quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
For those facing forced vaccination to keep your job or career consider this letter written by a US lawyer and explore it with your own legal counsel:

https://vivabarneslaw.locals.c...loyee-letter-example

snip...

For the love of all that is holy, don't rely on ANYTHING in that letter. There is a lot of spectacularly bad advice in there.

Thanks for the input. Can you specify what "spectacularly bad advice" you read in the letter?

I took a quick look at the citations given, looked at CDC guidance, HIPAA, the ADA, the EEOC, and the website where the letter was posted.

First, Robert Barns who runs the site clearly states that he is not a lawyer. Second, he doesn't identify who sent him the letter, and in fact states he doesn't know who wrote it. Third, many of the sources cited in the letter are either misquoted, misunderstood, simply don't apply, or are irrelevant.

I am not specifically an HR or disability lawyer, I don't want to get into an argument over the information presented, and I am unwilling to spend the hours of research it would take to specifically refute or properly clarify every point in the letter. However, I can tell you that it is seriously lacking in context, accuracy and relevancy to the issue of whether or not an employer can require (or fire if refused) an employee to get vaccinated as a condition of employment. Most importantly, no court, state or federal, that I was able to find has yet ruled on a case considering these issues. I don't want to speculate how such a case would turn out, but I very much doubt it would be along the lines asserted in that letter.

The poster who suggested that it reads like a sovereign citizen declaration where statements facially make sense but are cobbled together with half truths and inaccurate assertions to make a flawed case is not far off the mark.

In short, don't rely on it.

Listen to Artie, he knows what he's talking about.

For those interested, here is the EEOC guidance:
https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/...technical-assistance

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

• There are some exceptions. If an employee will not be vaccinated because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, the business should try to make an accommodation -- if it does not pose an “undue hardship” on the business. Examples: Requiring the unvaccinated employee to wear a mask and/or socially distance from others.

• Employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive. Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.

There are lawsuits out there and it will take some time to sort thru all of them, but in the meantime don't lose your job over bad advice on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Even a "vaccine" that isn't even FDA approved?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Even a "vaccine" that isn't even FDA approved?

Yes, for this it does not matter.
*Pending lawsuits, but most attorneys seem to think it won't matter*

But who's liable if I have a severe adverse event (either immediately or sometime in the future)? Who has the burden of proof for something that is largely idiopathic?

There is something seriously wrong with the law and our society if this is permitted.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
But who's liable if I have a severe adverse event (either immediately or sometime in the future)? Who has the burden of proof for something that is largely idiopathic?

There is something seriously wrong with the law and our society if this is permitted.

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

Liability for all vaccines made an administered in the U.S. is borne by the U.S. Government. I was made aware of this when I was advised to get vaccinated for yellow fever before going to Brazil. The U.S. made version was not available and I had to get a French import, which entailed signing all kinds of papers and listening to a doctor for a half hour about how technically under U.S. law the government is not liable for French vaccines, but under this specific program they would assume liability as with U.S. made vaccines.

I'm not sure why the EEOC has a position on this. They are not arbiters of the law regarding experimental treatments. But I think they are basically telling you to pound sand if you file a wrongful termination claim for refusing a vaccine. Regardless of the legality, they aren't going to do anything to the employer.

quote:

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

That may be technically true but it’s disingenuous. It’s not so easy for many people to find a new job.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

That may be technically true but it’s disingenuous. It’s not so easy for many people to find a new job.

I totally agree with you, I was just stating the argument that will be made and almost certainly sustained.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Liability for all vaccines made an administered in the U.S. is borne by the U.S. Government. I was made aware of this when I was advised to get vaccinated for yellow fever before going to Brazil. The U.S. made version was not available and I had to get a French import, which entailed signing all kinds of papers and listening to a doctor for a half hour about how technically under U.S. law the government is not liable for French vaccines, but under this specific program they would assume liability as with U.S. made vaccines.

I'm not sure the context of what you were told, but if you think that if you had gotten sick or had an adverse reaction to the yellow fever vaccine and that the US government was going to assume liability and take care of your medical bills that you would have been sorely disappointed. Why would the government accept the liability for every person who chooses to travel overseas? The US government won't even accept liability for US troops who have adverse reactions to forced vaccinations for deployment.

