Employer Mandated Vaccines Coming?
Irrational fear is still gripping the American public. Cities across the country increasingly continue to enforce mask mandates despite the admitted low fatality rate of .26%. City governments are not the only enforcers of these unconstitutional dictates. Local businesses, as well as national chain stores are also requiring people to mask up before patronizing their establishments. A good example is the Oklahoma grocery chain, Reasors. Shortly after Tulsa and Oklahoma City imposed their mask policy, Reasors announced statewide, their stores would do the same. Sadly, this is a reality across the country as major retailers like Walmart, Lowe’s, Kohl’s, and Target are also buying into the hype. Most people, even if they realize the ridiculousness of mask mandates, willingly comply because they need to get on with everyday life. There are, however, larger implications to this to whichi many are blissfully unaware.
In my last article, I discussed the 2014 mask compliance study which determined how easily people could be persuaded into wearing masks based on The Health Belief Model. Looking at this from the perspective that we are constantly being studied, it is important to understand that there is always a larger agenda and, a purpose for everything. Many people, for example, believe that the masks are merely a means to an end, and that they are being used to condition the public for mandatory vaccinations. This is true but it goes much deeper than that. The reason major businesses have been co-opted into complying with this nonsense is that they are one of the possible routes of ensuring everyone complies with vaccination policies. This, to some, will seem like a no-brainer. The idea of having to prove you are immune to Covid-19 through vaccinations has been discussed since the beginning. It is very much becoming a situation where you will not be able to buy or sell without proof of vaccination. The question is, what is the best method of enforcing compliance?
The New England Journal of Medicine, the same journal where Dr. Fauci admitted that Covid-19 has an extremely low fatality rate back in March, has some interesting insight on this. In an article entitled Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, they discuss some of the possible ways of ensuring vaccine compliance. The authors acknowledge the “constitutional” difficulties of legally pushing vaccine requirements and makes suggestions on how to achieve the best results. They say that the imposition of fines and other legal penalties face to much risk of being challenged on due process grounds; therefore, other methods should be used.
Neither fines nor criminal penalties should be used, however; fines disadvantage the poor, and criminal penalties invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds. Both are bad public health policy for a Covid-19 vaccine because they may stoke distrust without improving uptake. (New England Journal of Medicine)
One of these methods is through employer directives. Employers, for example, could suspend employees who refuse vaccinations, and ultimately, even fire them. Another method would be state-directed stay at home orders or forced quarantines of those in so-called̶ ̶ ̶ high-risk groups who refuse vaccinations. You have not been vaccinated; therefore, you pose a danger to society. Of course, the question here is why would one pose a danger if everyone else is vaccinated? In any case, these are the things that are literally being discussed. This is not some conspiracy theory.
Although state vaccination mandates are usually tied to school and day care entry, that approach is not appropriate for SARS-CoV-2 because children won’t be a high priority group. In addition, state mandates should not be structured as compulsory vaccination (absolute requirements); instead, noncompliance should incur a penalty. Nevertheless, because of the infectiousness and dangerousness of the virus, relatively substantive penalties could be justified, including employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination. (New England Journal of Medicine)
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the New England Journal of Medicine is in on some grand conspiracy to force vaccines. There are, however, some other correlations that deserve some attention. For instance, there are several criteria which the journal suggests need to be met before even recommending mandatory vaccines. There is a total of six, but two are of interest. One, the virus must present an ongoing threat. It must be proven reasonable that forcing vaccines is a necessary step. Has this been proven? As mentioned earlier, the CDC, and even Dr. Fauci both admitted that Covid-19 has a miniscule fatality rate and, over ninety-eight percent of the people infected, survive. Throughout the past six months there have been some interesting developments where the CDC admitted that case numbers were inflated due to hospitals receiving funding from the government. Furthermore, there have been many stories concerning the inaccuracy of the tests being used to diagnose Covid-19. This is because, according to Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, the FDA dropped the standards in developing the test.
Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out from the test manufacturers and fast-tracked for clinical use by the US Federal Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization have dropped the requisite caveats that such tests MUST be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – and not just from bits of RNA, the so-called ‘RNAaemia’ of Huang et al (2020 p499) assumed to come from a ‘novel Coronavirus’ based only on molecular/genetic similarity. (Kevin P. Corbett, MSc PhD)
What Dr. Corbett is arguing is that the test fast-tracked for approval by the FDA is not testing for an isolated virus, but RNA particles that suggests a similarity to the virus. In other words, any coronavirus could potentially be mistaken for Covid-19. Given this information, is the criteria for an ongoing threat being met? Not even close. So according to the Journal of New England Medicine there is no need to mandate vaccines at all.
Another interesting criterion suggests that mechanisms be put in place in the event of mandatory vaccines, that enable those injured from the vaccines to collect just compensation. The authors cite the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a potential example. This is interesting because it acknowledges the potential danger of vaccines while also bringing into question who is responsible for paying out the compensation. The smallpox compensation program was administered by the federal government, meaning the American taxpayer flipped the bill. Vaccine companies, by law, are protected from prosecution due to the injuries their vaccines cause.
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22)
Americans must decide how much more of this they are willing to put up with. It is no secret that they are working on a vaccine and if they could, would mandate it for everyone. They are keenly watching how people are willingly complying with mask mandates and are not anticipating any major resistance to the vaccine at all. This will be especially true if major employers require the vaccine to stay gainfully employed. This is a possible route as it has been determined that requiring school children to receive mandatory vaccines for entry into public schools has been effective. If there is going to be any resistance to mandatory vaccination it needs to start against the unnecessary mask mandates right now.
Article posted with permission from David Risselada