The Insane Vax Purge Of Our Armed Forces (3 Marine Lt. Cols /Pilots)

Three of our best and brightest pilots from the US Marine Corps join me to discuss their pending discharges and the forced end to careers they love, because the don’t want to take the experimental mRNA gene therapy shots. They want to SERVE, they just want exemptions from the jab – and YOU can help. Thanks for tuning in.

What I said is that the people in command are in charge, they have decided the vaccines are safe and to be used, the pilots committed through contract and their sworn oath that they would follow the orders of their superiors if they are determined safe, and the pilots broke that oath by determining not to use the vaccines in violation of that order. Whether the military is 100% correct, which is impossible as everyone has an opinion whether they know all of a situation or not, and truthful, which can also be an opinion, the action doesn’t mean anything to this function.

This was determined back in the anthrax days. The military can't just randomly force everyone to take an experimental, non-approved medical treatment. Anything under EUA, is clearly NOT allowed to be mandatory. Which, they were trying to force while everything was still under EUA, and they dropped the hard line as soon as Pfizer got its full approval.

But, the grey area comes from several areas of these "vaccines" being approved. First, that approval is already extremely shaky - it was a full-blown political process, not scientific. None of the "vaccines" that have been approved have submitted all their testing results - because they can't because there is no long- or mid-term data. They've only been around for two years, at most. There physically (temporally?) hasn't been enough time for any longer-term trials to have been completed. FDA/Pfizer is fighting any of the trial data being released for 75 years - how is that not suspicious to anyone with more brain activity than a potato? Where do you find the approved "vaccines"? Yes, the official Army memo specifies the fully approved versions are the only ones required, because that's all they legally can do. Yet none of the "vaccines" available in these US is the fully approved and labeled versions, they still only offer them under the EUA. And we're still ignoring the major health hazards these shots pose, with still no knowledge of what they do farther down the line, as I said above.

And, I'm sure you've seen plenty of other arguments around the interwebs. There is no valid reasoning for these to be 'fully approved', much less a mandatory part of medical. And that's what several of these lawsuits are going through the process of - for the courts to acknowledge that and declare that DoD can't mandate these "vaccines", much less so when they are systematically denying exemption requests.

But if I get paid in advance a large amount of money and I promise to do the work to be paid for it, and don’t because I don’t like the conditions, then I get fired and either pay them back or possibly get nailed in a lawsuit.

That's different, if you are given the conditions as part of the agreement to be paid, that's one thing. But for your employer to suddenly change those conditions, and on top of that change those conditions such that pre-agreed conditions (retirement, medical, etc) are negated if you don't agree to the new changes, that's not part of the original contract.

And all they are being asked to do is follow the order or leave. But they want to stay while not following the order. Who put them in charge? The answer to that is they did when they decided to countermand the order and decided to be put back into the civilian world. They appear to want to do the things in the job they like to do. No legitimate job works like that. So unless you run the business, you take orders on who, when and how. They don’t own the business, so they decided they didn’t want to work for it.

Ha you say that like they're whining because they're simply being ordered to only wear green socks on Thursdays. Mandatory medical intervention with decent to unknown chances of minor to major detrimental effects, for little to no benefit, is not a little thing to ask of somebody. And destroying careers and livlihoods in order to force it on people is simply wrong. It's not like this was an option to be offered, or a workplace disagreement to be discussed and negotiated. There's no compromise being made - not a single religious exemption has been approved, and I think medical exemptions across DoD has been in what, the tens? Maybe the hundreds? This is a massive attack on people that's being shoved down on top of us, and it's good that they're willing to fight and hopefully be vindicated by the courts eventually.

Simply incorrect. Amazing the linguistic contortions anti-vaxxers will go through to justify their prejudices. Now, here’s the legal truth about ‘experimental’. This article is well worth reading, much more so than your typical anti-vaxxer rumble video.

What kind of word salad is that? What kind of "prejudices" do you think "anti-vaxxers" have against an untested medical treatment? You bet I wouldn't want something injected in me when absolutely no one can tell me the end results of that action. How is using a word in its common definition for a long time, "linguistic contortions"? I would bet if we went up to tons of random people, and asked them to drink a cloudy liquid and told them we're not really sure what all it does yet, that 99%+ would consider it to be "experimental".

Did you even read the article? Did you find the part where they define why these "vaccines" aren't considered experimental, by them? Here, I'll bold it for you: Among other things, vaccine opponents have specifically argued that the absence of full FDA approvals means the vaccines are “experimental.” This is inaccurate and harmful because the vaccines have been given to over two hundred million people in the United States alone. They think just because government have managed to hoodwink or force 200MM people into taking the shots, that that means they aren't experimental. That's absolute bullshit, I can surely bet you not a single one of those 200MM people know exactly what was put in them, or what the end results are going to be. For the 5-10% that was given the info sheet, they likely think the "vaccine" is still in their arm and didn't spread everywhere. But hey, at least the CDC is putting out commercials warning people about how often the average person gets blood clots, so be careful! You know, like always but somehow no one ever noticed they happen so often... All the data sheets have been updated to warn about myocarditis and pericarditis and what else? If these shots weren't experimental, why are so many side effects suddenly being acknowledged? Why didn't these show up in trials? How did no one know the dangers of getting the shots before?

