges have not agreed on the meaning of the word “consequences” and whether a consequence can include barring acceptance to a university.

            So there is no defined consequence written or passed by a vote, yet it can be upheld? Clearly a violation of 8th Amendment.

            “State law says that students at public universities must receive typical vaccines, but it doesn’t address whether colleges can add other vaccines to the list. It does require students to produce a “health history consistent with guidelines adopted by each institution’s board of visitors.”’

            See further:


            “However, there remains some uncertainty about the legality of institutions mandating vaccinations using products that have not been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

            This line of thinking is also how Jacobson has been misused from it’s initial opinion.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Once again, this is not a unique UVA thing… so why cast it as such? It’s a bigger/wider issue that is chock full of partisan politics…

        This involves people and agreeing to cooperate to keep things from turning into a free-for-all.

        All you need to do is look at what is happening on airplanes these days to see what I’m talking about. Road rage. Physically attacking store clerks and more.

        UVA is not an asshat. We have a society full of them now days, all willing to raise hell and act like 6 year olds throwing fits.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          “Once again, this is not a unique UVA thing… so why cast it as such? ”

          Because the student in question is enrolled at UVA, and because her father asked some very simple questions of UVA, and because UVA refused to answer his questions.

          The real question is, why are you so dead-set on shifting the focus to the general viability of the vaccination, instead of discussing why UVA is refusing to explain the reasoning behind their mandate?

          Maybe they should just answer the guy’s questions.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            No – the REAL question is why you cannot address the ISSUE and not the person.

            And in this case – they make the issue about UVA specifically and UVA is not at all alone in this – it’s a nation-wide thing that higher ed agrees on, NOT something that UVA is out there all alone on.

            In other words, this is more culture war crap where they attempt to portray UVA as unique on the issue and it’s just not the reality.

            I did not shift it at all – I try to point out just how dishonest it is to portray this as a UVA only thing.

            But try addressing the issue Wayne – no need to personalize and you piss me off when you do.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            He does not want any questions answered. He is an intelligent guy; he knows why. He wants to debate the whole vaccination issue: ““Persuade me why the vaccines are superior to her natural immunity.
            Persuade me why the [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccines are known to
            be safe.” The university is under no obligation to engage in a on-running debate with an individual.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Not UVA and not ANY University that has promulgated similar policies.

            This guy would just as likely FOIA VDOT to demand the internal discussions that led to a 55 mph speed limit and whether they were based on “science” or actually “legal”, etc, etc, etc.

            These guys have always been around. They just got a bigger megaphone with the internet these days.

          4. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Wow. I don’t want questions answered? Unbelievable.
            I am not against vaccination. What the H3!! is wrong with you people?
            I do not think mandating the COVID experimental drug is scientifically, medically warranted. I believe that even more so for my daughter who has natural immunity. Add to that the civil liberties issues. Add to that the Stalinist forms designed to force vaccination. Add to that the deceptive AG opinion. Show me the damn documents! Why is that so hard?
            It is possible that some people can come to a different conclusion than you and be right?
            Really unbelievable. Questioning my motives. I love my daughter. I want answers. That isn’t political. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Sorry. You sound VERY Political…

            you are not entitled to their internal discussions, that’s their prerogative and it’s standard business practice at most universities, not just UVA and that’s not politicol either – it’s standard practice all along.

          6. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Not what they said. They said it was working papers. Does not meet the definition. I am not a subject. I am a free citizen. Would it kill you Larry if UVA deigned to respond to a concerned parent? And of course, you trusted everything, without question, when Orange Man was President, didn’t you?
            So, I don’t care what any of you say. I will see the “advice.”

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            They are a public university you are entitled to their decision making process. It does not fit any of the exclusion criteria of FIOA.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams


      3. vicnicholls Avatar

        DJ only some of them do. You have a good # who don’t. The same thing holds true for hospitals. If you are patient facing, that is one thing, but to require the business office to get it is garbage. They don’t see patients, no patient care at all.

  9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I can respect Mr. Smith’s objection. Close to 6,000 deaths reported by VAERS since January. All adverse reactions to covid vaccines. Some people worry about it. 6,000 do not have that worry anymore.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      It’s a bit deceptive. The site is a blog site not a govt site, 6000 reported deaths after receiving the vaccine – true. How many actually died FROM the vaccine as opposed to dying after taking it and from what?

      Even if all them actually did die from the vaccine, and that’s highly unlikely – the rate of 6000 deaths per 144 million people is something like .000042 % . and 10 times as many, 600,000 died from COVID.

      Getting the vaccine is a no-brainer given these stats.

      1. Compare apples to apples. Of all the people who died of COVID, how many died FROM the virus as opposed to WITH the virus?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          If they got covid and died…. while infected with covid – you might make an argument that they might have died anyhow but if you look at the number who got it who actually did die and did not recover, what does that mean?

          Your argument – you could make about anything – someone who died of cancer but would have died anyhow from a heart attack? etc?

          600,000 people died. I doubt seriously you could lower than number substantially even on your premise.

          We’d STILL end up with a death rate from vaccines being in the .ooox range compared to actual COVID.

          But the bigger point here is that this guy is NOT entitled to the working discussions of ANY entity that go into deciding a policy – and for good reason.

          If you had a law that said that everything they discussed had to be on transcript and available 100% what would happen to internal discussions?

          They would just go into closed meetings like BOS do right now.

          This is stupid.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            Nope, not true that 600,000 died of covid. Look at CDC Table 3: “Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.”

            That literally says only 5% of deaths were covid alone. The rest had 4+ co-morbidities. So 30,000 people died of Covid. Yikes – we actually didn’t have a pandemic. Oh, no, we’ve been played and lied to because we didn’t do our own research. Instead we watched the tele screen ticker scrolling first overhyped numbers of deaths across the screen. Then they changed it to overhyped cases scrolling across the screen ticker. Then after the election the WHO admits that the PCR tests were creating false positives and not to be trusted.

            Now go to the VAERS data to see there have been more injuries/deaths from the covid vaccine in the past five months than all the vaccines combined for 10+ years. Doesn’t sound safe to me.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            We’ve been lied to – around the world?

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            So, you are assuming that all those folks with comorbidities would have died anyway without COVID-19. Using that reasoning, one could say that everyone is going to die at some time, so really there was no pandemic.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          What’s it mean to die “of COVID” in your world? Fluid filled lungs? Renal failure? Covid may not have killed a single person. It merely killed those who would have died in 15 years by the same condition.

          Just shaved years.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            To die of COVID-19 would mean that you had no underlying comorbidities that were accelerated or exacerbated by the virus.

            If COVID-19 is listed as a contributing factor on a death certificate vs the cause of death.

            We understand that science is hard for someone of you lacking “education”.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “To die of COVID-19 would mean that you had no underlying comorbidities that were accelerated or exacerbated by the virus.”