From Epoch News - June 9

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

By Zachary Stieber June 9, 2021 Updated: June 9, 2021

People who have previously been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 are protected against being infected again and thus don’t need to be vaccinated, according to a new study.

“Our conclusion is that if you were previously infected, you are protected because of the previous infection and you don’t need the vaccine,” Dr. Nabin Shrestha, of the Cleveland Clinic’s Department of Infectious Disease, told The Epoch Times.

Shrestha and colleagues at the clinic studied data on employees, separating them into four groups: previously infected and unvaccinated, previously infected and vaccinated, not previously infected and unvaccinated, and not previously infected and vaccinated.

They found that the vaccines were strongly effective in preventing infection from the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, but that previous infection also bestowed a natural immunity.

“Among the people who were previously infected, whether they took the vaccine or not, there really were no COVID cases,” Shrestha said.

Of the 52,238 employees studied, 2,579 were previously infected. About half of those remained unvaccinated. Of the 49,659 employees who did not have a previous infection, 41 percent did not get a vaccine.

Using a Cox proportional hazards regression model and adjusting for the phase of the pandemic, vaccination was linked to a significantly lower risk of infection among those not previously infected but not among those who had had the disease.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “Individuals who had had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”

SARS-CoV-2 is another name for the CCP virus.

The study is not peer-reviewed. It was submitted to journals, but they rejected it “because they think it’s not a priority for them,” Shrestha said. But it adds to the growing body of research that supports natural immunity existing for some time among those who contracted the illness.

Research published last month indicated that people who recovered from mild COVID-19 have long-lasting antibody protection. That built on research that reached a similar finding. Previous research also indicated that people who had COVID-19 showed virus-specific T cell responses. The World Health Organization on May 10, in an updated scientific brief (pdf), said that most people who are infected with the CCP virus and recover develop “strong protective immune responses” that remain “robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6–8 months.”

Based on what the Cleveland Clinic researchers found, natural protection from infection lasts at least a year.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends that virtually everybody should get a COVID-19 vaccine. In a brief last updated in March, the agency acknowledges that studies indicate people who recover from the disease are protected against reinfection. The evidence “suggests that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is low in the months after initial infection but may increase with time due to waning immunity,” the agency stated.

The CDC declined to respond to the new study.

“We do not comment on non-CDC authored papers. We continually evaluate the science that leads to our guidance, and if it needs to be changed, we will be base that on our own research and studies,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email.

Shrestha, the study’s lead author, believes recommending vaccination for previously infected people is misguided.

“I personally feel that the vaccines are amazingly effective. We need to use them wisely. We should really not be thinking of this as a U.S. problem; it is a global problem,” he said. “It would make more sense to use the vaccine anywhere in the world where it would be effective in getting the pandemic under control.”

Meiling Lee contributed to this report.

From Epoch News - June 9

Weight-Adjusted Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Boosted Survival of Ventilated COVID-19 Patients by 200 Percent: Study

By Tom Ozimek June 9, 2021 Updated: June 9, 2021

new study has found that the use of weight-adjusted hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZM) improved the survival of ventilated COVID-19 patients by nearly 200 percent.

The observational study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, was based on a re-analysis of 255 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the first two months of the pandemic in the United States.

The researchers found that when the HCQ–AZM combination was given at higher dosages to treat ventilated COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was about three times lower.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the authors of the study noted.

“By using causal analysis and considering of weight-adjusted cumulative dose, we prove the combined therapy, >3 g HCQ and > 1g AZM greatly increases survival in COVID patients on IMV and that HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better.”

While the authors acknowledged that patients with higher doses of HCQ had higher doses of AZM, they “cannot solely attribute the causal effect to HCQ/AZM combination therapy.”

“However, it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate. Since higher dose HCQ/AZM therapy improves survival by nearly 200 [percent] in this population, the safety data are moot,” they added.

Hydroxychloroquine—an anti-inflammatory and anti-malarial drug—has been one of the most contested treatments for COVID-19 throughout the pandemic.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1955 to treat and prevent malaria. It’s also prescribed for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

While the FDA initially granted HCQ an emergency use authorization (EUA) to treat COVID-19 in March 2020, the agency revoked it on June 15, 2020, because data suggested it was “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19” and that its potential risks outweighed the benefits.