In short, the term “experimental” is being used normatively to deter people from getting the vaccine or as an argument against requiring the vaccine as a work condition. In the context of COVID-19 vaccines, this term is being misused, but it does raise a real question.

"Experimental" is an adjective used to describe the state of the shots, and whether or not it's used to dissuade people from getting them is irrelevant to whether or not they are experimental. Just because it's a negative against the shots doesn't mean that the factual basis for what it means is different. Sure, they may not be experimental in that Pfizer and Moderna and CDC aren't keeping track of what happens to people who take them, the population aren't active study participants, but that doesn't mean they know everything about what these drugs actually do.

Svartalfiar wrote: “Did you even read the article? Did you find the part where they define why these “vaccines” aren’t considered experimental, by them? Here, I’ll bold it for you: Among other things, vaccine opponents have specifically argued that the absence of full FDA approvals means the vaccines are “experimental.” This is inaccurate and harmful because the vaccines have been given to over two hundred million people in the United States alone.”

You’re cherry picking. The article gives multiple reasons, not just that one, for why it is incorrect to call these vaccines experimental.

For example: “CONCLUSION The term “experimental” is a charged one for historical reasons. It is this history that makes it a powerful tool in the hands of those seeking to scare people away from COVID-19 vaccines. But in this context, it is misused. A product that has undergone large trials, has careful follow-up, has independent assessments, has received regulatory authorization, and has become the standard of care is no longer experimental. Using a charged term with disturbing connotations hardly describes one of the most widely successful agents in the war on infectious disease.”

“Mandatory medical intervention with decent to unknown chances of minor to major detrimental effects, for little to no benefit, is not a little thing to ask of somebody.”

And that’s the problem and not one in the opinion of the people who make that decision for the military. Again, if the troops want to refuse the order, they can. But it will mean discharge if the same people that make the decision giving the order say so. And the benefit is twofold, in the opinion of the command it keeps people in line to be deployed and if they are exposed to it downrange, it will assist them in faster recovery and less serious reactions. Along with controlling discipline.

“...if you are given the conditions as part of the agreement to be paid...”

The contract and the oath both say they will follow the orders of their superiors. And if the superiors determine it to be lawful from that part of the UCMJ along with considering the vaccine safe, then it is no longer a matter of taking the vaccine but of the refusal of the order. Art 92. They are not being discharged for refusing to take the vaccine, they are being discharged for refusing to follow the order to take it.

“That’s different, if you are given the conditions as part of the agreement to be paid, that’s one thing...

They were. It’s very simple. You get an order, you follow it unless it is unlawful. It isn’t unlawful if the superior says it isn’t and is backed all the way to the president, the highest level of command. So until you or they can find someone within the chain that says it is unlawful, it isn’t.

You’re arguing a mute point. You don’t like the vaccines. You may be right. But as part of the conditions of working for this company it includes taking and carrying out orders for the protection of the country. If the commanders say, or are told, it is safe. Then that levels your complaint. And they still had an opportunity to refuse and be told to leave. And again, the refusal was their choice. They made it.

There are many instances of people carrying out orders that ultimately got them killed. Many people, those that lived, are medically retired now because of their actions following orders. Many died. And I weep for them, some friends, while at the same time I am proud of what they decided to do. These troops stood up for their decisions. So are the pilots. But that doesn’t make them immune to the cost of their stance. Wish them well.

wy69

“These are not lawful orders imho. I support the freedom to chose.”

And your opinion is no better or worse than mine.

“Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine...”

https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/

I won’t go into the possible adverse pre-existing conditions of the patient that could have been contributory to the death. But that is a relatively low number of deaths to call the vaccines unsafe becasue nothing is 100% safe. An airplane could crash into your home at night killing you. You could die from a bee sting or have heart disease and have it fail and never know it.

“I support the freedom to chose.”

I do to. But they made a choice to not follow the order so they were aware of what that failure may cause, and it did. I laud them for their intestinal fortitude. But I can’t be comfortable with their, what looks like uniformed by the above numbers, decision to challenge what they knew would happen. Especially when there are other ways to challenge the order that might have had a different effect on the decisions by forcing many others to get in on the discussion officially.

Military people make decisions every time they get an order. There is a strong chance they may die by following it. Try charging an armored hill, or flying into a heavy flak area...there’s more. But if the discipline to follow that order is not there, the the mission fails and it could cost a lot of people at home pain and loss of life. So they can choose to protect their and others families, or themselves. And that’s the decision the troop makes sometimes many times a day. But it is their choice to make. Doesn’t get any more real or free than that. And the ultimate decision like throwing themselves on a grenade or later IED, is free for them.

wy69

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.