            So many victims of Covid really died of asthma… (smh)

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So instead of actually understanding how a CoD is determined or classified you spout an inane strawman.

            If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.

            PS: 3 people die from asthma every day, just because you don’t classify it as a detriment doesn’t mean it isn’t.


          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.”

            Not according to the CDC…

            “In some cases, survival from COVID–19 can be complicated by pre-existing chronic conditions, especially those that result in diminished lung capacity, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma. These medical conditions do not cause COVID–19, but can increase the risk of contracting a respiratory infection and death, so these conditions should be reported in Part II [contributing factors] and not in Part I [immediate cause of death].”


          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I just laugh when you continually prove you either can’t or don’t read, yet claim uber success.

            It appears you don’t understand the difference between UCOD and immediate COD.

            “If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should
            be specified on the death certificate. In many cases, it is
            likely that it will be the UCOD, as it can lead to various lifethreatening conditions, such as pneumonia and acute respiratory
            distress syndrome (ARDS). In these cases, COVID–19 should
            be reported on the lowest line used in Part I with the other
            conditions to which it gave rise listed on the lines above it.


          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I think you need to take some remedial reading courses, Slick. I’ll make it simple for you. A person contracts COVID which leads to pneumonia which causes his death. The CDC is instructing that in this case, the immediate CoD is pneumonia while the underlying CoD is COVID. Both are reported in Part I because both are the causes of death. Please note that this instruction does not address any “underlying comorbidities that were accelerated or exacerbated by the virus” like asthma. The instructions I cited did indeed address underlying comorbidities which can be “accelerated or exacerbated by the virus”, like asthma. In those cases, the instructions state to that these comorbidities are to be listed in Part II (contributing factors) and not Part I (cause of death) – exactly opposite what you contend.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I didn’t say they weren’t pumpkin, I love your strawman. It says exactly what I stated, but you’re just not bright enough to figure that out ( shocked face).

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I didn’t say they weren’t pumpkin…”

            You said:

            “If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.”

            Existing comorbidities (like asthma) would be listed in Part 2 as contributing factors. COVID would be listed in Part 1 as the CoD. Again, exactly opposite what you stated.

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            COVID-19 is listed in part one of the from I gave you. It would listed as the last line, which you could’ve read from your very own citation if you knew how to do so. If said individual died as a result of an asthma attack it would be line 1.

            The CDC citation you provided said exactly what I stated, not my fault you don’t understand what you posted.

            Perhaps if you spent more time reading what others posted instead of being a pompous troll, you’d learn something.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No, it didn’t. I have already explained how wrong you are several times. At this point you can’t even string a coherent sentence together. Pitiful.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Yes, yes it did. I linked you a death certificate and using the CDC instructions is how you would fill it out.

            ” At this point you can’t even string a coherent sentence together. Pitiful.”

            Cool story, but as per usual it’s a lie on your part. Have you ever been correct about anything?

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “” At this point you can’t even string a coherent sentence together. Pitiful.”

            Cool story, but as per usual it’s a lie on your part.”


            “COVID-19 is listed in part one of the from I gave you. It would listed as the last line…”

            Huh? As I said… pitiful…

          13. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “”COVID-19 is listed in part one of the from I gave you. It would listed as the last line…”

            Huh? As I said… pitiful…”

            Strawman says what?

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I will try ONE MORE TIME (futily I am sure) to explain this to you:

            First you wrote:

            “If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.”

            This is untrue. Asthma would be a contributing factor and COVID would be the CoD.

            “I linked you a death certificate and using the CDC instructions is how you would fill it out.”

            The CDC instruction clearly state that the CoD in this case would be COVID and that would be entered into Part 1. You above state incorrectly that it would be a contributing factor (Part 2).

            The only time asthma would be listed in Part1 would be where asthma was the condition the patient actually died from (the immediate cause of death which is highly unlikely) and it was specifically brought on by COVID. In that case COVID would still be listed as a CoD in Part 1. In neither case would COVID be listed as a “contributing factor” in Part 2 as you state above.

          15. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            ““If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.”

            Again, false given your own citation and the accompanying blue form which you didn’t view or understand.

            “Death certificates were processed using standard CDC protocols to convert all written text and diagnoses to ICD-10 codes (4). Individual data elements were extracted for analysis from death certificates that had the ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) listed in Part I (the section for reporting chain of events leading directly to death, the immediate cause of death, and the underlying cause of death

            If someone passed away form asthma attack that would be listed line a part I and COVID-19 would be listed as line d part I

            Part II: would be any underlying condition that were significant in contributing to death but played no significant role.

            Clearly you can’t read or understand what you’re reading. PS: people die from asthma attacks daily.

          16. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            ‘“If someone has asthma, they have a comorbidity. The CoD would be asthma with a contributing factor of COVID-19.”
            Again, false given your own citation…’

            Dude, that quote (inside the “”) is what YOU wrote and it is indeed false. I rest.

          17. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If they died as a result of an asthma attack, it would be listed as a COD. If they did from complications from COVID, the asthma would reside in part II. As most people don’t die direct from diabetes, but rather a complication from it. What you fail to distinguish, is the difference between impact and not being impactful.

            I guess your boss never told you the difference in that

            I honestly don’t know what is so difficult for you to understand.

            The jury would find you as un-compelling now as they did in May.

            PS:. Everything I’m stating was in your link and clearly written to complex for you to understand, sad

          18. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You said “if someone HAS asthma” it would be listed as THE CoD and COVID would be listed as a”contributing factor”. That is simply untrue. First the patient would have had to actually die from an asthma attack – which is not what you stated. You said “HAS asthma”. Further, COVID would be listed as a CoD and NOT a “contributing factor”. So sorry. You are still wrong.

          19. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If they died as a result of an asthma attack it would be listed as COD. If that were merely a contributing factor it would be in part II.

            Now I realize that basic biologoy seems to escape you, but let me explain it to you.

            An Asthma Attack occurs when the bronchospasm constricts the airway further complicated by excessive mucus. It’s managed with an inhaler or a prednisone like corticosteroid.

            ARD, which is what occurs with COVID-19 (and SARS, MERS and VARS before it) is caused also by inflammation, but that is accompanied with fluid built in the lungs, thereby suffocating said individual.

            If someone perished as a result of an asthma attack that would be listed as COD, if they also had COVID-19 that would be listed on line e as a contributing factor.

            If they perished as a result of ARD but had asthma, asthma would be in part II.

            I get that such topics are far to complex for you to understand or the fact that you can even understand the information you linked, but that doesn’t change reality.

            I’ve provided you with the blue form (death cert), I’ve provided and explained the method of filling it out (even used your own citation) and you still want to argue. I can only presume that’s because you’re a wanker.

            You’ve displayed zero knowledge of any topic you’ve ever commented on and just argue for the sake of arguing. You’re a more annoying form of Larry, who at least doesn’t attempt to use anecdotal evidence as fact.

