“I Will Not Wear a Mask”: New Mexico Professor Placed on Leave After Refusing To Take Vaccine or Wear Mask

A New Mexico State University professor is the latest professor to pledge to challenge COVID mandates after a strident anti-vaccine lecture that contained comparisons to the Nazis and concentration camps. Business law Professor David Clements had just received the teaching excellence award but could not attend the ceremony over his refusal to wear a mask. The video shows students leaving the lecture, which I felt was inappropriate and over-the-top for making this point. Professor Clements has every right to challenge the mandate but I was astonished by the length and intensity of this lecture that became a diatribe before the students who came for a business law class.  Clements was later put on paid administrative leave.Professor Clements insisted that students could or could not wear masks based on their own judgments. However, he would not do so.  He also has refused to take the vaccine and went through what he considered the countervailing data on value of vaccines. At George Washington University, my students must wear masks but the faculty can teach without masks if they have six feet of separation. The same rule applies at NMSU, which requires “face coverings at all indoor NMSU system locations and offices around the state when it is not possible to maintain six feet between individuals. Those who are unvaccinated must wear a mask at all times when indoors.”Thus, as an unvaccinated person, Clements must wear a mask at all times.Such rules have been and are likely to be upheld by the courts.  They have the support of the CDC and many health experts. Some like Clements disagree but that is insufficient basis for courts in establishing a reasonable basis for mandates. Notably, unlike other professors who object due to their having natural immunities from prior cases of the virus, Clements is rejecting the vaccine due to what he views as objective countervailing data.  He is also not claiming a religious exemption.

As many on this blog know, I have an expansive view free speech and academic freedom, including (as in a recent column) some statements in classes that some students would consider insulting or offensive. I have the view of faculty discussing mandates. However, universities have a right to impose what they consider to be reasonable and necessary health measures.  A professor should be protected in challenging the basis for the rule while nevertheless complying with the rule. This is his class but it is the university’s classroom.

I also think that this lecture was excessive in its rhetoric and its length. I think a more appropriate approach would have been to state his position more concisely while referring to written statements posted on a blog or some other source if students want to understand better why he opposes the mandate.

However, this type of categorical refusal to comply with the school rule is unlikely to be supported in court.  Even natural antibody claims are facing difficult receptions in the court.

Professor Clements clearly cares deeply about teaching and his students. I disagree with him on the vaccine topic. I was eager to take the vaccine and I am tested every two weeks at GWU. However, this is an important debate to have on campuses but there are few opportunities for such exchanges. Indeed, it is outrageous that this video may be banned by social media, which will not allow their users to hear such opposing views. I prefer such points to be made in a forum rather than a class where students signed up to learn a specific subject.

It is also important to recognize that the university also cares for students and has come to an opposing conclusion on the public health requirements for a safe school. Courts uniformly require compliance with such rules. I would however prefer for schools to allow faculty like Clements to teach virtually.

The controversy does raise an interesting issue. If Clements had a religious claim, he would presumably be given an exemption in most businesses. However, if you have philosophical or scientific objection, it is not considered a basis for an exemption. (I could not find whether the university allows exemptions for virtual classes.). Clements clearly has deep-seated objections to the vaccine, but they are science rather than religious based.

In the end, the lecture is unlikely to help his case with the court. A judge is likely to view the class as supporting the university in raising the logistical problems of having multiple faculty take the same stance in classes with students walking out and others objecting to the choice of not taking the course or being taught by an unvaccinated, unmasked professor.

 

 

260 thoughts on ““I Will Not Wear a Mask”: New Mexico Professor Placed on Leave After Refusing To Take Vaccine or Wear Mask”

        1. I feel sorry for the BB writers.

          How do you satirize a bumbling, shuffling, buffoonish “president,” whose strings are pulled by a committee of Geppettos? (HT: You, I think.)

          1. Yeah, it was I who used Geppetto a few weeks ago. Since then I have seen it picked up elsewhere. That or someone else thought of it because it fits so well with President Pinocchio…

            Thanks.

  1. Many, high percent, of those who won’t vaccinate will die of covid. Some will die from smoking. 480,000 Somers died last year. It gets ignored by the media.

    1. Lung cancer is not a communicable disease.

      It affects lots of people, so do heart attacks, but they’re not really analogous as health concerns.

      1. T is analogous when it comes to government money spent to treat medicare and medicaid patients who will not modify eating/drinking/ drug use habits that lead to those diseases.

