Open Letter to U of Colorado from Medical Ethics Doctor

Michael Gaeta is a doctor of acupuncture and Oriental medicine, a dietician-nutritionist, and medical ethics educator. His letter to the University of Colorado Board of Regents is below. Dr. Gaeta’s excellent webinar: Vaccines: Informed Consent, Herd Immunity & Autoimmune Disease is available on demand. When you register, you receive access to the video as well as a PDF of all the notes and slides. GET ACCESS TO THE WEBINAR.



16 June 2021

Dear University of Colorado Board of Regents,

I am a doctor of acupuncture and Oriental medicine, and a dietician-nutritionist, who has practiced natural family healthcare for 31 years. I have taught medical ethics nationally over the last 25 years, and helped draft the model code of ethics for the acupuncture profession in the US. I am writing to request that the Board preserve and expand vaccine choice on all CU campuses, and oppose covid-19 vaccine mandates. There are several reasons for this request, based in actual data, law and evidence, as well as moral and ethical imperatives:

  1. Forced Vaccination is Unethical and Immoral

Vaccine mandates, or forced vaccination, violates the central principle of medical ethics: informed consent. This is the absolute requirement of fully informed and voluntary, uncoerced consent for any and all health interventions.

This moral obligation to never force medical experiments (like the experimental covid-19 vaccine), or any other medical treatment onto any person, emerged from the Nuremburg Doctor’s Trials after World War Two.

“The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. The Code was formulated in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors…in the concentration camps…” Source: Evelyne Shuster, Ph.D., N Engl J Med, 1997; 337:1436-1440, November 13, 1997

From the Code itself, principle #1: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision… there should be made known to him…all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” Source: “Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949

I am not comparing the CU Board of Regents to murderous Nazi doctors, but I am making it clear that the Regents have stepped into deeply unethical territory by even considering this measure. Informed consent is a moral principle and an ethical requirement that the Board would be in serious violation of, were the forced vaccination measure be attempted.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6, #1 – Consent, states that, “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.” It further notes that the “sole interest of science or society” does not prevail. Again, the Regents would be in a serious ethical and moral breach of conduct and character to seek to impose forced vaccination upon its students, who are themselves, as you and I are, sovereign human beings, who no other human being has the right to control or violate the personal bodily sphere of.

The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its description of informed consent states that, “Informed consent is shorthand for informed, voluntary, and decisionally-capacitated consent. Consent is considered fully informed when a capacitated (or “competent”) patient or research subject to whom full disclosures have been made and who understands fully all that has been disclosed, voluntarily consents to treatment or participation on this basis. In its most important role in bioethics, informed consent is a legitimacy requirement for certain actions. Inadequately informed consent makes certain intrusions impermissible. Roughly, when a sufficiently capacitated adult does not give sufficiently informed and voluntary consent to intervention in her body or her private sphere, then, at least when the intervention is substantial, not trivial, and absent severe jeopardy for third parties, the intervention is impermissible—even when it seeks to assist her, physicians recommend it, third parties would benefit from it, and the patient herself had repeatedly consented to it before expressing a change of mind.”

The American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons, on this matter, states, “After being fully informed of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the right to reject or accept that procedure… preemption of patients’ or parents’ decisions about accepting drugs or other medical interventions is a serious intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy, and parental decisions about child-rearing… liberty rights are unalienable. All medical interventions, including vaccines, have risks and benefits. Physicians have the duty to advise patients according to their own best judgment, and patients have the right to decline to follow their advice. Patients also have the right to be fully informed and not restricted to governmentally-approved information… Medical freedom is a basic human right. Sacrificing it in the name of population health is likely to worsen public health.”

Parents and students would be well within their rights to demand the immediate dismissal of the entire Board of Regents, and pursue legal action against each Regent and the CU system as a whole, if a blatantly immoral measure such as forced vaccination would be approved and attempted. Vaccines, like any medical intervention, must always be on the basis of fully informed and voluntary consent; in other words, choice. The Regents may recommend, but never require, any medical intervention, and must not violate any individual’s bodily sovereignty.