          20. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “If they died as a result of an asthma attack it would be listed as COD. If that were merely a contributing factor it would be in part II.”

            Which is not what you wrote. You wrote if the patient “has asthma” IT would be listed as the CoD and COVID would be a contributing factor.

            You showed your ignorance on the subject you spouted off about, I called you on it, now you move the goal posts. You were wrong. End of story.

          21. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            It’s exactly what I wrote, the fact that I inferred that they perished as a result of an asthma attack (which happens) is what confuses someone like yourself, uneducated and a pompous kid.

            “You showed your ignorance on the subject you spouted off about, I called you on it, now you move the goal posts. You were wrong. End of story.”

            You can’t call anyone on anything, you show your ignorance of any given topic daily. Even when you admit you were wrong you deflect and attack.

            You’re a 51 year old baby.

            Edit: Who in dunce fashion takes exception with and disapproves of facts.

          22. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Sure you were right. If you did not actually MEAN what you wrote…. I guess you win then…. (smh).

          23. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Incorrect, no matter how many times you attempt to make your strawman my argument it won’t work.

          24. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Of course, you win, you simply inferred something different than you actually wrote…it is perfectly clear then.

          25. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Anyone with a functioning brain could see my point, so clearly we now know what’s not working between your ears.

            Not that it was non-functioning was in doubt to begin with.

            That’s why you used a strawman, because you are in a word “dumb”.

          26. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Uh huh, sure thing, Bucko… anything you say…

          27. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I don’t have to say anything, you’re the one making strawman.

          28. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I don’t have to say anything…”

            First accurate thing I’ve read from you!! Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step. Nice job!

          29. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Eric the Troll of Strawman says what?

          30. LarrytheG Avatar

            Even if we discounted all deaths where folks had pre-existing conditions – the percent harmed by the vaccines would be miniscule compared to the numbers of commodity-free who died.

            It’s that way with existing approved vaccines also.

            The facts are that the COVID vaccines are comparable to existing approved vaccines and that’s why they are widely recommended around the world and that where the percent vaccinated is high – the disease regresses.

            The anti-vaxxers have always been around, have always opposed and disagreed with science and govt on vaccines. The difference is the internet has given them bigger voices than before but the basics of the argument is still the same. They simply do not agree.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Here James. Pose your question to this fella.

          He’s a retired doctor, Libertarian, conservative, and quick to defend Trump and the Right in general.
          He’ll set you straight as to the difference between “of” and “with”, and the value of the vaccine.

          But, the short answer is COVID isn’t lethal. Clearly. Billions got it and didn’t die, so perhaps no one died of COVID.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        So Larry…let’s ask the same question to you. How many actually died SOLELY from Covid? 6%? How many deaths were by government malfeasance? And great, you and all the “vaccinated” have saved the world! Virtue signal ahoy!
        Maybe, the world would develop natural immunity…like it has since the beginning of time. You know flu mutates every year and the “flu shot” is a guess as to what the docs think they will be seeing. Kind of like Covid variants… We know how to treat it. We don’t need to live in fear of Covid … unless it is politically useful. Cui bono, Larry?

        And do you know the VAERS system is believed to under-report, maybe by a factor of 100?

        And I had a friend call and say the WSJ has an OpEd against the mandate from somebody from Notre Dame and somebody from Berkley.

        But I’m the crackpot cuz Larry knows better than me for my daughter. All hail King Larry!

        Once again, we come back to a freedom question. If you wish to get the injections (a vaccine is made from a dead virus, this is not), go ahead. Meanwhile, I’d like to wait and see. The mRNA aspect also troubles me for youths. And, even after a number of years, I might still not want the “vaccine,” but that would be based on my medical history and risk factors. And I do have the standard shots Larry. I am not anti-vax. I am anti-mandate, anti-Covid panic porn, pro-real science, pro-liberty. Sorry if my refusal to do what you would offends you. How Leftists “think” offends me. Try trusting people to make the decisions in their own best interests…

        When Jim Bacon said he wasn’t as agitated as me, that was an understatement of immense proportion!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Walter, when you START OFF impugning the govt – we know the rest of it guy.

          You seem to be oriented to conspiracies, no?

          So , basically anything the Govt does including public universities is not to be trusted. correct?

          Who do you trust? Bloggers?

          Come on guy. Nothing is perfect and yes mistakes are made but on balance I DO trust the CDC and FDA and science.

          And I trust UVA to guide that ship also.

          I’m just not going to see the entire world in conspiracy terms where I only trust bloggers and anti-govt folks.

          If we followed you guys, we’d literally have anarchy because by the time we recognized all you don’t trust and then added in all the others with who they don’t trust – we’d be a 3rd world country where illiterates abound and dictators control .

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – I didn’t say conspiracy. You did. When a Lib says racist, anti-science, anti-vax, conspiracy, it means you don’t have a legitimate answer.
            There is no science behind the vaccine mandate for the students. Period. Prove me wrong. She is my daughter.
            And I haven’t heard anyone attack my “science.”
            Nor have I had anyone question the deceptiveness of the AG’s opinion. Address the FACTS. I’m ready to.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I read your words Walter… you speak that way. You speak the language of those who don’t trust the government, and institutions – and science.

            There is no “your science”. There is science. It’s still evolving on COVID – lots of things are still being learned and left to be learned but it’s science compared to bloggers and folks who have their own beliefs.

            You say to address facts, but you summarily dismiss ones you disagree with… and substitute with what you believe or think… no?

            simple fact – UVA and hundreds of other universities HAVE discussed and decided what their policies will be.

            They all decided similar policies.

            It’s not a conspiracy that they did.

            It wasn’t because they all lacked proper intelligence or thinking skills…and none of them wanted to have their internal discussion in front of the public.

            Not because of Covid – that’s the way 99% of College policy decisions ARE ALSO DONE.


            so why just UVA and why just this issue when the issue is much larger and wider?

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – remember when all the media and all the institutions said RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA for years and were right? Yeah, neither do I.
            Remember when only crazy people said the virus came form a CCP virology lab a mile away and instead came from a bat 1000 miles away, that transmitted to a pangolin, that transmitted to humans and were proved right? Yeah…me neither.
            You see, Larry – real science has a skepticism and requires replicating results. Also, Ockham’s Razor applies in making decisions. So we come back to the same thing over and over. Show me the so called science. Let me try to shoot holes in it. Scientific process.
            Heard of Missouri – the Show Me State? Trust, but Verify?

            I should be the easiest guy in the world to prove wrong – an old, evil, hetero white guy who was in a frat, oppressing everybody I saw!

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Walter – the facts coming out demonstrate there WAS a Russia issue.

            AND while POTUS was dissing NATO and our Allies, he was kissing up to Putin. And YES, his people WERE talking to Russian operatives, no question.

            But what in the world does that have to do with UVA and Covid and the Media, etc?

            You talk like it’s all the same thing like a partisan in the Culture wars, no?