        1. “government money spent to treat medicare and medicaid patients”

          ***
          Not government money; our money withheld from pay under promises to use it to provide care. Now they want to use it for political blackmail.

    2. The British data indicates that people… persons who are not vaccinated (and not immune) are at greater risk of infection, but the vaccinated are at greater risk of death. Masks offer limited protection (e.g. source control) to prevent droplet spread when following strict protocol, but viable legal indemnity and em-pathetic consensus as a placebo. Vulnerable cohorts should be physically isolated (e.g. close planned parent/hood practices and facilities, mitigate the spread of social contagion driving herd stampedes), full respirators (or bubbles) (trillion dollar infrastructure?) to mitigate forward-looking risk. This is not comparable to sex where there is also no mystery and “burdens” are accepted by choice.

  2. General ‘Benedict’ Milley has admitted to the calls to China.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9994381/Milley-confirms-DID-calls-China-says-held-coordination-DoD.html

    He tries to spin of course, but he does say the DoD was involved. Is that why Secretary Austin is refusing to appear before Congress?

    When the WH leaked that he did make the calls and that witnesses will testify to it, Milley probably saw his goose was about to be cooked and he is trying to get away from the oven.

    The leftist trolls taunted ‘IF’ Milley made the calls, implying that the story was probably false. I responded that I haven’t seen Milley’s denial yet. Looks now as if there won’t be a denial but a limited hang out.

    One wonders if these calls had anything to do with leaving billions of dollars worth of military equipment behind for the Chinese to reverse engineer. Nobody is stupid enough to do that on purpose without an awful ulterior motive.

    He should be in prison, at the least.

    1. Jennifer Griffin, Fox News: “There were 15 people on the video teleconference calls, including a representative of the State Dept and the read out and notes from Milley’s two calls with his Chinese counterpart were shared with the IC and the Interagency.”

      Milley was already scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the 28th, so he can be asked about it under oath then, but if you think that all the people who were listening to the call in real time and all the people in the Intelligence Community who reviewed the call after have been silent for months about him doing something treasonous, you’ve got TDS.

    2. Imagine if General Eisenhower called Hitler to say he didn’t really trust Churchill so he would give Hitler a heads up a few days before the D  Day landings.  That could be Milley if this pans out.

    3. China is the Enemy.
      _______________

      Article 3, Section 3

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

      1. China is an asversary. We are not in a period of declared war. Milley’s conduct was not treason, but it is likely to have been an Article 94 UCMJ offense, possibly both offenses under that article, with charges of Mutiny and Sedition being plausible.

        1. China released a biological weapon against the United States, and the rest of the world, in its stated campaign to achieve the irreversible dominion of global, universal communism.

          China persists in viral gain-of-function research, much the same as Germany between World Wars.

          China conducts constant military reconnaissance and strategic planning missions related to America and its allies.

          China exists to eliminate the freedom and free enterprise provided by the U.S. Constitution.

          America knew that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were the enemy before 9/11, then 9/11 happened.

          Women know they’re going to deliver a baby for nine months.

          America has known that China is the enemy for 90 years.

          The frog didn’t acknowledge that the cold water in the pot was its enemy until it was too late.

          China is the direct and mortal enemy of the United States.

  3. Turley, who obviously hasn’t taken any time to investigate the science surrounding this pandemic on his own, casually defers to the authority of the corrupt CDC in proclaiming that a university has the right to make its own rules. The problem is that those rules are based on pathetically weak science (pseudo-science, arguably) rather than being based on robust, sound science. The irony is that it seems that superstition has subjugated science in one of our most hallowed institutions: the Academe.
    This postmodern world we live in is beyond absurd: It is anti-rational, anti-empirical, and anti-human.

  4. 40,000 Americans die annually on highways.

    Quarantine cars.

    Mandate masks for cars.

    Penalize every citizen who drives a car.
    _______________________________

    Article 1, Section Wacko

    Congress shall have the dictatorial power to mandate anything it arbitrarily considers inappropriate, adverse, emotionally disturbing or otherwise insolent.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    When will China, definitively the actual liable creator and purveyor of “China Flu, 2019,” be sued for $50 trillion in a global class-action suit?

    1. Are you trying to post stupid arguments, or does it come naturally?

      Car accidents are not an airborne disease. Instead of mandating masks to reduce accidents, we mandate speed limits, car safety, seatbelts, driver’s licenses …, and we DO penalize people who speed, who run red lights, etc.

