A group of five university professors and one executive college director co-authored a paper arguing that more than 500 colleges with vaccine mandates are creating a dangerous and "unethical" situation for students.
"We think that these mandates are unethical," the authors wrote in The Federalist, "chiefly because they indiscriminately require administering an experimental biological agent in the setting of a clinical investigation to a population that is at greater risk of harm from the drug than from COVID."
"Our advice to schools that have not yet adopted vaccine mandates is: don't," they added.
The authors warned that universities with vaccine mandates must include "sensible, medically sound policies for granting medical exemptions."
The authors stated that the medical mandates hold four crucial problems in their professional and medical or professional opinions.
"First, none of the schools whose published criteria we have examined include the most elementary medical ground of all: natural immunity from a previous COVID infection."
Second, the CDC is not a medical institution. "Cornell [University] said in support of its resolve to vaccinate immune students that 'the CDC has recommended that COVID-19 vaccine be offered regardless of a prior COVID-19 infection.' Cornell's claim illustrates a second crucial mistake made by many schools, namely, relying upon the Centers for Disease Control's guidelines as if they constitute medical advice applicable in every case. They do not."
"The University of Maryland's website provides an illustration of the third crucial mistake, an error that includes but goes beyond the second. This third mistake is not just about following this or that CDC ' recommendation' as it if it constitutes sound individualized medical advice. It is going all-in on the mistaken conception of the CDC as a super-doctor."
According to the University of Maryland, the college would limit medical exemptions that contradict the CDC.
The fourth problem with the vaccine mandates is a Catch-22 whereby a student, as they put it, would "put yourself in danger," i.e., take the vaccine, "to find if you're in danger," i.e., come out with some adverse reaction.
"Fourth and finally," the authors state, "several published rubrics include a limitation that is eminently sound in itself, but which is, in an important way, quite dangerous. It is that exemptions are available where there is 'a documented anaphylactic allergic reaction or other severe adverse reaction to any COVID-19 vaccine—e.g., cardiovascular changes, respiratory distress, or history of treatment with epinephrine or emergency medical attention to control symptoms."
The authors concluded that the harm from taking the vaccine for a population that generally can bolster natural immunity outweighs the risk of taking it.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.