Can anyone explain why anyone would ever do gain of function research on this stuff?

What do any other think their work is going to be used for?

^^^
Power

Vaccine injury report among the military!
From Catherine Herridge

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/sta...vTxVb1Nk56SGVu2qG4aw

Glad to see that servicemembers are getting their voices heard. I'm hoping it continues with other, and better, journalists because Catherine Herridge absolutely sucks as an interviewer.

Supreme Court Turns Away COVID-19 Vaccine Appeals

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

U.S. Supreme Court justices on June 24 rejected appeals brought over COVID-19 vaccines by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate running for president.

The nation’s top court rejected an appeal seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found that CHD and its members lacked standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its emergency authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines for minors.

The justices also rebuffed another CHD appeal in a case that challenged the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed on students at Rutgers University, a public college in New Jersey.

The Supreme Court did not comment on either denial. It included them in a lengthy list dealing with dozens of cases.

“Disappointing that the courts are closed to FDA fraud harming millions of Americans,” Robert Barnes, an attorney representing CHD in the FDA case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

He called for Congress to pass reforms.

Julio Gomez, an attorney representing CHD in the Rutgers case, told The Epoch Times in an email that the Supreme Court’s denials marked a sad day because clarity is needed on vaccines and the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a city’s law requiring vaccination against smallpox.

Mr. Gomez pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling that determined that Jacobson did not apply to a case filed against a vaccine mandate in California because plaintiffs had produced evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Lawyers for Rutgers and the government did not return requests for comment.

In the FDA case, CHD and parents in Texas and Florida argued that the regulatory agency cleared COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization despite COVID-19 posing less risk than influenza to children and without adequate clinical testing. The FDA also wrongly promoted the vaccines, the plaintiffs alleged.

U.S. District Judge Alan Albright tossed out the lawsuit in 2023, finding that CHD and the parents did not meet the requirements for standing, or the ability to sue over the actions, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

While the parents said their children were at risk of being vaccinated by other people, they did not show that they faced imminent harm because of the FDA issuing emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, the judge said. Imminent harm is one requirement for standing.

The judge also said CHD had not shown that its resources were drained in responding to the FDA’s conduct and that it was airing a “generalized grievance,” which is not allowed under Supreme Court precedent.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January upheld the ruling.

“Plaintiffs contend that the injury-in-fact element is satisfied because a third party might vaccinate their children over their objections, and that such vaccine could allegedly injure them and their children,” the panel stated. “Be that as it may, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an injury in fact because the alleged injury is neither concrete nor imminent.”

Mr. Barnes had urged the Supreme Court to look at the case.

“Can no one sue the FDA? Is that what Article III means?” he wrote in a filing

Government lawyers waived their right to file a brief to the court.

In the case against Rutgers, CHD and some of its members said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution’s due process clause enables people to refuse medical treatment.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled against the plaintiffs in 2022, finding that Rutgers mandated vaccination as part of a legitimate goal of protecting the school community from COVID-19 and that the students either brought claims that had become moot because they were granted religious exemptions to the mandate or failed to state a claim.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision in February.

In a filing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for CHD said the lower courts erred and that the justices should intervene.

“If government is allowed to mandate experimental vaccines that do not prevent transmission against a person’s right to freely exercise informed consent, then COVID-19 will have eroded one of our most basic liberties—the right to refuse a medical experiment,” they wrote.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medi...d-19-vaccine-appeals

Reminder: The Insidious Propaganda Campaign To Shame America Into Jabbing Up

The top-down propaganda campaign to inject every American with experimental mRNA vaccines was truly unprecedented.

It was a highly coordinated effort to shame and vilify those who were skeptical of taking a vaccine, that didn't work, caused untold side-effects, and divided friends and families - all over a virus that kills less than 1% of those who get it (mostly the old, fat, and those with comorbidities).

If you have 11 minutes to set aside, watch the below 2023 compilation from Matt Orfalea of politicians and talking heads using insidious tactics to help Pfizer and Moderna, and push Orwellian compliance tactics that demanded one thing: Obey or be outcast.

Watch:
THE UNVACCINATED | "Nobody is Safe!"



https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...hame-america-jabbing

United Airlines may have to pay over $1 billion in damages for religious discrimination

https://www.washingtonexaminer...y-1-billion-damages/

United Airlines may be forced to pay upwards of $1 billion after a federal court ruled to grant nationwide class action status to over 2,200 employees who were placed on unpaid leave for choosing not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 during the pandemic.

