UC Covid Shot Mandate Suit Moving Forward

On the morning of October 4, 2021, anesthesiologist Dr. Christopher Rake went to work at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center.  Within hours, he was gruffly frog marched by security out of the hospital.

His crime?  Not wanting to get the covid shot.

Rake is now one of six main plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University of California system, a suit that the UC system tried – but failed – to get thrown out in January.

“This is one of the most important covid-related cases in the country,” said attorney Warner Mendenhall.  ‘We are striking at the very heart of pandemic insanity.”

At the core of the case are issues being able to decide what happens to one’s own body, free speech, employment retaliation, medical ethics, government overreach, and the very idea of “informed consent” codified in California law after the Nazi Doctors trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

The UC system – which citing pending litigation, declined to comment for this story – imposed a “vaccine” (the covid shot was not a vaccine, in fact) mandate in its employees in the summer of 2021.  The claim was made that the shot was necessary for all staff – especially medical staff – to help stop the spread of the virus.  The shot, as is widely known now (and was quietly at least suspected then) does not prevent a person from either getting or giving covid to someone else.

No matter – the UC system, upon pain of firing – demanded everyone get the shot. Many disagreed and many lost their livelihoods because of their decision to pass on having an experimental drug with a limited testing history that would not “keep their community safe” injected into their body.

Rake’s dismissal was rather public and he recorded the event for what became a “viral” video:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=365277415338800 

His co-plaintiffs have similar stories. In order to go back to work, nurse Angela Wulbrecht got the shot and within 12 minutes “she began to suffer severe, debilitating symptoms, including a hypertensive crisis, inability to breathe, uncontrollable shaking, numbness, and tachycardia.”

The UC system said it would investigate but didn’t.

Dr. Jan Maisel had a seriously disabling reaction to her first shot but was told to get a second and had her hospital privileges briefly revoked when she refused.

Dr. Michael Palladino had been treating patients who had had adverse reactions to the shot and, when he was mandated to get the shot he understandably declined. He was fired.

The lawsuit is clear in its intent – hold accountable the UC system for its blatant violations of established international medical norms and the sacrosanct position of the right to privacy in the California constitution (the state’s goes further than the national constitution):

“In this action, plaintiffs claim that application of the Policy to them and all similarly situated individuals constituted unlawful invasions of inalienable rights to privacy and bodily autonomy – including the right to make an informed decision to decline the Covid injection.

The University’s invasions of this privacy right was compounded by its withholding of information known to it about the true risks and lack of benefit of the Covid vaccines, information the University suppressed in order to protect its own financial interests and complicity in the damage caused by its mass Covid vaccination campaign.”

As Mendenhall notes, the UC system is the largest academic recipient of National Institutes of Health research dollars, much of which was controlled by Anthony Fauci and other bureaucrats like Dr. Francis Collins who were pushing mandates and other draconian measures during the pandemic.

The suit also states that the UC system cannot hide behind the “we didn’t know – we we’re doing our best” argument so many pandemicists have been trotting out of late to cleanse themselves of guilt.  The system literally has all of the direct employee health information it needs to determine the true impacts of the shots.

“Actual data in the possession or control of the University demonstrated that “injected” employees, compared to “non-injected” employees, were far more likely to get sick, require medical leave and/or die suddenly,” the suit claims.  “On this basis, the University could not show that it had a genuine justification based on actual belief and reasonable basis for the medical inquiries and examinations made or imposed by the Policy.”

Continuing: 

“As part of the experimental investigation into the modRNA technology, the University conducts formal and informal analyses of the medical health data in its possession in relation to patient population and vaccinated status, demonstrating to the University that the Covid injections correlate with serious health outcomes sufficient to establish causation. This includes health data showing that individuals who received the injections suffer statistically significant higher rates of heart and blood disorders (including myocarditis, pericarditis, pleural effusion and congestive heart failure), autoimmune diseases (including rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, encephalitis, neuropathy and demyelination), immune dysfunction and cancers, infertility in men and women and serious detriment to women’s health, and prion and prion-like diseases (such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease). 

The University of California possesses the very information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the injections, but it fails to reveal or report this information to employees or the general public.”

But there was money to be made, and Mendenhall stressed how much is at stake for the UC system and its “vaccine” programs.

“The University is also committed to the development of future modRNA therapies, including grant funds from defense agencies to conduct research on biomedical warfare, and edible “vaccinations” bio-engineered into lettuce. These commitments carry particular risks of impacting persons, by subjecting them to therapies without their informed consent and a host of other ethical problems. After allowing itself to be infected by the influence of money, the University is conflicted, unable to fill its role of developing medical technology to benefit public health,” reads the suit.

Employees, claims the suit, were denied their free speech rights, were improperly made to submit to an act that was not job related, and were subjected to experimental treatment without their informed consent, a direct violation of the “Nuremberg Laws.”

With the suit now cleared to move forward, the discovery phase is next and the UC system may have more to hide than just covid bad acts.  

“We are going to do a comprehensive, deep dive discovery,” said Mendenhall, a discovery that could turn up a pattern of unpleasant facts like the system’s involvement in the terrifyingly popular “eugenics” campaign of the early 20^th century and the more recent baby blood pressure experiments from the 1960s:

“Some of the historic medical atrocities were knowingly committed by the University of California. For example, in 1963, the University of California Department of Pediatrics used 113 newborns ranging in age from one hour to three days old in a series of experiments involving blood pressure and blood flow.

In one study, doctors insert a catheter through the newborns’ umbilical arteries and into their aortas and then immerse the newborns’ feet in ice water while recording aortic pressure. In another experiment, doctors strapped 50 newborns to a circumcision board, tilted the table so that all the blood rushed to their heads and then measured their blood pressure.”

While not directly covid/pandemic related, Mendenhall hopes to show a systematic pattern of past unethical behavior that helped shape the choice made during the pandemic.

The UC system could be in trouble, as a number of “vaccine mandate” lawsuits across the country have already found that they were improper, ordering that the fired employees be hired back or otherwise compensated.

And there is the issue of the other possible reason so many government agencies and private companies instituted mandates – they may very well have also been a test of general employee compliance.  In other words, any organization can weed out the potential future “troublemakers” – i.e. independent thinkers –  by seeing who will and will not go along with said mandate.

The exact timeline of the suit going forward is not yet known and while there are potentially millions of dollars in damages at stake, Mendenhall said the plaintiffs are not in it for the money.

“These are moral ethical health care providers,” said Mendenhall.  “They are strong willed people whose primary purpose is to make the UC system do the right thing by the people of California.”

The entire suit can be found here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24375582-20230714-sac