Rutgers University violates state, federal and international law by mandating experimental Covid vaccines

Rutgers University was one of the first higher-learning institutions to violate federal law and mandate experimental vaccines for all students. Rutgers announced that all students who enroll for the 2021 fall semester will have to take the new covid jabs and show proof of vaccination to get in the doors. Rutger’s vaccination push is violating state law, federal law, and an international treaty. Robert F. Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense was quick to notify Rutgers of these violations.

University officials cannot legally force students to inject experimental vaccines as a precondition to enrollment. This violates a student’s medical privacy, their body autonomy, and essentially makes the student a piece of property, owned and controlled by the university.

Federal law prohibits Emergency Use Authorization vaccines from becoming mandatory

Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) prohibits any authority from mandating an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccine. The new covid vaccines were only given emergency use authorization and were never fully approved by the FDA. Any authority that recommends an EUA vaccine must inform the potential vaccine recipient “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.”

This is the basic tenet of informed consent, a principle of human rights that university officials obviously could not care less about. Still, the individual has a right to refuse an EUA product because these products are classified as experimental. Historically, when people are forced to participate in a medical experiment, injuries result, and those injuries are often covered up to protect authorities. Because vaccine makers are legally indemnified when their products harm people, vaccine mandates are ripe for abuse and mass injury, with no recourse.

State law allows for medical and religious exemptions to vaccination

Rutgers mandatory vaccine push also violates state laws that guarantee medical and religious exemptions to vaccination. Individuals are not an inherent source of infection, nor are they an innate biological threat to others in their school and community. Vaccination is a belief system, a promise of disease prevention, but it’s not guaranteed immunity nor is it 100 percent safe. Some people believe it is better that their whole immune system is exposed to its environment and do not want to inject toxic ingredients into their body. This is their personal religious belief, and it must be honored by all authorities. Even when the FDA gives full approval to these risky vaccine experiments, students will be able to file for a medical or religious exemption. The universities must make this part of the state law clear: Every person has a choice to vaccinate, no matter what.

Rutger’s push for mandatory vaccines violates informed consent, Nuremberg Code

Finally, university officials are violating an international treaty signed in the aftermath of the doctors trial after World War II. “Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential,’” Kennedy wrote, informing Rutger’s officials of their international human rights violations and legal obligations. As part of informed consent, any student who is coerced to take the vaccines should be screened beforehand, to ensure they do not have an active infection. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm also wrote to Rutgers and informed them that people who have already been infected with covid or are currently infected with covid are at risk of severe injury and death if they take the vaccines.

“While I fully agree with your policy of maximal immunity for all students and faculty attending in-person on the Rutgers campuses, you must also remain 100% cognizant of a potential danger of indiscriminate vaccination to some of your students. This potential danger is not only a safety risk, it would also pose a risk of liability to your university,” Noorchashm wrote.

The vaccine causes a violent immune reaction in people who have already had or currently have an infection. Students who don’t want to take this risk should be able to make a conscientious medical decision, and not be forced into a risky situation, especially when a hypothetical covid infection presents minuscule risk and longer immunity benefits for the young and healthy population.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

USCode.House.gov

NaturalNews.com

Media.org

NaturalNews.com