  1. Forced Vaccination Violates CU Board of Regents Rules and Oaths

The third Guiding Principle of the CU Board of Regents is that “the university will…Promote and uphold the principles of ethics, integrity, transparency, and accountability.” If the Board actually believes this, and commits to fulfill this promise, then it is bound by its own oath to oppose any such blatantly and unquestionably unethical practice as forced vaccination. Passing this measure will most certainly open up all those who vote in favor, to valid efforts to remove them from the Board for violating its own Principle, and more.

Your eleventh Guiding Principle is that you will “Provide an outstanding, respectful, and responsive living, learning, teaching, and working environment.” It is blatantly disrespectful to force an experimental medical intervention into the personal bodily sphere of students and families who do not wish to have such an intervention, for any reason. It is and must remain a choice. If you claim to believe in your oath to provide a “respectful environment,” then force-vaccinating students demonstrates that you have no respect for them and their choices, and that you seek to create a tyrannical, totalitarian environment, devoid of any respect.

Source: (Regent Policy 1.B: University of Colorado Legal Origins, Guiding Principles, Principles of Ethical Behavior. Approved 02/11/2010; revised 06/24/2010.)

Regent Laws, Article 8: Conduct of Members of the University Community, Part B: Ethical Conduct of the University of Colorado Community, states: “In pursuing the mission of the University of Colorado, all members of the university community, including regents, officers, faculty, and staff, are responsible for understanding and upholding the highest standards of legal and ethical conduct.  The Board of Regents’ policies and related university policies describe principles of ethical behavior that articulate a basic ethical framework for the decisions, actions and behavior of all members of the University of Colorado community.”

The utter hypocrisy of the Board claiming that it upholds “the highest standards of legal and ethical conduct” while forcing potentially unwanted injections into the bodies of their students, and violating the most essential principle of ethical healthcare practice, is unconscionable. It would even obviate the moral imperative that all Board members supporting such a nefarious measure to resign, having willfully broken one of the most important Laws they vowed to uphold.

  1. Forced Vaccination is Illegal

Here is the oath of office you took: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and that I will perform the duties of regent of the University of Colorado faithfully and to the best of my ability.” This inviolate promise to uphold the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, directly applies here. The 14th Amendment of the The Constitution of the United States, ratified on July 9, 1868, guarantees that “[No state shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Depriving CU students (or faculty or staff) of their liberty, (and possibly their life, given real possibility of death from covid-19 vaccines – see below), would be a direct violation of your oath of office, and provide more grounds for highly justified legal action.

The US Government has clearly stated that it is impermissible to mandate any covid-19 vaccine, as they are not FDA-approved products.

The FDA, in its “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained,” states that “FDA must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances, that FDA has authorized the emergency use of the vaccine, of the known and potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.” So, the CU Board of Regents knows better than the FDA, and will directly oppose FDA guidelines? Covid-19 vaccines, like masks, are approved for use only through Emergency Use Authorization. So, in addition to committing a serious moral and ethical breach, the Regents would be violating federal law and FDA regulations.

This reflects federal law. The US Code, or The Code of Laws of the United States of America, is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. In 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, section e, 1 – Unapproved Product, A – Required conditions, (i) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care professionals administering the product are informed—

(I)that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II)of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III)of the alternatives to the product that are available, and of their benefits and risks.

(III) states there must be “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” I would hope that it is clear how greatly the Regents would be in violation of federal law through an attempt at a covid-19 vaccine mandate.

Also, as another matter of federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of, among other things, religion. Therefore, students may request religious exemption, which is also consistent with Colorado law, from an illegal and unethical COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

The laws of Colorado prevent the Regents from taking such immoral action as well. Colorado law guarantees each citizen the right to non-medical vaccine exemptions, on philosophical or religious grounds.