A judge in the Northern District of Texas, fifth circuit, ruled on Friday that all United Airlines employees put on unpaid leave despite having a religious exemption to the vaccine can join Sambrano v. United Airlines, making the case one of the largest religious discrimination class action lawsuits in history.

“I’ve never seen anything this big,” Sherry Walker, co-founder of Airline Employees for Health Freedom, told the Washington Examiner. Walker is one of 2,211 class members on the lawsuit.

Allegations of ‘abuse’ and ‘retaliation’
At first, all unvaccinated employees were placed on indefinite unpaid leave. After the lawsuit was initially filed in 2021, United Airlines amended its policy to only place “customer facing” employees (those who interact with patrons) on unpaid leave, while “non-customer facing” employees were given a “mask and test” mandate.

The company’s “mask and test” mandate required unvaccinated “non-customer facing” employees to wear an N95 respiratory mask at all times, even though more breathable cloth masks were allowed elsewhere. The mask mandate was required when employees were outside, even in the Texas heat, and while on vacation, and required the unvaccinated to eat alone.

Walker cited two examples of airline employees who passed out while wearing the N95 masks, including one where an employee was “in the belly of the plane” and scraped his head on the ground when he lost consciousness.

In 2022, Virginia’s Department of Labor and Industry fined United Airlines $8,460 for one “serious” and one “other-than-serious” violation stemming from the N95 mandate.

Unvaccinated employees said they were also subject to “abuse and harassment” from coworkers stemming from the “scarlet letter policy” of having to wear a mask, thus identifying oneself as unvaccinated. David Castillo, an employee from Texas, is one plaintiff who faced repeated verbal attacks from his peers.

A more aggressive policy was also proposed by United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, according to a case briefing obtained by the Washington Examiner. Kirby allegedly tried to implement a policy where the unvaccinated would have to put a sticker on their badge identifying them as someone who received a vaccine accommodation to work, but it failed.

The plaintiffs believe they were being retaliated against by United Airlines due to comments Kirby and human resources officials made expressing distrust of employees seeking religious exemptions and because Kirby pushed for more severe punishments for unvaccinated employees while forgiving disciplinary points for vaccinated employees, per the lawsuit.

Kirby expressed concern about employees “all [of a] sudden decid[ing] I’m really religious” in order to get out of taking the COVID-19 vaccine and said that those who chose not to get vaccinated were “putting [their] job on the line” in communications revealed in a press briefing.

United Airlines declined to comment on the matter.

Kirby’s ‘coercion’ of employees
Kirby announced the mandate without letting his executive team know beforehand, according to the lawsuit, despite Vice President of Human Resources Services Kirk Limacher’s initial objection that it was unnecessary.

The plaintiffs allege that Kirby pushed so hard to “coerce” employees to get vaccinated “for marketing purposes,” namely, to be able to boast about being the first airline to implement a vaccine mandate and to have a 100% vaccination rate.

“United CEO Scott Kirby has engaged in a despicable war against his own employees to unlawfully harass them for no other reason than virtue signaling and a marketing campaign,” Mark Paoletta, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Washington Examiner.

“As confirmed by United’s own health experts,” he continued, “Kirby had no public health or safety reason to impose these draconian and humiliating measures that sought to illegally force United’s employees to violate their faith or put their health at risk as a condition for keeping their job.”

In addition to Kirby’s failed attempt to enforce visual labels on unvaccinated employees, the United Airlines CEO allegedly requested to make his proposed “mask and test” policy “sound very serious,” requesting that employees be “automatic[ally] terminat[ed]” after just one violation. This effort failed when Kirby was reminded by HR that his policy would violate collective bargaining agreements.

The company also sent out postcards with big, bold red letters notifying employees who were not vaccine-compliant that they would be terminated if they did not comply. Limacher admitted these were meant to be seen by the spouses of employees.

Upon being asked by Visa’s CEO if he thought his company would lose many employees over the mandate, Kirby said he thought that was unlikely “because the jobs [at United] are just too good to leave,” according to a case briefing.

“Kirby’s heartless and thuggish conduct has hurt and damaged thousands of good people’s lives and careers, and Kirby and United should be held accountable in this litigation and in the court of public opinion,” Paoletta said.

A safety ‘double standard’
People familiar with the case called out a “double standard” of the company being willing to excuse disciplinary points for the vaccinated but not the unvaccinated, with no safety reason given. They also pointed to how the cabin of an airplane is touted as being incredibly sanitary, which makes it even less likely for an unvaccinated person to contract COVID-19.

Kirby had been warned by his vice president of HR services that a mandate was unnecessary from a safety standpoint as most employees were already vaccinated and most cases of infection came from outside of work.