            I don’t think you are an old, evil white guy but I do think you might be headed around the partisan bend! 😉

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – I really don’t want to be mean… if anybody is acting like Putin’s buttboy, it is SlowJoe. Do you get any news not from MSDNC?
            I was pointing out to you Larry that just because there seems to be a popular consensus, that does not mean it is correct. So, I will complete the analogy and use small words – just cuz all skools r makeing the vaxine persondate, they cood stil be rong.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Larry and crew are given to any number of logical fallacies. They love the argumetum ad populum.

      3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        numbers are straight out of Dr. NumbNuts CDC website.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          they are but they are not direct deaths to vaccinations…. that’s deceptive… and you know that and the folks with the website know that but still represent it deceptively.

          That’s NOT a good way for folks to discuss issues IMHO. To start off with deceptive data or just outright misrepresented things is just bogus. Never going to get to a point where folks can find common ground.

          Just spew out lies and watch the division …

      4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Examine the chart. Notice from 1990 to 2020 there were a few empty chairs from adverse vaccine reaction deaths. Notice 2021. Huge spike. The next round of vaccines, I am sure we will be getting them, had better have a more reliable track record. Is that too much to ask of Big Pharma and the CDC? I did get the first two shots. I am taking a hard pass on the next jab. Need to see improvement in the safety and reliability of the vaccines. Maybe the NOVAD vaccine will turnout better results.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          that chart does not look right.

          I’m fully aware of the issue that some folks may have died from other causes anyhow and COVD got them first – that certainly may be true with older folks.

          But we are seeing millions of people around the world die from COVID – like we have seen with PRIOR pandemics.

          And the more infections there are – the more mutations and variants there are – and they could well outrun the current vaccinations.

          Scientists are warning us about this right now but all along we have had people that were “anti” – from the get go.

          This is the same group of folks – the same ones that oppose masks, social distancing, other vaccines, science, in fact.

  10. This conversation has become a debate over the propriety of mandating the vaccination. That’s an interesting conversation to have, but that’s not what I blogged about. I blogged about the propriety of UVa withholding the reasons for imposing the mandate. Maybe the reasons were legitimate, maybe they weren’t, but we’ll never know.

    The lack of transparency reinforces the idea that UVa is run by an insulated and arrogant oligarchy that has little respect for the students and none for parents who pay their bills. Ryan and his crew come across as thinking they are smarter than everyone else, they know what’s best for you, and if you don’t like it, go away.

    I thought one of the challenges of winding up this COVID epidemic was persuading the 1/3 or so of the population that is still resistant to getting the vaccine. One would think that UVa, as the flagship university of Virginia, would share in the task of educating the public. But what do we get? Silence. There is no effort to persuade anyone.

    But, then, mandates, coercion and indoctrination are standard practice for higher ed today. We have come to expect nothing less.

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Absolutely. And that is why I want to see the “advice.” Since it pertains to my daughter and overrides my medical judgment, why can’t I see it? Maybe they will persuade me.
      I don’t think they can. I think that is why they claimed the bogus exemption, which makes me trust them even less.
      Arrogant. Hubris. Disconnected. A bunch of Marie Antoinette’s telling me to eat cake!
      Yes, I am steamed.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        😉 talk about whoppers! 😉

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Please point out the whoppers.
          You do know emergency use authorization requires informed consent, don’t you? Or is this like Antifa… some laws apply and some don’t? I did not cede in loco parentis to UVA. I deserve to see the so called advice. And, if they are so sure they are right, what’s the risk? Wouldn’t that help persuade the hesitant?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            No – the whoppers are your stated intentions to “understand”.

            I strongly suspect you’re just looking for more ammunition to reload…


            I don’t think you give a whit about the “hesitant” given all you have had to say about the Govt and UVA in general!



          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Yes Larry. You are wrong. Thanks for the generalizations….RACIST!
            Address the science. Address the whoppers. Not agreeing with you does not necessarily equal being wrong. In fact, I think that increases the likelihood of being right. (That’s math and probability – part of the scientific method).
            And, maybe, I had a business career of having to examine evidence and make decisions, but who knows? Larry knows all!

            Why can’t I, drunk frat boy, Joe College, history major, see how UVA came to its decision?

            And since the Rector said the decision was based on the UVA Medical System advice, how could it be the personal or deliberative property of Jim Ryan?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Sounds like a collaborative decision process that includes the Medical folks.

            But again – a whole bunch of universities did something very similar so I’m assuming they all were also looking at the medical science but again I’d guess they wanted to fully re-open and the easiest way to get rid of all the restrictions for unvaccinated was to get everyone vaccinated.

            Also – the variants have become a big worry factor as science – yes science is concerned with the variants starting to outrun the vaccines and that goes back to how many unvaccinated there still are that might contract the disease and provide more opportunities for mutating and that includes those who got covid but an earlier version.

            Through all of these things that are happening, I do not see bad faith or nefarious conduct nor conspiracies – I see ordinary folks doing what they think is right – in their roles – to decide policies.

            And I think not a good precedent that ALL of their internal discussions be FOIAable (and yes, I’ve done FOIA and fought the bureaucracy also).

            I FOIAed some docs, got to go examine them, make copies, etc… got a bill for $800 ! 😉

            But these bodies have to be able to have internal discussions without them being released. If they could not, it would harm the process IMHO.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” I blogged about the propriety of UVa withholding the reasons for imposing the mandate. Maybe the reasons were legitimate, maybe they weren’t, but we’ll never know.”


      It’s not just UVA. Hundreds of other universities also.

      do you think ALL of them should have to release ALL internal discussions on what went into their policy decisions?

      re: ” I thought one of the challenges of winding up this COVID epidemic was persuading the 1/3 or so of the population that is still resistant to getting the vaccine.”

      yeah, right…. just trying to help educate , eh?

      re: ” One would think that UVa, as the flagship university of Virginia, would share in the task of educating the public. But what do we get? Silence. There is no effort to persuade anyone.”

      you really think that? Do you think UVA does not look at how you guys operate (like you do on other issues also) and want to hand you more ammunition?

      😉 Seriously – they know what you guys are about – you guys would gladly dismantle them if you could, no?

      If they actually had to release all policy discussions – what would happen? Is that what you really want?

      How would that work for ANY state agency?

  11. CJBova Avatar

    Medpage Today

    “Importantly, and affirmed 2 weeks ago from a Washington University study, immunity is not just conferred by antibodies, it’s also a function of memory B and T cells, which the study researchers suggested may confer long-lasting immunity.

    “What about children who are confirmed to have had COVID-19 infection in the past? I would recommend avoiding COVID-19 vaccination. Looking at natural immunity in adults as a point of comparison, the observational and empirical data are overwhelming: natural immunity is real and it works….