      1. Thank you for reading; it does come quite naturally.

        It would seem that death is death.

        I surmise from your brilliance that the deaths are different when they derive from comorbidities of “China Flu, 2019” rather than automobiles.

        Might I be wrong?

        1. Yes, you’d be wrong, just like cancer deaths are different. You might understand these things if you’d had people you care about die in different ways.

          More to the point, you ignore that car accidents are not infectious, whereas Covid is.

          1. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) of the Nanny State are addressing death, as they “save” Americans, nay, the world, something the Constitution does not address and leaves as the decisions of free individuals.

            Death is death undifferentiated.

            1. Apparently you don’t want to have any mandated speed limits, stop lights, driver’s licenses, … I encourage you to move to a country where you can live out your dream.

          2. Wirh your point of view it would appear that ALL cars need breathalyzer s in order to operate them just so some crealess drunk doesn’t accidentally kill someone while driving while impared. Wgere would this sort of bubble-wrapping end?

            1. Incoherently convolute much?

              Thanks for reading.

              If death from one cause is important, death from all causes is important.

              Please cite the Constitution for the provision of authority to Congress to issue mandates regarding any aspect of healthcare.

    1. “If he’s not sick, why does he have to wear a mask?”

      Because infected people can be asymptomatic but still spread the virus.

      1. Arsonists, rapists, murders can be “asymptomatic,” but still commit crimes. So lock everyone up, forever.

        “Can be” is not a substitute for evidence in a particular case.

        1. I said infected people can be asymptomatic. What disease are you suggesting that arsonists, rapists, and murderers are infected with? Arson, rape, and murder are not diseases at all, much less communicable diseases, so it’s a terrible analogy.

          Requiring someone to wear a mask is nothing like “locking everyone up, forever.” The guy is wearing clothes and is required to cover his genitals. No doubt you consider that equivalent to being locked up forever too.

          1. For those who are slow afoot (but not willfully blind):

            That man “can be” a criminal is not evidence that any particular individual is a criminal. That man “can be” sick (and asymptomatic) is not evidence that any particular individual is sick (and asymptomatic). Absent actual evidence, an individual is presumed innocent. And absent actual evidence, an individual is presumed healthy.

            “Can be” is not an incantation that transforms the healthy into the sick.

            And, thus, absent particularized evidence that an individual is sick, there’s no reason to wear a mask. (Except, of course, out of blind submission to the health care “Authorities.” Or because you live in chronic, psychological fear and trembling.)

            1. I would buy your argument if you said “infected” rather than “sick,” since the point is that an **infected** person may be asymptomatic/presymptomatic and still able to transmit the virus. Unless you test people daily, you’re not going to know about the cases where someone is infected and able to transmit the virus even though the person isn’t feeling sick, and asking people to wear masks as a precaution when they’re not testing daily is a reasonable alternative.

              This is not about “blind submission.” This is about all of us pitching in to protect the community as a whole.

                  1. Since I taught logic for some 25 years, I’m pretty comfortable with my understanding of that fallacy.

                    That you, on the other hand, can’t (or won’t see it) in your own argument, is unsurprising.

                    1. If you taught logic, then it should be easy for you to provide an actual argument with evidence that I did, in fact, use an appeal to ignorance. So far, all you’ve done is asserted it. I’ll wait for you to provide an argument with evidence. If it turns out that you’re correct, I’ll have no problem admitting my mistake. If you’re wrong, you should likewise be willing to admit your mistake.

                    2. Sam, I have been wondering where he kept finding these throwaway challenges like ‘false dichotomy’ when there isn’t one and the link he gave us in an attempt to refute you appears to be one source.

                      When he gets low on them he turns to insults to deflect.

                    3. Anon– “I’ll wait for you to provide an argument with evidence…”

                      I think you will be kept waiting. You aren’t a judge and this isn’t a court.

                      Sam has made his point.

                    4. “You aren’t a judge and this isn’t a court.”

                      It would be fun to have a Fred Gwynne-like judge on this blog. Then we could have exchanges like this:

                      “It is possible that the two yutes…”

                      “…Ah, the two what? Uh… uh, what was that word?”