The FDA’s turnabout came on the heels of a study by Oxford University in the United Kingdom that found HCQ underperformed its routine treatment protocols.

“Unfortunately, problems in research methodologies assessing the effectiveness and risks of HCQ have left lingering doubts,” wrote Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, in an op-ed for The Epoch Times. “Those problems include questionable dosing.”

Some, like Epoch Times contributor Roger L. Simon, have argued that studies around the use of HCQ to treat COVID-19 were politicized by opponents of former President Donald Trump, who advocated the use of the drug.

From Epoch Times - June 12

EU Suspends Use of Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Made at Baltimore Plant

By Jack Phillips June 11, 2021 Updated: June 11, 2021

The European Union’s drug regulator announced Friday it will not use batches of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine that were made at a Baltimore, Maryland-based plant around the time that manufacturing problems were reported at the facility.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said that vaccines that it obtained from the Emergent Biosolutions plant weren’t affected by any contamination. The move on Friday to suspend using the vaccines is being done out of an abundance of caution, the agency said.

“Authorities in the EU are aware that a batch of the active substance for COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen had been contaminated with materials for another vaccine manufactured at the same site,” the statement said, adding that the “batch concerned was not intended for the EU market.”

“Based on available information, batches of the vaccine released in the EU are not affected by the cross-contamination,” the EMA said. “However, as a precaution and to safeguard the quality of vaccines, the supervisory authorities have recommended not releasing vaccine batches containing the active substance made at around the same time that the contamination occurred.”

It’s not clear how many J&J doses would be affected by the EU decision.

The decision came amid reports, citing anonymous sources, that claimed that up to 60 million doses were tossed out due to the decision, although spokespersons for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Johnson & Johnson did not respond for comment after The Epoch Times’ inquiries about the doses.

A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson, in an email to The Epoch Times, pointed to a news release from Kathy Wengel, a vice president, who said that the recent actions “represent progress in our continued efforts to make a difference in this pandemic on a global scale, and we appreciate the close collaboration with the FDA and global health authorities.” A spokesperson for the FDA, in an email, referred to J&J.

The FDA, in a news release on Thursday, said that two batches manufactured at the Baltimore plant can be used under the emergency use authorization.

“The FDA’s decision to include these two batches of vaccine drug substance in the [emergency use authorization] for the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine means that Janssen vaccine made with this drug substance can be used in the U.S. or exported to other countries,” the FDA said.

But the FDA said it has discovered that “several other batches are not suitable for use, but additional batches are still under review and the agency will keep the public informed as those reviews are completed.” The agency not make any mention of how many Johnson & Johnson single-shot vaccine doses, known as the Janssen vaccine, would be affected—if any.

“Additionally,” the news release said, “the FDA has extended the expiration dating for the refrigerated Janssen COVID-19 vaccine after reviewing information submitted by Janssen and determining that the vaccine can be stored at 2-8 degrees Celsius for 4.5 months instead of 3 months.”

Emergent Biosolutions is one of several J&J contractors that make the vaccine in bulk, which is then shipped to other factories to finalize. In April, there were reports that a human error caused millions of doses to be ruined.

The Epoch Times has contacted Emergent Biosolutions for comment.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
From Epoch News - June 9

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

By Zachary Stieber June 9, 2021 Updated: June 9, 2021

People who have previously been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 are protected against being infected again and thus don’t need to be vaccinated, according to a new study.

“Our conclusion is that if you were previously infected, you are protected because of the previous infection and you don’t need the vaccine,” Dr. Nabin Shrestha, of the Cleveland Clinic’s Department of Infectious Disease, told The Epoch Times.

...Snip...

Interesting. I had COVID-19 symptoms in December 2019, before the wu-flu was recognized here. I was extremely sick and almost hospitalized. I recovered, but didn't feel quite right for pretty much all of 2020, and contracted the wu-flu again in December 2020, this time with a confirmed test. I was again quite sick, but a little less bad than the first time.

My takeaway from that is that for me, any immunity conferred by my first round lasted less than a year.

Following my second round, I needed two heart procedures done, and my blood pressure is still high.

I'm fully vaccinated, and doing research on when I can get a booster. I do not want to go round three with this bastard.

I hope that study is right, and that I am safe. I am still being very cautious, however.

