My Company Requiring Vaccine (Update at post 382)

8/9/21 | stevio

[stevio]

I'm contracting for a "high-tech" company who is now mandating all employees and contractors get the jab. Not sure how I'm going to fight this, but it's interesting that the military has issued a similar statement today. This is where my rubber meets the road. Advice from you all is welcome except for the "just get another job".

[MarMema]

Heres your shill. Lots of malpractice.

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2006/49a02-0507-cv-655-0.html

[MarMema]

Heres your shill. Lots of malpractice.

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2006/49a02-0507-cv-655-0.html

[ready2brd]

Only if I had an incredibly dumb interpretation of Revelations.

[metmom]

There’s no need to be so afraid of a cold virus that you’d make yourself a guinea pig at your own expense to help big pharma skim a profit off you.

[metmom]

*probably*, and *general consensus* mean squat.

There’s no hard and fast proof, only speculation.

Try again…..

[patriotfury]

Good link !

Thank you!

I am reposting your link —

https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html

[444Flyer]

“Does anyone know if all of the makers of Covid vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue?”

“Update: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines”

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

Isaiah 59:7

[Kevmo]

Incredibly dumb interpretation of Revelation?

How would it differ from this monstrosity?

[metmom]

I'm a proud vaccinated Boomer. I/we did it for our young granddaughters.

Who are at essentially ZERO risk of anything COVID.

You’re not protecting them from anything.

[Whyfor]

VAERS reports are notoriously unreliable.

[alexander_busek]

stevio clearly stated that he is a contractor.

A contractor will have little success suing a company that chooses to release him from his contract.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Are those stats for adverse effects for a year after injection or 5 years or what?

According to the protocols, if you don't keel over with the hypodermic needle actually still hanging out of our arm, there were no adverse effects.

Regards,

[444Flyer]

Will the employer be taking on all financial liability if the employee is damaged, injured, permanently disabled or dies from the coerced injection?

Form for Employer Who is requiring COVID “Vaccine”.

https://d697c6dd-b94d-4c33-8cef-d36ec2a5eb54.filesusr.com/ugd/1167c8_89e9feecec6540e193dd6d0475f18d0e.pdf

[moonhawk]

So enlighten me. What is the “current legal status”?

[metmom]

Have you never dealt with corporate HR?

HR is the corporate world’s answer to HOA’s.

All a bunch of power hungry petty tyrants.

[metmom]

Never thought I’d see the day a politician can override my doctor’s recommendation.

Wouldn’t that fall under *practicing medicine without a license*?

[Ahithophel]

Here's one considered approach to responding. (no authorship claimed or copyright asserted)

Vaccine Mandate Protest Letter

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect.

(https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns:

First, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest.

Third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting.

Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic.

Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine.

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )

This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

(http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).

As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, 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" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines.

Moreover, as the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business.

(https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).

An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee.

If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.

This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee.

The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,

Employee of the Year

s/XXX

[metmom]

Its coming so you may as well accept the fact that without it, you won’t be flying anywhere, attending a concert or theatre, and lots more.

Sure. Just submit to your overlords. It’s inevitable so you might as well hand them the power and let them control your life from this point forward.

And it is not going to hurt you no matter what the fruitcake “doctors” are telling you on obscure websites.

You cannot promise ANYONE that because you don’t and can’t know that for sure.

You’re just flat out lying for your big pharma masters. How much are they paying you?

[metmom]

Love your tagline.

Very apropos considering the topic your discussing and the poster you’re addressing.

[metmom]

VAERS reports are notoriously unreliable.

Unless you’re a paid, big pharma/government shill pushing vaxxes on FR, then they are written in stone and handed down from Mt Sinai.