UPDATE: NO JAB, NO COLLEGE

As the Trends Journal has been reporting, colleges across the U.S. will not allow young students to take in-person classes unless they can prove they are fully vaccinated from the COVID-19 virus.

On 21 April, the two public university systems in California announced they will require all returning students to be vaccinated, which could impact 800,000 students in the California State University and University of California systems.

The two systems announced Thursday that all faculty and staff on school property will be required to prove they’ve been vaccinated. We reported in the 30 March article, NO JAB, NO COLLEGE,” that Rutgers in New Jersey was one of the first schools to announce the requirement.

“Adding COVID-19 vaccination to our student immunization requirements will help provide a safer and more robust college experience for our students,” Jonathan Holloway, the president of Rutgers, told CNBC.

More than 30 colleges in the U.S. will require vaccines for students and faculty. Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, Wesleyan, and Bowdoin are some of the schools that have already put the requirement in place.

Politico reported the requirement is contingent on full U.S. FDA approval. The report pointed out it is unclear when that approval will occur. The U.S. has approved three jabs: Pfizer; Moderna; and Johnson & Johnson, which is a single shot.

Joseph Castro, the CSU chancellor, said in a statement that the state has been a “leader in the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, and Californians receiving a vaccine has led to significantly reducing the transmission of COVID-19 in our state.”

“Continued vigilance will further mitigate the spread of the disease that has radically altered our lives over the past year. We will continue to strongly encourage all members of our respective University communities to receive a COVID-19 vaccination as soon as it is available to them,” he said.

On Friday, Boston College and Maryland’s state university system announced it will require all students, faculty, and staff to get the COVID Jab before they return to campuses in the fall.

TREND FORECAST: To date, over 30 U.S. colleges have enforced the No Jab/No School mandate. We forecast this number will sharply increase as the media and politicians will continue to report on “surging COVID cases” each year. And, the mainstream message to young students, with a recovery rate of 99.997 percent, will be the only way to stop the deadly virus – that kills mostly the elderly and those suffering from 2.6 preexisting chronic conditions – is to get vaccinated. 

TRENDPOST: Some colleges have been reluctant to require COVID-19 vaccines for students because they are unsure about the legality of requiring otherwise young, healthy students to take vaccines that are being used on an emergency authorization.

About 30 percent of U.S. adults do not want to receive the vaccination. Legal scholars have also said there is a grey area about whether or not a vaccine with emergency use authorization can be mandated at institutions of higher learning.

Statnews.com reported in February that the “abbreviated timelines” of the emergency use authorization “means there is much the FDA does not know about these products.”

The report pointed to Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, who was asked her thoughts on if the vaccine could be mandatory.

“Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”

Toni Molle, a California State University spokeswoman, told the Associated Press that the university’s formal mandate will depend on when the FDA gives full authorization to the vaccines.

“We are announcing now so that students and employees have time to receive a vaccination” by fall, she said.


Support the Trends Journal with these great products


3 Comments
  1. lvblasiotti 1 year ago

    WHAT IS THE NUREMBERG CODE?
    When World War II ended in 1945, the victorious Allied powers enacted the International Military Tribunal on November 19th, 1945. As part of the Tribunal, a series of trials were held against major war criminals and Nazi sympathizers holding leadership positions in political, military, and economic areas. The first trial conducted under the Nuremberg Military Tribunals in 1947 became known as The Doctors’ Trial, in which 23 physicians from the German Nazi Party were tried for crimes against humanity for the atrocious experiments they carried out on unwilling prisoners of war. Many of the grotesque medical experiments took place at the Auschwitz concentration camp, where Jewish prisoners were tattooed with dehumanizing numbers onto their arms; numbers that would later be used to identify their bodies after death.
    The Doctors’ Trial is officially titled “The United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.,” and it was conducted at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany. The trial was conducted here because this was one of the few largely undamaged buildings that remained intact from extensive Allied bombing during the war. It is also said to have been symbolically chosen because it was the ceremonial birthplace of the Nazi Party. Of the 23 defendants, 16 were found guilty, of which seven received death sentences and nine received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. The other 7 defendants were acquitted.
    The verdict also resulted in the creation of the Nuremberg Code, a set of ten ethical principles for human experimentation.
    The Nuremberg Code (1947)
    Permissible Medical Experiments
    The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally.The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
    1.The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration,and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
    The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is
    a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
    2.The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
    3.The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and aknowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
    4.The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
    5.No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
    6.The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
    7.Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
    8.The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
    9.During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
    10.During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

  2. lvblasiotti 1 year ago

    Dr. Stella Grace Immanuel, Freedom Fighter & Leader of the HCQ Protocol Saving Lives
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/IDy0DIYoD413/

  3. knelson 1 year ago

    This is wonderful! Now students and parents won’t have to waste their hard earned
    money on useless college degrees (except for a few fields like technology, medicine, or
    education). Its more profitable and less time consuming [nowadays] to get vocational
    training or go into the military. Good luck to the liberal arts majors at finding a job with their
    “woke” degrees!

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

©2022 The Trends Journal

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?