                    5. “I have been wondering where he kept finding these throwaway challenges like ‘false dichotomy’ when there isn’t one”

                      I don’t “find” the “challlenges.” I am already aware of the fallacies I refer to, and when I notice one in someone’s argument, I sometimes provide a link to a description of the fallacy to help the person I’m responding to understand it. Unfortunately, you seem disinterested in learning, which may be the reason you falsely claim that I’m “finding [one] … when there isn’t one.”

                      “When he gets low on them he turns to insults to deflect.”

                      I do sometimes insult people, though I do so much less often than you do, and when I do insult, I don’t do it to deflect.

                      As for “I think you will be kept waiting,” it may well be that Sam is unwilling to actually substantiate his claim with an argument and evidence. If so, then all he’s done is make an unsubstantiated claim, and his unwillingness to substantiate it when requested will reflect on him, not me.

                    6. Sam : “It is possible that the two yutes…”

                      “…Ah, the two what? Uh… uh, what was that word?”

                      ***

                      Sam, I loved that movie, funny and the law wasn’t bad. I have seen clips used in continuing education seminars.

                    7. Anon– “it may well be that Sam is unwilling to actually substantiate his claim with an argument and…”
                      ***
                      Or it may be that Sam, like many of us, is unwilling to waste much time on you.

                      Submit your evidence that you aren’t a waste of time and I will judge whether you have met the burden.

                    8. “Submit your evidence that you aren’t a waste of time and I will judge whether you have met the burden.”

                      Your claim, your burden of proof. Unsurprising that you’d attempt to shift the burden to me, and odd that you spend so much time addressing me if you consider me a waste of time.

                    9. “. . . it may well be . . .”

                      Or it may well be that Sam learned long ago that a carrot is not open to persuasion.

                    10. “Or it may well be that Sam learned long ago that a carrot is not open to persuasion.”

                      But I’m not a carrot. As for *people* being open to persuasion, sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren’t. I generally am, and I’ve shown that I am open to persuasion by more than once noting on this very blog that I was wrong and correcting my mistake. Let me know if you’d like me to link to an example where I did that.

  5. “If Clements had a religious claim, he would presumably be given an exemption in most businesses. However, if you have philosophical or scientific objection, it is not considered a basis for an exemption.”

    Yes, the Constitution protects religious beliefs in a way that it does not protect other strongly-held beliefs. I accept that, but I don’t think that it’s wise.

    1. Religious claims are difficult to use as an exemption. Most major religious organizations don’t have an issue with vaccines. Even the Catholic Church has publicly stated vaccines are not against doctrine.

      Most likely it depends on how truly sincere those beliefs are.

      1. Which is irrelevant to my point that the Constitution preferences religious beliefs over other sincerely-held beliefs, and I disagree with giving religious beliefs that extra protection.

        1. California and Mississippi don’t have exemptions for religious beliefs. In California if I remember correctly the religious belief exemption came about because too many people were abusing it.

  6. The professor should have ended his diatribe with a statement about all “white privileged males need to be executed, BLM!”. Then they would not have been able to touch him.

  7. “ I was eager to take the vaccine and I am tested every two weeks.”

    ***

    It’s long past time that the CDC/NIH/FDA/etc., prove their case, (or not), that mask work, social distancing works & that they followed to the letter the protocols demanded allowing studies of experimental medical treatment like mRNA Gene Therapies. Where are their Randomized Studies?

    ******

    Looks easy to me to predict plenty more Darwin Award Winners in the near future

    ******

    UN Graph Shows Vaccinated Dying En Masse

    99,871 views

    Sep 14, 2021
    90
    Share
    Download
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Alex Jones breaks down the graphs from around the world proving the vaccinated are the ones dying en masse.

    https://banned.video/watch?id=61412df0ab92022af981c529

    1. Alex Jones is a nut. He insisted that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged. That you would ever turn to him for information means that you’re a terrible judge of the facts.

        1. LOL that you think I’m going to waste my time finding and copying and pasting all of the garbage Jones has said, especially when “Jones and InfoWars have already been hit with more than $150,000 in court-ordered sanctions for failing to meet their discovery commitments” (statesman.com/story/news/2021/09/01/sandy-hook-parents-texas-judge-sanction-alex-jones-infowars/5662371001/). He’s now admitted that the Sandy Hook shooting was real, video of him here: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/18289271/alex-jones-psychosis-conspiracies-sandy-hook-hoax

          Jones is a nut. I feel sorry for you and anyone else who believes his conspiracy garbage.