^^^Except that you don't REALLY know if you had COVID in Decenber 2019, and there's NO way to determine that. In terms of symptoms, lot's of things resemble COVID, one of which is simply a really bad flu. That said, the first COVID cases in China didn't really emerge until December of 2019, so would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for you to have been infected at the same time COVID was just emerging in China.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
... the first COVID cases in China didn't really emerge until December of 2019, ...

No, the first cases of Covid-19 were reported in Dec. 2019.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
... so would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for you to have been infected at the same time COVID was just emerging in China.

Nope.

quote:

Study authors came to the conclusion after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found evidence of coronavirus antibodies in blood collected in December 2019, according to the report published Monday in the Clinical Infections Journal.

Ref: COVID-19 may have been spreading in the US at least a month before first case was reported, CDC study says
Key words: at least

There've been many such reports.

My wife and three friends got sick a couple weeks before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was reported in Wuhan, and a couple months before it became an issue in the U.S. Typical Covid-19 symptoms: Two of them got mildly "sick" for two or three days and it went away. One exhibited little-to-no symptoms at all. The 4th got really sick. (Not hospitalized sick.)

About the time my wife started getting better I started feeling like I was coming down with something. Went away after a couple days. I told my doc "I'd get a Covid-19 antibody test if I could." "Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to request that test," he replied.

I wonder why?

quote:

Ref: COVID-19 may have been spreading in the US at least a month before first case was reported, CDC study says
Key words: at least

Another 'key word': may

Sooo, a 'couple of weeks' before COVID was 'reported' in Wuhan (the epicenter of the 'pandemic'), a local cluster was emerging in S.E. Michigan...

Yes, of course there were cases in China before they were 'reported' (November 2019), but as contagious as COVID-19 is (and I know exactly how contagious it is because I had it, and I know how I got it), it would have been spreading much faster/sooner in the US than has been 'reported'!

I you didn't get tested, you REALLY don't know if you had it, period!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Except that you don't REALLY know if you had COVID in Decenber 2019, and there's NO way to determine that. ...

True. But. I have had pneumonia in the past and it wasn't consistent with that. I have had the flu and it wasn't consistent with that. I have had confirmed COVID and it was consistent with that. Right down to the length of time of acute symptoms, the pain in my chest, the exhaustion, and the treatments that were effective in reducing the symptoms. I also know the vector. My partner's boss is from Canada. His grandson was in hospital with a severe upper respiratory condition. The boss traveled to Barbados for 4 days of meetings with my partner. She came back severely ill. Two days after she returned, I was sick.

I cannot KNOW as antibody tests weren't available to me. I did volunteer for them through my Dr. I was sufficiently sick that I am not taking any chances.

I am out and about, I don't wear a mask any more unless asked to do so by a business that I am frequenting, and I am not paranoid about another bout. But I am being careful, and I am staying on top of my opportunities to get a booster.

People who avoided this disease are lucky. Those who had the mild case were fortunate. I was not. I was extremely ill, had a legitimate fear of dying, and the medical bills are approaching 5 figures.

This is not a game. It is a serious disease, and needs to be treated as such. I'm in my mid 50s. Generally healthy, go to the gym, run a horse farm, do my own repairs and maintenance, run a law practice and hike, fish and stay active. I will consider myself lucky if my doctors and I can get my BP under control, and this illness does not materially shorten my life.

I completely agree that the government badly botched communications and public health guidance over the past 18 months, and they still haven't gotten their collective head out of their collective ass.

The response to the virus was politicized, and that is a shame. The virus doesn't care. It is an equal opportunity killer.

With honesty, transparency, good un-politicized science, and kind regard for each other, we can and will beat this, as we appear to be doing now.

As frustrated as I am with my government on this, I try to maintain some humility and grace and grant that dealing with this situation has been a once in a life time (hopefully) event for all of us, and that while mistakes were made, much was also learned.

Neither the left nor the right have covered themselves in glory over this. Neither have displayed much critical thought, or been willing to admit what they don't know. For those who were cautious because they feared being wrong, I have sympathy. For those who used this pandemic as an excuse to assert power, I have nothing but contempt.

^^^ArtieS - Please know I wasn't calling you out, or questioning the seriousness of how you were affected. I was merely stating that without a test, you simply can't know. Assuming a well functioning immune system, the likelihood of reinfection is extremely small for ANYONE that actually had COVID and recovered from it.