    “Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a study this week that found “Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the durationof the study.” This is one of many studies showing that natural immunity is powerful. While the long-term durability of natural immunity is unknown, it’s also unknown for vaccinated immunity. We can postulate with strong rationale, but to be true to the science, we have zero data beyond 18 months for either. In fact, there is more follow-up data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity. Based on accumulating data, children who have had COVID-19 should not get vaccinated, unless they are immunocompromised.”

  12. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    The Disqus password reset function is not exactly “swift,” so I am responding to a number of comments. And I discovered my Links didn’t transfer, so excuse the awkward formatting!
    The anti-vax/anti-science line of “reasoning” is just idiocy. I know more about medicine than you do. I know more about Covid and the immune system than 99.9% of laymen. I recently “graduated” from 2 rounds of chemo to beat leukemia and a stem cell transplant. Try bringing your “A” game if you want to get technical. Not bragging. Just went through something I found scientifically amazing. And, having been through what I went through, Covid didn’t scare me.

    The USA Today article does not say what was represented. And, come on, USA Today is the authority? It rated partly false. The partly false part was the 2 year period. That is not what people contend. The contention is that EUA drugs cannot be mandated. Go to ( e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of this link to the – clear enough? And here on page 56 of this site – – is the statement that EUA vax cannot be mandatory from Amanda Cohn, a CDC official.
    Our illustrious Attorney General, Kurtis Blow Herring, used a sleight of hand in his opinion – – that the universities could mandate the vaccine. Do you see how he said on page 3 that there is no federal EUA guidance “specifically related to colleges and universities?” That is both true AND a blatant deception at the same time. If he were a student, I would want an honor offense to be brought.

    As to is there any “science” on the vaccine being not safe? There is plenty. The government operates VAERS – a vaccine reporting system. There have been more incidents in 5 months than something like in 10 years. And there are many other things being discovered and reported daily…oh, that’s right, Twitter and YouTube and Fakebook won’t let you see them. But that is not my objection. I think the odds are that my daughter would not suffer from the vaccine, but…she doesn’t need it. She has natural immunity, which I believe is better. More types of antibodies are produced from surviving Covid than from the spike protein vaccine (which is not technically a vaccine). And there is some indication that invoking the spike protein in someone who has already had Covid can be dangerous. Further, the Cleveland Clinic has released a study – – finding no benefit to vaccinating someone who has had Covid.
    Now, given that the “vaccine” is EUA, given that it has never been used before, given that she has natural immunity (which is arguably a fuller, better response), given the general medical principle of “first, do no harm,” please tell me why I am wrong to believe the mandate is wrong?

    Now as a citizen and father and American, please tell me why I have to obey something that is not necessary medically, from people who I think are liars? When they stop calling a mostly peaceful protest an insurrection and riots mostly peaceful protests, maybe then I’ll think we are speaking the same language. Meanwhile, look at the so called religious – and medical – -exemption forms. Do you see the conditions imposed on page 2 of each form? Do you honestly think those onerous conditions are not intended to FORCE vaccination? And for a girl who doesn’t need it? Also, I’m sorry – they get to judge your religious claim? I thought you liberals were supposed to be …liberal! Not progressive totalitarians. It is a civil liberties outrage.

    These kids in all schools have been screwed over for 2 years. They don’t die from Covid. They don’t spread it asymptomatically. Masks are theater. So, don’t tell me that I have to obey people who don’t know what they are talking about and certainly do not have my daughter’s best interests in mind.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I understand your argument that your daughter is adequately protected because of the antibodies in her system. However, if UVa were to allow exemptions for students who had contracted COVID, the school would likely face a large number of folks claiming that exemption. Because not everyone who contracted COVID had to be hospitalized or even to see a doctor, it would be difficult to administer such an exemption. I guess the school could require proof that a person had the antibody in his/her system, but, if you are going to that much trouble, why not just get the vaccination?

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        The students have already been living under violation of the Constitution this past year with the Healthy Hoos portal and the Covid snitch line. I guess 50 years of “my body, my choice” only applies to something unimportant like killing babies. I believe the required medical reporting for the exemptions also violates HIPAA.

        Meanwhile, and the bigger point – Covid does not kill kids. It does not hospitalize kids. In fact, there is a decent argument that the quickest way to herd immunity is to let the kids get it because they shake it off and are not spreaders. One day we may get honest numbers and discover Sweden’s response was the best. One day we might even get honest, not politicized, science and an admission that the HCQ and Ivermectin protocols EARLY were effective therapeutics. There is no reason to live in fear of Covid – we know how to treat it.

        So, back to UVA. My point is there is no need to MANDATE vaccination. Period. Anybody who wants the shot(s) can get them. And if they do, then they are theoretically protected, so why do they care if kids aren’t? The “science” says the kids aren’t affected and don’t spread it. So if the at risk people get vaccinated, and they have no excuse for not doing so if they are afraid, then why is a mandate necessary? And if the mandate is not necessary, why the Stalinist forms designed to force it? Including the HIPAA violating Healthy Hoos portal? No, no, no, a thousand times NO!

        And with respect to my daughter, HELL NO! She has natural immunity.

        How come UVA employees are not mandated to get vaccinated? But MY daughter, who I love, who actually agrees with me, says she will most likely get vaccinated to avoid the social pressure.

        What they are doing to these kids, academically, socially and emotionally is a crime. I would be happy for her to go some place else, but Jim Ryan, and the BOV and the Leftist faculty do not have the right to destroy my school.

        So there. That’s what I think. Not feel.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          and you ALREADY thought this – long before UVA.. no?

          this is just the latest one, I suspect.

          Did you oppose vaccinations in general for everyone on similar basis?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – let’s go over this again. I had leukemia. I had 2 rounds of chemo. I then had a stem cell transplant. I spent 65 nights in VCU at the end of 2019. Then I was doing social distancing before it was cool – the year of being immuno compromised post transplant. So, STFU.
            Oh, I also filed a patent for a new and improved IV pole that I think could revolutionize the way drugs are administered and provide greater mobility to patients while connected. But I’m an anti-science idiot who needs to do what Larry says.

            So, I oppose the Covid shots as mandated. Period. Based on EUA and based on science KNOWN at this time. Why can’t you handle that? And if my daughter has natural immunity, why does she need an experimental shot that will mess with her mRNA and may be counter-productive to her natural immunity? Whatever happened to the Hippocratic principle of “first, do no harm?”
            Please go waste someone else’s time. Or, how about this – we get socialized medicine (fully, not the half breed we have now) and I get to make end of care decisions…and I don’t have to explain it and you can’t question it. Sound OK to you?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams


    2. Please name a few respected sources that actually say that state and private mandates are illegal.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        US Code count –
        CDC official – go to page 56 –

        I here WSJ has an OpEd against mandates today. Anybody have access?