  8. “This is his class but it is the university’s classroom.”.

    It might be thus…….but it is his body….and as per Abortion arguments…..should be his decision as to what means he uses to protect himself from infection.

    If he was maintaining that magical six foot social distancing thing….then what danger is he to his students….beyond providing his views re conduct within HIS Classroom…..as the University affords Professors the ability to control conduct and activities within their assigned classrooms.

    He is is getting hammered for his opposing view point not just his refusal to submit to mask, testing, and vaccination mandates being imposed upon him by the University.

    Had he been a Leftist saying exactly the same thing during the Trump Administration….he would have been hailed a Hero by the University and other Leftists.

    Even the Professor Turley avoids due consideration of the merits of the other Professor’s argument and deigns to ignore the science that shows how ineffective masks and even vaccination are in stopping the spread of Covid….and its many variants.

    These wahallas are all political….not scientific.

    In order to have free speech we must have freedom…..a point even Professor Turley seems to miss.

    Quoting from Merriam:

    Definition of freedom
    1 : the quality or state of being free: such as
    a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
    b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
    c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

    Perhaps if the politicians and university management proved the science behind the mandates was valid and appropriate there would be far less resistance to the mandates.

    However…..we all know that has not been done.

    Thus…I see those standing up against the Mandates to be righteous and showing their willingness to confront the ambiguity of the science used by those inflicting these mandates upon the rest of us.

    For the record….I am fully vaccinated but shall not be getting any booster shots…..and I do not wear a mask except for those few occasions there is no other practical option.

    Those were and are my choices….others in my circle of friends and acquaintances have had Covid….all were minor cases…some had been vaccinated…some had not.

    None had underlying medical conditions.

    What we all did was utilize the commonplace precautions we do when it is flu season and that virus is making its annual rounds.

    1. “it is his body….and as per Abortion arguments…..should be his decision as to what means he uses to protect himself from infection.”

      Masks are primarily intended to protect others, not the wearer. Vaccination is intended to do both. Don’t pretend that this is about protecting him rather than about protecting others.

      This is a communicable disease and has nothing to do with abortion arguments; none of his students are at risk of pregnancy by sitting in the same classroom as him.

  9. Thing is, this story is rinse and repeat, Turley. There’s a good chance we read about this professor later for getting a bad case of Covid…, just like all the ‘conservative’ radio hosts out dying recently after having ‘sworn off’ vaccination for Covid…

    What would be excellent to hear is your take on the Constitutional crisis that was Trump since it’s clear now he not only tried to pull off a right wing coup post election, but experienced an informal 25th in response. Or more like a greater informal 25th than he was already subject to from the day he entered office. Time to break it out, Jon. Can’t put on the running shoes anymore.

    eb

    1. Maybe with a bonus round about the California recall and the Repubs learning yet again the results of running woman hating, Covid neanderthals in a blue state/country. Go at it from a different perspective than ‘hey, voter suppression has a chance, everybody!!’

      eb

    2. You see the news on Milley and you think of a RIGHT WING COUP? Try again Buttercup.

      Also, do you also mock people that knowingly take a deadly drug like heroin and then OD? How about a guy that dies of diabetes after he ends up weighing 350 pounds? Do you mock smokers that die of lung cancer? Do you laugh at a 16 year old in a gang that gets shot to death? Or is it only people that (stupidly, I agree) don’t get vaccinated and then die?

      1. How could you read the news on Milley and *not* think right wing coup attempt. Because that’s what he was responding to.

        As far as the supposed mocking, that’s all you, hullbobby. Now i know from reading your screed that you do that on your own time. Nothing in what I wrote was mocking. I find it interesting that touching on the truth with trumpists averse to the truth always leads to personal attacks on motives. Then again, with you it’s not surprising.

        eb

      2. The vaccine mandate will do wonders for national unity and morale but leftists could care less about that, just another way to rub their opponents nose in it (kind of like forcing drag queen story hour into your local 1st grade class and doxxing those who complain).

        Unfortunately, we aren’t going to vaxx our way out of this down to covid zero. Lefties, contact me after you’ve had your 6th booster shot.

        I want a divorce…and it’s coming.

        antonio

            1. Ha. You think I’m bythebook. Honored though I am by the comparison, something is clearly off with your reading of syntax. Might explain your right wing gullibility. Maybe not. Who knows.

              eb

            2. And actually, the article you posted is a little out of date now, albeit the article does a good job detailing the struggles the western medical community has gone through of late in accepting masks, as opposed to the east where they’ve had fresher experience with pandemics (but also has opposed to what was SOP in the ’18 flu here in the States).

