Correction: Stanford still requires primary vaccination + a booster
Why? Because that's what the policy is! Nobody is allowed to ask why, not even Stanford faculty. The policy is: "Just shut up, do what you are told, and don't ask questions." That's how science works.
My previous article on Stanford’s vaccination policy was incorrect.
I was fooled because they issued very unclear guidance on Oct 17, 2022 which basically said they encourage people to take the shots.
I clarified this with Lucia Sinatra of NoCollegeMandates: the primary series and a booster is required for Stanford students.
Why? This makes no sense. Well, it’s the policy.
And even Stanford faculty are not allowed to ask questions about the rationale. People are expected to follow the policy and not ask questions, no matter how irrational it is. I know this because I talked to a very prominent Stanford faculty member who has tried to understand the rationale for the policy and was stonewalled when he tried to ask any questions.
Stanford just came out with this new guidance just two days ago (Nov 14). Among other things it says, without evidence, that:
The new bivalent booster provides crucial protection from COVID-19, especially during travel season.
Great, so if it does that, why do you need a mandate?
It also claims:
Boosters help reduce the risk of both hospitalization and Long COVID. The CDC estimates that about one in every five people who get COVID, even those with no symptoms when infected, develop and suffer from Long COVID, which can have devastating and debilitating long-term health effects including nervous system, digestive, heart, and breathing issues.
There is no evidence for that. But there is evidence that using early treatment protocols that rely on repurposed drugs is virtually 100% effective in preventing long COVID. Of course, no mention of that. I wrote about how to prevent long haul COVID a year ago and also wrote about it more recently here. Fareed and Tyson have treated over 15,000 COVID cases with virtually zero long-haul COVID (aka PACS).
They also claim:
Masking while traveling and in crowded indoor spaces can also limit your risk for COVID.
No it can’t. No way. I’ve written extensively on the subject. The Bangladesh study put all that to rest: there was no protection at all.
I sent emails to both of the authors of this memo. One of us is spreading misinformation and I don’t think it is me. But if I’m wrong, I’m open to seeing the evidence.
Google isn’t any better than Stanford: you aren’t allowed to question the policy there either
At Google, it’s the same way. Just shut up and follow the policy. No questions allowed. That’s the way science works nowadays (which is the opposite of how science used to work).
Google still has a vaccine mandate for the primary series. No booster mandate. They ran clinics for the bivalent booster but demand was low. They have an internal vaxpass system where you upload your proof of vaccination.
You can get out of it if you are a remote employee or get a religious or medical exemption. If you have an exemption, you can come into the office but you must remain 6 feet away (note: there is NO science on that one) and if you wear a mask. Apparently, the vaccines don’t really work at all to protect the employees that’s why the extra precautions (which don’t work at all either) are needed.
Google executives in charge of the policy, Karen DeSalvo (Chief Health Officer) and Sohini Stone (Chief Medical Officer for Global Employee Health) both refuse to answer any questions from Google employees about the policies.
De Salvo reportedly told employees that people who did not get vaccinated “did not want to benefit from science.”
Science used to be about inquiry, asking questions, and adjusting beliefs based on data. Not anymore.
Today, science is about blindly following whatever the government says and not asking any questions. Critical thinking is discouraged. This is how we are training our kids to think at most universities in our country.
There must have been some randomized double-blind phase 3 trial showing this results in better outcomes for society. Does anyone have a reference on that?