        1. this is my point. You are interpreting the code to say state mandates are illegal. that’s not what it says. Additionally, at the federal level, the military can be required to be vaccinated regardless of EUA status. Private employer=same thing. You may not like it, which is your choice, but that doesn’t make it illegal.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            It’s called federal pre-emption. Seriously, all you people who don’t know what you are talking about, legally and medically, go to the back of the bus.
            This is not settled science at all. And as a citizen, I have the right to make up my own mind. Crowds have been wrong before. They often are when they panic. The States cannot override Federal law. But they do ignore the ones they don’t like (sanctuary cities). Somehow, I have become the great civil libertarian, trying to protect people’s rights!
            Show me the so called science behind UVA’s decision. Are they scared of l’il ol’ me?
            And what is so scary to you Leftists that I am unconvinced? That I examine the evidence and find it wanting? Other than it could mean you are wrong (and you are), why do you care? You’ve been injected with the non-vaccine. Don’t you trust the science? I do. But I also think if you don’t need it, it might be more prudent to see if there are things we don’t expect. (Hint – there will be. But until we have more data – it is EUA and can’t be mandated according to the US Code and FDA and CDC practice for all years BC – Before Covid)
            Now please go waste other people’s time. Or you could tell UVA to send me the info in the hopes it would shut me up. It’s possible.

          2. Several comments:
            1-my family would get quite a laugh about being called a leftist, but the ad hominem arguments show this is probably more emotional than logical for you. I think you are really just looking to continue to pick a fight anyway you can. If you can’t fathom why the requirement is in place then no one can really help you here
            2-you keep referencing the US Code, but that rule applies to federal officials, not state and private. it will take litigation to determine if it applies downward
            3-if federal pre-emption were appropriate, would the terminated employees’ suit against Houston Baptist Hospital have gotten tossed?
            4-likewise, if you, and more importantly, your daughter, are so upset by this requirement and an unwillingness to engage with you on the decision, maybe it would be best for her to enroll somewhere else. She’s not being compelled to get vaccinated. She has a choice.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So what is the appropriate term for a totalitarian? A Nazi? Mandating THIS non-vaccine is totalitarian. It is not medically necessary. It may be harmful and she is not at risk and poses no risk to others. So she has to be vaccinated for your comfort?
            It’s called federal pre-emption. Obama used it to stop Arizona from enforcing some illegal immigration problems. You don’t know what you are talking about.
            I guess lawsuits never get wrongly decided, huh? Lawyers don’t forum shop? Our judiciary isn’t politicized like everything else? You and Larry – look! Other people don’t agree with you! I don’t give a flying fornication what other people think about my daughter’s health and civil liberties.
            Finally, why should I have to cede my State university to totalitarians? No…they have to go.

            Everyone of you comes in with a distraction. Counter my scientific, civil liberties, legal, medical and ethical objections. First, get past the medical starting point – first, do no harm. You can’t. But we can go down those other alleys, and I believe I will destroy their arguments. If you want to shut me up, and all good Leftists seem to want that, produce the documents.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Is there an actual policy statement from UVA that I can read?

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Their FAQs

            But look at the AG’s deceptively worded opinion yourself.
            Look at the exemption form conditions.
            Think about having to upload your medical proof to the Healthy Hoos Portal. Not a HIPAA violation? Not a 4th Amendment violation?
            But see the newest post with the WSJ article. I’m trying to protect your civil liberties, too!

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            HIPPA info is up to you. It would be very totalitarian for the govt to deny you the ability to release your own info, no?

            WSJ article is opinion. I love you guys that cite WSJ – not the fact-based side but the opinion side! 😉

            At any rate, I think UVA is well within their authority to do that since they’re citing CDC and the Va ADJ.

            No one HAS to attend the school. It’s your choice according to your acceptance of their terms of service.

            I’m starting to get a strong whiff of asshat here… just saying…

          7. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Then you might need to bathe

          8. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Then you might need to bathe.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            Perhaps. You do not have problems with just UVA. You have problems across the board with all parties govt, science, the private sector and universities with regard to this issue.

            it’s across the board.


            or if I have it wrong – can you better calibrate and say what you do agree with that the govt , science, etc are doing?

          10. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Why? Do I have to give an answer you agree with before I can see the documents?
            I have no problems.
            Everybody who favors mandating the EUA Covid non-vaccine is a totalitarian, violating basic principles of liberty.
            So I have no problem being right.
            They are all wrong. Certainly morally and ethically.
            With regard to natural immunities they are certainly wrong.
            And medically, I think wait and see is not a totally irrational response.
            But meanwhile, everybody all over the world, if you want the shot(s), get it.
            Otherwise UVA produce the docs. Persuade the skeptics. I mean we are all crackpots, right, Larry? I mean only a fool disagrees with Larry the G!

          11. LarrytheG Avatar

            You certainly are entitled to your view, but I think the “for my daughter” narrative has shifted a bit at least in my eyes as it appears you were on this oppositional path for perhaps when all this covid stuff got start, before your daughter and UVA were at issue.


            UVA is doing what hundreds of other Universities are doing/have done and likely for similar reasons. I don’t think they owe you anything more and it’s clear your motives are to use whatever would give you as additional information to attack them – and they likely do “know” you by now.

            You are on that other path that disagrees from the get go on most or all of the COVID issue.


            I just accept the science and agree with most of the govt and institutional responses.

            You’ve got lots of company on your side. I recognize that. Most of the Conservatives in BR are in your corner.

            I appreciate your willingness to explain your views and discuss (mostly) civilly.

            So, we’ve chewed this bone and ought to quit. Agree?

          12. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – it’s clear you will not be persuaded. But I am not going to quit – and it doesn’t matter if I am a prepper, a white supremacist, a transgender, or an evil white hetero patriarchical evangelical Christian.
            My points, still not addressed, but vigorously opposed, were, are and will be:
            1. The vaccine mandate violates historical norms of American civil liberties (boo on the UVA Law School silence) and ancient, medical Hippocratic oath principle of “first, do no harm.” (Boo on the UVA Medical School) The kids don’t need the vax and it is still experimental. Balancing risk/reward, they don’t need it.
            2. Medically, the kids pose no risk to others and we know how to treat it and all people who are at risk, or wish to, have no impediment to getting vaccinated.
            3. She has natural immunity, which is arguably better. There is no valid medical reason to require vaccination for her.
            4. There is a lot of noise about adverse reactions, and there is still much we don’t know. Young females in particular, in my opinion, take on reproductive risk not worth the supposed benefit of vaccination.
            5. There are also HIPAA and 1st and 4th Amendment issues with other specifics and the exemption protocols as well as applicable US Code language and historic practice.
            I am opposed on point 1, which does not depend on the Code or any science. I am also opposed on all the other points. But, maybe I can be convinced that the risk/reward of the vax makes sense for students…but I doubt it. But absent me seeing how UVA got to its decision, how can I make that determination?

          13. LarrytheG Avatar

            Probably not the way you are currently going about it and probably not never because I think you won’t accept what others consider facts that contravene your own beliefs.

            But we’ve plowed all this and don’t need to do so again, at least I don’t. 😉

            You’ll have to find your own way.


