The lawyer I spoke to pretty much agreed with that, he said you’re probably not going to get a lot of sympathy or traction from most judges by trying to argue against against the current policy decisions of the FDA in the middle of a media-hyped pandemic. He didn’t even want to discuss the vaccines really. He said you might get a local judge to side with you, if you took that angle, but as that decision got appealed, up the court ladder they are going to look for actual judgements against the FDA before they take that side, and your case is not against the FDA, it is against the employer who fired you.
The whole specifics of the pros and cons of this particular vaccine family aren’t where the legal arguments for your case would be, they would be more along the lines of can you be required to take any medical treatment during a pandemic, and in that limited context, they possibly can require it. Not what anyone wants to hear, but that is according to this lawyer what the actual case would be. Your claim could morf some if widespread vaccine injury becomes undeniable, but we are not there yet.
Swine Flu got pulled from the market after 50 deaths reported to VAERS.
COVID-19 jabs are over 15,000 reported to VAERS.
There are now more deaths reported to VAERS due to the clot shots, in just a year, than the total of all deaths from all other vaccines combined during the entire lifetime of VAERS.
And Europe is even worse.
Iceland has banned the clot shot for males 18-29 due to myocarditis; Denmark and Sweden have cut back on (IIRC) Moderna for the same reason.
And the Supreme Court of Spain has ruled that SARS-CoV-2 has not even been scientifically isolated.
So it's a Catch 22, you may have a valid case but you probably would have to be dead.
People who know they will be terminated for this alone need to do as much damage on the way out as feasibly possible
A few incorrect lines of code here, a data leak there, a few “mistakes” could leave some serious marks.