              A long term toxic effect of the trump presidency as history will show is his politicizing of Covid and his mask shaming. Rarely has a president taken such harmful steps to harm his own populace.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/masks-randomized-study-bangladesh-covid/

              eb

  10. This whole thing is political. It’s a means of imposing government restrictions on individuals. I took the shots because the data shows that someone my age with the conditions I have is less likely to be hospitalized and that’s the only reason. If I were thirty years younger I wouldn’t have taken it. The media and certain members of the medical profession are overblowing the situation. They rant about what might happen to a very small percentage of the population and ignore the other 90% who are unlikely to have more than the symptoms of a cold. The CDCs own data shows this. But politicians, the media and radical medical professionals are running with it as a means of establishing power.

  11. Professor Turley said, “ Professor Clements clearly cares deeply about teaching and his students. I disagree on the vaccines. I was eager to take the vaccine and I am tested every two weeks at GWU. ”

    Did Turley say he disagrees with the vaccine? “I disagree with the vaccine”.

    Then this, “ I was eager to take the vaccine and I am tested every two weeks.”

    “WAS eager”…? The past tense seems to imply he once considered it but didn’t take the vaccine.

    Obviously this professor at the New Mexico university is a conservative. Odd that Turley didn’t mention it given that he often labels professors as liberal when they make crazy politically correct claims.

    1. Obviously this professor at the New Mexico university is a conservative. Odd that Turley didn’t mention it given that he often labels professors as liberal when they make crazy politically correct claims

      Odd that Peter Shill / Seth Warner / John Burgoyne / Paintchips thinks any of us believe he is Svelaz. What is it about you needing so many sock puppets?

      1. Anonymous,
        I have never been anyone else. I’ve no need for such alter identities unlike some other “anonymous” posters here.

    2. Not everyone who disagrees with issues surrounding vaccines is a conservative. People can overlap on some topics but be quite divergent on others.

      https://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/wake-america/slandering-vaccine-safety-concerns-and-consumer-choice-%E2%80%9Cdisinformation%E2%80%9D

      This organization likely has a healthy mix of Liberals in their midst. I am like-minded with a fair bit of what they support, despite being more conservative in other areas.

    3. “Did Turley say he disagrees with the vaccine?”

      No, he said “I disagree [with Clements] on the vaccines.”

      “The past tense seems to imply he once considered it but didn’t take the vaccine.”

      No it doesn’t. He was eager to be vaccinated, and he was vaccinated once it was made available.

      You’re really stretching to misinterpret here.

      1. Anonymous, it seems Turley’s grammar skills are a bit sloppy then. He used a single sentence to state “I disagree with vaccines”. He didn’t make it clear that he was disagreeing with Clemens.

        How can “I disagree on vaccines” after “ Professor Clements clearly cares deeply about teaching and his students. ”.

        He should have stated “ I disagree WITH HIM on the vaccines”.

  12. “If Clements had a religious claim, he would presumably be given an exemption in most businesses. However, if you have philosophical or scientific objection, it is not considered a basis for an exemption. ”

    This is where my problem lies. Why should a religiously based belief be given greater weight than convictions arrived at by other means? A scientific opinion is at least based on some level of fact, rather than faith.

  13. “However, this type of categorical refusal to comply with the school rule is unlikely to be supported in court. Even natural antibody claims are facing difficult receptions in the court.”

    It’s because natural immunity lasts 6-9 months and won’t really help with variants. I think this professor’s self destructive capacity explains well why Covid has found such a willing home in the U.S. In fact, I see Covid response as largely being an aspect of the disease of addiction. I’ve worked in healthcare in a couple of capacities, addiction either directly or indirectly drives much of ER admission on any given day. What’s the substance of the addiction re Covid? Bad information, of which there were pieces in each of this professor’s introductory sentences before he pushed through and continued on..

    I knew we were collectively stupid as a society previous to Covid, i didn’t know how stupid though. This lecture I find to be incredibly symptomatic of that reality. This man should probably be fired, but minimally I agree with you Turley, he should instead be able to teach via Zoom. But not live in a classroom.

    eb

  14. “Professor Clements clearly cares deeply about teaching and his students. I disagree on the vaccines.”