          14. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” 3-if federal pre-emption were appropriate, would the terminated employees’ suit against Houston Baptist Hospital have gotten tossed?”

            but going to get appealed right up to SCOTUS, they say…

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        The COVID-19 vaccine is an EUA, which is part of the “law” which has never been tested in court.

        1. Agreed. My argument is that certain people keep saying it’s illegal, which is untrue. Federal mandate, except for military, may be that, but state and private is yet to be determined.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I can understand that and as a former military member, if it would be approved the first individuals for mandatory administration would be the Military.

            It would be the H1N1 vaccine all over again.

    3. Deborah Hommer Avatar
      Deborah Hommer

      Nice response! Agree on so many counts. I was a state leader of medical freedom in VA. I could talk for days nonstop without repeating myself about vaccines and what most people don’t know.
      I have read there have been more adverse reactions and deaths in 5 months than the entire system of VAERS which is 20ish years.
      I also read that the vaccine is extremely dangerous to those who have had covid. As I remember either/both and will represent you and fight against the mandate for your daughter.

      And, no, you shouldn’t listen to these people who don’t know what they’re talking about – intentional or not.

      In Ancient Roman, in England and the U.S. around the time of the founding and for a time after judges rules cases “null and void” due to “contrary to right reason.”

      Nice to see someone else has done research and not just drinking the vaccine Kool-aid the the pharmaceutical industry inside our HHS and CDC dictate. I challenge any pro-vaxxer to do real research and still be pro vaccine. Most “anti-vaxxers” were once pro vaccine – for a reason.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        The one thing not mentioned so far are the evolving variants and they can re-infect those who already had a different variant COVID.

        And then that can further spread to others.

        It’s a big concern with scientists right now.

        And what I suspect with Universities, is that they want to FULLY re-open for the entire campus experience from dorms to dining halls, to sports, etc. and so they want to insure there are not new outbreaks that would shut them down again – LIKE WE HAVE already seen in other institutions and countries.

        One can fault them for their judgements – legitimately so – but it is THEIR CALL and no they don’t have to explain all their internal discussions.

        This walks and talks like anti-vaxxing…to me…and if everyone did this where would we be right now if millions of us had not got vaccinated?

        Colleges would still be closed had most of us not gotten vaccinated. The only reason they can re-open is because enough of us DID get vaccinated.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        My daughter is a pediatrician and has done extensive reading on vaccines. She is adamantly in favor of vaccinations. She has had the COVID vaccination, her husband has had it, and both her sons (ages 14 and 17) have had it. That is good enough for me.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          And I’m good for that being your and their decisions. But I didn’t try to make it for you!

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          There is a stark difference between being in favor of vaccines and getting them and forcing people to get them.

  13. I wouldn’t pay $5 for an education from a University run in this manner. What are they pushing in this vaccine that is so important, surely not a cure to a disease that is basically harmless to healthy teenagers. They are forcing ‘the jab’ on the public for undisclosed reasons. Even a FOIA request can’t pry their reasoning loose, make that $0.00

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I doubt they’d even waitlist you.

      1. Nor would I ask them to, or did you miss the point?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think something like 300 colleges have done this

      I suspect most want to FULLY OPEN – back to normal, everything in person, campus – dorms, food, class, library,sports,etc.. and this assures it.

      1. I agree with the motives but forcing immune or low risk individuals to be injected with an emergency use product with no long term studies to assure them they won’t end up with a third eye ~or worse~ seems at least moderately authoritarian and hubristic.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No. It’s their requirements and you can decide you don’t want to do it. You are not guaranteed the right to attend no matter what.

          I don’t think the science rules out those who were infected , not getting reinfected with one of the variants. Much like colds. You get one then you can get another even though you have antibodies for the first one – and then you can spread it to others.

          Colleges also have older students, grad students, adjuncts, etc… easier to have one rule for all.

          People can certainly disagree and do – but it’s not unreasonable for them to have such policies, IMHO. You’re never going to please everyone these days for sure.

          1. Let’s see if Dr. Fauci finances the variants, I’ll get back to you.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            right. We call that statement a “tell”.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I agree with you about obtaining the documents and empathize with your frustration about your FOIA request being blocked.

      I think the university wrongly invoked the working papers exemption. The Freedom of Information Advisory Council has said that once an action has been taken, the working papers are no longer exempted.

      In your case, the action has been taken; vaccinations have been mandated. I would push the university on this. Threaten to appeal to the Freedom of Information Advisory Council (a state agency) and the Virginia Coalition for Open Government ( a non-profit) If the university does relent and agree to give you the documents, be prepared for a big bill. An agency is authorized to assess a requestor for the costs of preparing and copying the documents. That is the other obstacle agencies put up to discourage FOIA requests.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Thank you. I will be requesting again, and I am new to the FOIA game, so I was not aware of the official action qualification, which would seem Rector Murray’s communication to me proved as the official action. And, yeah, I was expecting the $ play… We’ll see. I just want to know why her being vaccinated is superior to natural immunity. I don’t think it is or can be, but maybe it can. Let me see.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I think UVA is looking at medical information and other and from that will make THEIR judgement. It does not mean that their judgement is necessarily correct in the eyes of others, It just means they did their process and ended up with a judgement that not everyone might agree with.

          This happens all the time on controversial issues, There are not decisions that can be “proven” to be “correct”.

          It would be like FOIAing VDOT to “prove” that their selected path of a new road was “correct”. No. It’s their judgement after they looked at the various factors and that judgement will still be considered wrong by those whose own properties were taken for the new road, etc…

          NEPA does not require “correct” decisions – they only require that VDOT collected information and “considered” it.

          Same deal with UVA and their decision process.

          And yes, I’d say this no matter the politics… The govt entities have to be free to have free discussion to arrive at decisions and to not have those opposed to endlessly argue about how they disagree with the decision process.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Well, Larry. When you become one on the enemy list, which all people will eventually, you can read this and regret your absolute trust in the benevolence and decision making of governments…

            First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a socialist.
            Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a trade unionist.
            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Jew.
            Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

            Glad you devolved into arguing for Louis XIV’s absolute right of kings and no longer wanted to try the science route…

            Meanwhile, no matter what any of you say, I want to see the documents. Now, please leave me alone.

            Is it really THAT scary that some dude disagrees with you?

            Do we need to hunt down the Christian Scientists? The Amish? Danger, danger, everywhere – we’re all gonna die of the COVID!

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            See, you were this way prior to this issue, correct?

            I’m just trying to figure out where you have been on these issues all along.

            You’re not really some apolitical guy who suddenly got politicized by this UVA thing, right?

            The Louis XIV stuff was your view long before now, right?