The N95 mask mandate was additionally unnecessary for safety, based on CDC guidelines. However, Walker, the Airline Employees for Health Freedom co-founder, said people have been injured as a result of the mandate.

“United Airlines is more worried about diversity, equity, and inclusion than [it is about] safety,” Walker said. She pointed to the airline getting “hammered by the FAA” earlier this year due to safety mishaps, but listed a number of DEI initiatives funded by the company.

Big decisions loom: What’s next?
The court ruled that only “customer-facing” employees with a religious exemption could be included in the lawsuit, denying the plaintiff’s motion to include those with medical exemptions and those who were subjected to the “mask and test” mandate.

Both sides have a big decision to make before the July 5 deadline to appeal. The plaintiffs must decide whether to fight to include the other two groups, which could greatly increase the number of class members. According to the court decision obtained by the Washington Examiner, 1,078 employees were put under the “mask and test” mandate.

According to Walker, the next step is for the case to go to trial. The judge may attempt one more round of arbitration, however, where the goal would be to agree on a settlement before trial.

If the jury rules I favor of the plaintiffs, each member of the class action lawsuit would be entitled to punitive damages in addition to back pay. While a jury is not limited in its award, using the EEOC minimum standard for punitive damages of $300,000 per person applied when they bring action against an employer, United Airlines could conservatively be on the hook for $663 million, or roughly $987 million if the employees who were forced to wear respirators were allowed to join.

^^^Excellent! No doubt this decision is great and VERY welcome news for 'erj_pilot'!

A federal jury has ordered Blue Cross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) to pay nearly $700,000 to a former employee, Tanja Benton, who was terminated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine based on her religious beliefs.

https://newsaddicts.com/employ..._campaign=newsletter

Benton, who worked as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist, argued that her role involved minimal client interaction and did not require physical presence at medical facilities.

Despite working independently and remotely throughout the pandemic without any issues, BCBST enforced a company-wide vaccine mandate in August 2021.

Benton refused the vaccine due to her objection to the use of aborted fetus cell lines in vaccine development.

Benton’s request for a religious accommodation to continue working remotely was denied by BCBST.

Instead, the company offered her a “Safe Harbor” period to find another position within the organization that was not subject to the vaccine mandate, but Benton believed this offer was insincere and impractical.

In her complaint, Benton alleged that BCBST violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs.

The jury found that Benton’s refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination was based on a sincerely held religious belief.

They concluded that BCBST did not provide a reasonable accommodation and could not demonstrate that accommodating her would result in undue hardship for the company.

The jury awarded Benton total damages of $687,240, including back pay damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

This case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding vaccine mandates and religious exemptions.

It sets a precedent for individuals who refuse vaccination based on religious grounds and emphasizes the importance of employers providing reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held beliefs.

Assholes



https://x.com/liz_churchill10/.../1808512425840308690

Unvaccinated-> <-COVID

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ice-says/ar-BB1pz84A

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff tests positive for COVID-19, office says

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, tested positive for COVID-19 on Saturday, his office announced.

"Yesterday, the Second Gentleman tested positive for COVID-19 after experiencing mild symptoms. He is fully vaccinated and three times boosted," Liza Acevedo, Emhoff's communications director, said in a statement Sunday. "He is currently asymptomatic, continuing to work remotely, and remaining away from others at home."

"Out of an abundance of caution, yesterday, the Vice President was tested for COVID-19. She tested negative and remains asymptomatic," Acevedo added.

Emhoff was at the White House a few days ago to celebrate Independence Day with Harris, President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden.

Just think how blah blah blah he would be if he wasn’t blah blah blah. We’ve heard this story so many times; super vaccinated booster-collector got Covid.

That rocket surgeon sure showed us.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
https://x.com/DiedSuddenly_/st.../1810448519620366643

This reply caught my eye...

"Haven’t found ANYONE yet who regrets NOT getting the vaccine!"

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ice-says/ar-BB1pz84A

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff tests positive for COVID-19, office says

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, tested positive for COVID-19 on Saturday, his office announced.

"Yesterday, the Second Gentleman tested positive for COVID-19 after experiencing mild symptoms. He is fully vaccinated and three times boosted," Liza Acevedo, Emhoff's communications director, said in a statement Sunday. "He is currently asymptomatic, continuing to work remotely, and remaining away from others at home."

"Out of an abundance of caution, yesterday, the Vice President was tested for COVID-19. She tested negative and remains asymptomatic," Acevedo added.

Emhoff was at the White House a few days ago to celebrate Independence Day with Harris, President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden.

It’s the middle of 2024.


His problem is not enough boosts. The man needs more boost.


3 boosts was cool if it was September of 2022