    BS

    If Professor Clements cared deeply about his students he wouldn’t be a vector for a disease that could kill his students.

    1. he wouldn’t be a vector for a disease that could kill his students.

      He is practicing social distancing. <30 year olds have a higher risk of death from seasonal flu. .
      That is the major problem with the protocols. They are not all that effective, and the benefit is minimal. You identify death as the risk, yet with no protocols, risk of death to the defined population is nil.

      1. Normal flora in the human renders all of us as vectors for pathogenic infectious diseases. The “gotcha” argument about unvaccinated being vectors for COVID-19 is political.

        Follow the science

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7617/

        Skin Flora

        The varied environment of the skin results in locally dense or sparse populations, with Gram-positive organisms (e.g., staphylococci, micrococci, diphtheroids) usually predominating.

        Oral and Upper Respiratory Tract Flora

        A varied microbial flora is found in the oral cavity, and streptococcal anaerobes inhabit the gingival crevice. The pharynx can be a point of entry and initial colonization for Neisseria, Bordetella, Corynebacterium, and Streptococcus spp.

        Gastrointestinal Tract Flora

        Organisms in the stomach are usually transient, and their populations are kept low (103 to 106/g of contents) by acidity. Helicobacter pylori is a potential stomach pathogen that apparently plays a role in the formation of certain ulcer types. In normal hosts the duodenal flora is sparse (0 to 103/g of contents). The ileum contains a moderately mixed flora (106 to 108/g of contents). The flora of the large bowel is dense (109 to 1011/g of contents) and is composed predominantly of anaerobes. These organisms participate in bile acid conversion and in vitamin K and ammonia production in the large bowel. They can also cause intestinal abscesses and peritonitis.

        Urogenital Flora

        The vaginal flora changes with the age of the individual, the vaginal pH, and hormone levels. Transient organisms (e.g., Candida spp.) frequently cause vaginitis. The distal urethra contains a sparse mixed flora; these organisms are present in urine specimens (104/ml) unless a clean-catch, midstream specimen is obtained.

        Conjunctival Flora

        The conjunctiva harbors few or no organisms. Haemophilus and Staphylococcus are among the genera most often detected.

        Host Infection

        Many elements of the normal flora may act as opportunistic pathogens, especially in hosts rendered susceptible by rheumatic heart disease, immunosuppression, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, perforated mucous membranes, etc. The flora of the gingival crevice causes dental caries in about 80 percent of the population.

      2. The likelihood of one of his students dying from the disease is something like one out of ten thousand. Few people under the age of 65 die from COVID, no more than die from any other respiratory issue.

      3. That’s the whole problem. I was listening to Doctor Radio the other day and the current president of the AMA (a retired USAF major general medical officer) was being interviewed. They kept talking about how severe the disease is and how the after effects may last for years, but never mentioned that less than 1% of cases result in death and only a fraction of cases are severe. The hospitalization rate is something like 8-9% and of that number, only a fraction are severe.

        1. If you were working on a medical relief team in an ebola virus effected region in the Congo, would you wear the cloth or disposable masks people wear in the grocery store. Bet you wouldn’t. And you wouldn’t causally throw it away afterwards either.

          And btw – the current EEOC test for a religious exemption is a sincerely held religious belief, not what your official denominational or church leaders say. I realize lefties don’t particularly like traditional organized religion (stands in the way of social justice) but that is the current standard, like it or not. I expect it may soon change once our leftist moral bettors get finished. Same as with the meaning and application of the 1st amendment.

          When this section was added to Title VII in 1971, it was written for those with unusual religious beliefs. Couldn’t be adopted today.

          I want a divorce.

          antonio

  15. Even natural antibody claims are facing difficult receptions in the court.

    Doctors I have talked to, and those interviewed in the media, have determined natural immunity are superior to, or same as the mRNA treatment. The mRNA treatment is no longer defined as a vaccine, by the CDC. It does not prevent contracting or spreading the virus.
    The mandates in place to control covid, do not accomplish the stated goal. Look at the latest numbers from Washingtion State, and Florida. Hard evidence lockdowns, mask mandates have no effect. Also see Sweden v Isreal, since last spring. Explain Jan 8th.
    The only thing that is working is protectng the vulnerable. The mRNA is a therapeutic, I use it because i’m 65. I have natural immunity, and took the mRNA prophetically to reduce severity of symptoms.