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – please get a life. I don’t agree with you. I don’t agree with UVA. And it is my God given right to think for myself.
            The UVA decision is wrong. I can prove it. Show me the papers and let’s pursue truth.
            Why do you have to figure me out first? Is that your decision making? Is he a friend or foe?
            No, I’m a free American. And I am not going to submit to people telling me I’m crazy. The more they do that, the more I suspect I am right. In fact, there was a recent study about vaccine resistance in Germany. They found, unexpectedly (!), that resistance declined when mandates were removed. The US and UVA and all the other hellhole Marxist schools might want to try that.
            Now, I am done answering you. I have rights and I am exercising them. You haven’t rebutted any science or law I have cited. We disagree. Deal with it.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Just trying to understand if you were already this way before the UVA thing.

            You can admit that, right?

            UVA did what 300 other schools also did, right? And you think they are all wrong and made wrong decisions, correct?

            Other countries require vaccinations to travel to them, right?

            Employers are requiring them also,right?

            Cruise ships require them if they are allowed.

            etc, etc, etc… are they all wrong?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Upon reading the link, it appears that the City Manager refused to release a commissioned study to a Council-Member and that’s pretty different than this issue, a horse of a different color in my view.

        So I would ask, in general, if ANY working paper of ANY Govt body is subject to this rule.

        I cannot imagine this to be the case,

        Here’s the Va Code:

        Take your own area of Corrections. Would you think ALL working papers would be subject to FOIA after decisions made?

        How about the Governor’s office? Any/all working papers subject to FOIA after decisions?

        Just about any govt body dealing with contentious issues would be subject to having any/all internal conversations obtained by folks politically opposed and used against the body?

        I am all for Open Govt. I’ve done FOIAs myself, fought tooth and nail with a Va Agency, but from a practical perspective, shouldn’t some internal discussions be protected?

        Seems like otherwise, such discussions would not take place or would but illegally and/or the process of getting to a policy – harmed/stunted.

        If this is true, I will submit a mea culpa, but I’m pretty skeptical because, if true, any body dealing with tough or controversial issues would be loath to actually discuss it such that any record of it could be FOIAed and yes, I’d have the same view regardless of the political party in power.

  14. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Well on the upside, UVA has clinched a seed in the College World Series. Good luck fellas!

  15. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    And Cleveland Clinic is a bunch of bozos. I mean…Cleveland! Come on.
    What do they know that Jim Ryan and BOV don’t already know, just from Jim’s “deliberative” papers? That I can’t see!

  16. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I’m right. Deal with it. Give me the documents and let’s pursue truth.
    I had to paste this from the Wall Street Journal.
    But only crackpots think like me… NOT!

    University Vaccine Mandates Violate Medical Ethics
    College students aren’t guinea pigs.
    By Aaron Kheriaty and Gerard V. Bradley
    June 14, 2021 12:47 pm ET

    Some 450 U.S. colleges and universities—including our institutions—have announced policies mandating that all students be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 before the fall semester, with some requiring vaccination now for the summer term. Schools have for decades required vaccination against infectious diseases, but these mandates are unprecedented—and unethical. Never before have colleges insisted that students or employees receive an experimental vaccine as a condition of attendance or employment.
    Even soldiers, whose rights are constrained when they join the service, aren’t being compelled to take a Covid vaccine. In a case involving a vaccine against anthrax, a federal district judge held in 2004 that “the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs” absent informed consent or a presidential waiver of service members’ legal protections. The following year the judge held that an emergency-use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration was insufficient to meet the legal test.
    The FDA has issued such authorizations for three Covid vaccines, but it hasn’t fully approved any of them. Students at Notre Dame (for example) resume classes on Aug. 23, and freshmen arrive on campus Aug. 18. The Pfizer vaccine—first in line for approval—requires three weeks before the booster shot, so it would have to be approved by July 28 for students to meet the school’s deadline without making themselves experimental subjects. Pfizer applied to the FDA May 7 for “priority review,” a process that usually takes six months.
    Universities might counter that—as with elementary schools requiring pediatric vaccinations—immunization is for students’ own good. But children can be at significant medical risks from the illnesses that we vaccinate them against, particularly when community vaccination rates are low. Not so with Covid. For those under 30, the risks of serious morbidity and mortality are close to zero. By contrast, early indications from passive surveillance systems (which call for follow-up investigation) and a June 10 review by the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee indicated an excess risk for heart inflammation, especially in men 30 and younger.
    Colleges’ vaccine mandates also ignore the huge number of students—thousands of them at Notre Dame—who have already recovered from Covid infection, and who thus possess natural immunity, which studies have suggested is more robust and durable than vaccine immunity. While vaccinating Covid-recovered patients might produce an antibody uptick, there is no epidemiological evidence that this improves relevant clinical outcomes like reinfection or transmissibility. Previous infection can easily be verified with the university’s own records of testing throughout the past school year, a positive viral test from another provider or an antibody test, which would prove either natural immunity or vaccination.
    Forced vaccinations would also commandeer populations that were deliberately excluded from clinical trials, thus subjecting them to novel experimental risks. This includes not only patients who’ve recovered from Covid, but pregnant and breast-feeding women as well.
    These coercive mandates violate basic principles of medical ethics. Even if the vaccines receive full FDA approval, no sensible understanding of herd immunity can justify forcing vaccinations on healthy young adults who are at minimal risk of hospitalization or death from Covid, especially those who already had Covid. We don’t immunize children against diseases that primarily harm the elderly in hope of reducing transmission risks for the elderly. That would use the recipients as a means to another end, which is unethical.
    Consider the analogy of nontherapeutic research, from which the research subject doesn’t stand to benefit directly. The central canon of medical ethics in this situation is the free and informed consent of the research subject, as articulated in the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent is likewise required for medical decisions in all adults of sound mind. This is arguably the most deeply rooted doctrine in contemporary medical ethics.
    A person may freely choose to accept medical risks for the benefit of others, as when one donates a kidney for transplant. But there is no moral duty to do so. This is why we don’t harvest organs without consent, even if doing so would save many lives. Those who make such sacrifices for others must truly be volunteers, not conscripts drafted by college administrators.
    University leaders might claim that vaccine mandates are necessary to make faculty, staff and students “feel safe” enough to reopen. That’s specious. Requiring the naturally immune to be vaccinated doesn’t make anyone actually safer. It is wrong to risk harming healthy people so that college can peddle a psychological placebo to those who don’t care enough to consider basic scientific facts.
    We must maintain our integrity under pressure. It is precisely in dire situations, such as wars or pandemics, that we are most sorely tempted to abandon ethical principles. Authorities rushing to implement mandatory vaccination protocols are ignoring available scientific data, basic principles of immunology and elementary norms. Even if some sincerely think that these regimes are needed to open safely, that belief neither makes it so nor justifies coercive policies that steamroll fundamental liberties.
    Dr. Kheriaty is a professor of psychiatry and director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of California, Irvine. Mr. Bradley is a law professor at Notre Dame.

  17. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    Former VP Pfizer warns against the covid vaccine – children 50x more likely to die from the vaccine

Leave a Reply