Flu Vaccine vs COVID susceptibility, Act 2

Political Fervor becomes Legal Action
Legal becomes Judicial

Sad to miss everyone this past Tuesday for our ZOOM Clinic Hour. 

Everything’s OK with me & the family; sometimes I just need to catch up on paperwork and ordering supplies.



During last Tuesday’s Zoom,
I discussed concerns
some Influenza vaccines might
increase susceptibility to COVID



In the replay email, I included links to original scientific articles on both sides of the argument.  Click here if you want to read them. 

During the ZOOM, I gave my recommendation for Non-Specific Immune Stimulation therapy throughout the 2020-2021 Flu Season.  

This is such a valuable and timely therapy, I coordinated with my staff to offer it at a 50% Discount.  Click here to schedule

To learn about this safe, non-toxic, inexpensive injection, you can understand it by watching the short YouTube here.  

Many of you emailed me great questions … I’ll answer them next Tuesday during our usual ZOOM Clinic Hour.



Meanwhile, here’s important info:



University of California is barred from taking any
action against any employee or student not getting
the Flu shot until November 4th!

by Richard Jaffe, Esq.

The University of California issued an Executive Order requiring all students, faculty and other employees to get the Flu shot by November 1 on pain of not being able to work or register for class.

We opposed this Executive Order.  The case was previously set for November 12th. We filed a so-called “ex parte application” to move the hearing back to October (it had originally been set to be heard October 14th by another judge). 

This is a very big case.

UC filed papers objecting to papers I filed containing an email from a high UC Davis employee incorrectly telling staff that the flu mandate applied to remote workers.

The Hayward Superior Court Judge Seabolt wanted more time to write an opinion.

Judge Seabolt will be the first judge in the country to weigh in on whether a state can mandate a vaccine during a pandemic, when the vaccine doesn’t treat the pandemic disease, and when there is reason to believe the Flu shot could actually increase COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

That’s a lot to think about.

The more anyone thinks about it, the worse the UC mandate looks: due to a lack of proper procedure, and the lack of proof that the vaccine won’t cause much more harm than good.

The UC attorneys have already represented that the UC would not take any action against anyone for not getting the shot until the hearing (then scheduled for Nov. 12th).  The judge ordered: UC shall not take adverse action against any employee or student who comes to campus who has not had a flu shot between now and when this court hears this matter.

If the UC keeps pressuring people to get the shot by November 1st, on pain of not being allowed on campus,  there might be consequences if the UC administration does not follow the Court’s clear directive.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.



Always remember:
Healing is your Birthright


Please visit our newly designed CONTACT page to COMMUNICATE, SCHEDULE or PURCHASE your General Medical Products