  16. When does a new medical solution stop becoming “an experimental drug”? After all phased clinical trials, distribution to millions, and FDA full approval, one would think the good professor would consult the medical journals instead of getting his “medical advice” from hacks and charlatans on youtube. The business prof should stick to teaching what he knows, and stay away from both science and history, both of which he hasn’t a clue.

    1. Actually the “data” and “science” show that for some 90% of the population, the virus is no worse than a common cold. They focus on the ten percent who are vulnerable to ANY respiratory infection, and who are likely to die from flu or even a cold if it goes into pneumonia.

        1. Anon: “Thalidomide was never approved by the FDA for use by pregnant women.”

          I think approved for general use. The FDA never proscribed it for pregnant women. They failed in their approval process.

          1. You think wrong. Thalidomide wasn’t approved by the FDA until much later, was never approved for general use, and its use was always proscribed in the US for pregnant women.

            You either failed to fact-check at all, or you failed in any fact-checking you did.

            1. Thalodomide was eventually approved by the FDA for Multiple Myeloma and Erythema nodosum leprosum (inflammatory condition of the skin associated with bacteria Mycobacterium leprae aka Leprosy). Thalodomide has its place in treating some illnesses.

              You and Young are thinking the FDA in the 1950s was the same FDA of today. Apples and oranges. The FDA today is an organic growth of tragedies just like the Thalidomide scandal. There have been many others (e.g. Vioxx). We are living through several FDA and CDC scandals today, e.g. COVID-19 vaccines, masking, social distancing, etc.

              See:

              US Regulatory Response to Thalidomide (1950-2000)
              https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/us-regulatory-response-thalidomide-1950-2000

              Before the thalidomide saga and the 1962 Amendments, there were scant federal regulations in US for approval or monitoring of clinical trials. No laws required physicians to keep logs of the drugs they prescribed, nor were the physicians required to follow-up with their patients. The 1962 Amendments required that drug manufacturers prove not only the safety but also the efficacy of the drugs distributed on the US market. The original Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act only required that a new drug be safe. The Amendments also mandated that the FDA had to approve a new drug application before the developing company could publicize the product. Prior to the 1962 Amendments, if the FDA did not disapprove a drug application within six months, then the drug would be automatically approved within the subsequent sixty days. Before these amendments, the FDA approved an average of 46.2 new single drug entities annually. In the decade after, that number dropped to 15.7. The Amendments gave the FDA more power than it previously had to regulate drug manufacturers.

              1. Thanks. That clears it up. And the FDA did not proscribe thalidomide for pregnant women when it was first produced because that was before its present regulatory machinery was in place.

                With the vaccine they seem to be operating with pre-thalidomide protocols.

                1. You should read the entire page and some of the linked info.

                  Your new claim, “the FDA did not proscribe thalidomide for pregnant women when it was first produced because that was before its present regulatory machinery was in place” is still misleading. The company applied for FDA approval in 1960, and the FDA did not approve it. The “present regulatory machinery” didn’t exist, but that does not imply that there was no regulatory machinery or that the existing regulatory machinery was insufficient to reject the application for approval.

                  “With the vaccine they seem to be operating with pre-thalidomide protocols.”

                  An outright lie by someone who clearly doesn’t care if he’s truthful.

              2. “You and Young are thinking …”

                LOL that you presume to know what other people are thinking.

                Young is the one who needs your link, not me. That specific page was already in my browsing history from educating myself about it earlier. That’s why I was able to correct Young’s false claim.

    2. In the past 50 years there have been 16 FDA approved drugs pulled from the market by the FDA which had been in general use for over 10 years. These were deemed by the FDA to be too dangerous to be allowed for public use. Compared to the Covid vaccines, those drugs were not widely used, but still caused too many side effects and deaths to be considered safe. These drugs were all subject to more long term study before approval than the Covid vaccines.
      Now consider the 2 most prevalent Covid vaccines – Both are mRNA type, a vaccine type which has never before been used in the U.S. – mRNA technology was first studied in the 1990s,but research was dropped because it was impractical at the time. Real development only resumed around 2008-2010 thanks to advances in medical technology. This mRNA technology has not been studied for long-term effects because there is no example of a mRNA vaccine in existence before these Covid vaccines which have only been developed in the past 2 years
      Finally, consider the risks of forcing an untested, experimental drug on hundreds of millions of people.

Leave a Reply