2017 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 25 – Public Health and Environment, Article 4 – Disease Control, Part 9 – School Entry Immunization, § 25-4-903. Exemptions from immunization – rules, Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 25-4-903 (2017), states that “A student shall be exempted from receiving the required immunizations in the following manner: (b) By submitting to the student’s school a statement of exemption signed by one parent or guardian or the emancipated student or student eighteen years of age or older that the parent, guardian, or student is an adherent to a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to immunizations or that the parent or guardian or the emancipated student or student eighteen years of age or older has a personal belief that is opposed to immunizations.”

The CU system is not above state or federal law. It must follow all Colorado laws, like this one. Do the Regents really want to blatantly and undeniably violate both federal and state law here?

  1. COVID-19 Vaccines are Unnecessary

The COVID-19 pandemic is over, even based on inflated CDC case and mortality statistics. For young people, the risk of infection is minute, nearly all infections are mild and brief, and the risk of death from covid is near zero. The current overall mortality risk is .23%, less than one-third that of the typical annual flu.

A World Health Organization report states that “If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might even be substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis.” Source:

CDC recently confirmed that of all covid deaths, 5% died from covid, 95% died with covid. That 95% had an average of four frequently fatal comorbidities like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, pneumonia, etc. So, we don’t know why they died – from covid, something else, or both. It’s unknown. Source: From that report: ” For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. ”

So, the covid mortality stats unfortunately include both dying from, and dying with covid, and hence are substantially inflated. This fact undermines any claimed justification for coerced covid vaccine administration.

By contrast, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption kill thousands every year in Colorado, making them hundreds of times more deadly than covid is today for young people. To be consistent, is the Board also going to ban cigarettes, a well-known cause of cancer, on all campuses? Will the Board also ban other potentially injurious items like alcohol, driving, swimming or kitchen knives? Or continue allow students, as adults, to make informed decisions about their use?

The same respect for the individual would apply to something far more benign, like covid infection in young people today, and result in recommendations that respect individual choices. In addition, the covid vaccines were not designed to, and do not, protect others or reduce transmission. They are personal protection vaccines only, so there is no community benefit that could be used in an attempt to justify their universal adoption.

It also appears that the covid vaccines, in addition to being unnecessary, are largely ineffective. Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, has estimated that 60 percent of new patients being treated for covid-19 have been vaccinated, and that half of all US states surpassed natural herd immunity last Fall, before the vaccine was available.

In addition, there are safe, inexpensive and effective drug treatments for covid available, such as ivermectin. Vaccines are not needed where effective treatments are readily available. I have much more on the subject of the lack of necessity for covid-19 vaccines, on request.

  1. COVID-19 Vaccines are Dangerous

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system for adverse reactions and deaths from vaccines. According to the 2010 HHS-commissioned report, “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Harvard Pilgrim Health Care stated that, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.”

This means that at least 99% of vaccine adverse reactions are never reported to HHS. As of June 4, 2021, VAERS has received reports of 329,021 adverse reactions, including 19,597 hospitalizations and 5,888 deaths, caused by covid vaccines. See or This makes covid-19 vaccines the most dangerous vaccines ever produced, by far. With the massive under-reporting of vaccine adverse reactions, we could possibly multiply these numbers by 100. Even if not all of those reports are actually vaccine injury or death, these numbers are staggering. Covid vaccines are clearly far more dangerous than covid-19 itself. Does the CU Board of Regents actually want blood on its hands by causing the injury or death of even one of its students, from an immoral and illegal vaccine mandate? I have much more on this subject of the dangers of covid-19 vaccines, on request.

The Right Thing to Do

It is quite clear that force-vaccinating CU students by threatening to deny them an education is unethical, immoral, illegal, unnecessary, and potentially harmful. Please do the right thing for these young people and vigorously oppose any and all vaccine mandates, and preserve and expand the basic human right to self-determination, liberty and medical freedom. I respectfully request a reply on this matter, and offer myself as a subject matter expert to the Board on this and other health and vaccine-related issues. Thank you for your time and consideration.


Michael Gaeta, DAOM, MS, CDN

Gaeta Institute for Wholistic Health Education