RUTHFULLY YOURS

In addition to being a recovered COVID patient, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, MD is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California-Irvine’s School of Medicine, and UCI’s Medical Ethics director. So he would seem to know his stuff on these issues.

During the early weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Kerriaty worked on the front lines, as they say:

As chair of the hospital ethics committee, I have had more anguishing conversations than I can count with families to tell them their loved one is irretrievably dying of Covid. As a psychiatric consultant on the medical wards and in the emergency department, I have suited up in PPE to see hundreds of hospitalized Covid patients, witnessing the worst that this illness can do.

Currently, however, Dr. Kheriaty has been effectively muted by his employer, had his earnings cut in half, and is unable to communicate with his existing patients or seek out new ones.

Writing for Substack on Tuesday, Dr. Kheriaty says he “was given no opportunity to contact my patients, students, residents, or colleagues and let them know I would disappear for a month.”

UC’s suspension of Dr. Kheriaty was in response to his federal lawsuit “challenging their vaccine mandate on behalf of Covid-recovered individuals with natural immunity.”

The suit argues that “forcing those with natural immunity to be vaccinated introduces unnecessary risks without commensurate benefits” and “violates their equal protection rights guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment”

In an undercover video released by Project Veritas earlier this week, Pfizer biochemist Nick Karl admitted that “When somebody is naturally immune, like, they got COVID, they probably have better – not better, but more antibodies against the virus.”

Recommended: Sage Steele Suspended from ESPN for ‘Controversial’ Comments about Mandates, Obama, Female Reporters

Another Pfizer scientist taped by Project Veritas said of the antibodies gained from having been infected: “You’re protected most likely for longer since it’s a natural response.”

Nevertheless, “Instead of waiting for the Federal court to decide my case,” Kheriaty wrote, “the University of California has banned me from working on campus or working from home, and slashed my salary.”

Dr. Kheriaty believes that his “investigatory leave” is a ploy to force him to quit so that the university won’t have to go through the complicated motions of firing a tenured professor:

It came as no surprise that, since my request for a preliminary injunction was not granted by the court, the University would immediately begin procedures to dismiss me. However, in the complicated legal game of three-dimensional chess I did not anticipate this particular development: the current administrative designation, where I am neither able to work at the University nor permitted to pursue work elsewhere, was not a development I had anticipated. The University may be hoping this pressure will lead me to resign “voluntarily,” which would remove grounds for my lawsuit: if I resign prior to being terminated by the University, I have no legal claim of harm.

He also says he has “no intention at this time of resigning, withdrawing my lawsuit, or having an unnecessary medical intervention forced on me.”

I have no idea whether Dr. Kheriaty leans Left or Right politically, but if he does (or did) lean Left, yesterday’s essay sounds like he’s eagerly taken the red pill.

He describes his legal fight as “important not only to set appropriate limits to vaccine mandates” and that we should “refuse to allow our institutions to set dangerous and unjust precedents.”

“Today’s precedents could later facilitate even more coercive mandates and infringements on civil liberties by unelected officials, done during a declared ‘state of exception’ or emergency that has no defined terminus—a dangerous precedent for a democratic society.”

If that sounds like a slippery slope argument, well, haven’t we spent the last 18 months sliding rapidly down one?