For employees being coerced into being vaccinated, website offers facts and legal options

by WorldTribune Staff, August 6, 2021

No one has the right to mandate an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approved vaccine, which all current Covid vaccines are, according to a website offering legal advice for those facing mandated vaccination.

“Your Right to Informed Consent is separate from the Option to Refuse, and is also based on Federal law over EUAs,” the Defending the Republic website notes.

Currently, there are no licensed Covid-19 vaccines in the U.S. All Covid-19 vaccines are currently approved only as Emergency Use Authorized (EUAs). “Approval” does not mean “licensed,” the website notes.

“It is a violation of your privacy rights to be forced to declare whether you have been vaccinated or not,” the website notes. “When a Virtue Hunter seeks this information, remind them of privacy rights of your own medical information, also known as PHI and PII.”

The website notes that the most recent relevant court decision in relation to an injunction application on an EUA vaccine was the 2005 case Doe v. Rumsfeld, where the United States District Court for the District of Columbia required that the EUA anthrax vaccine be only administered in the military on a voluntary basis “pursuant to the terms of a lawful emergency use authorization (“EUA”) pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This decision found the EUA could not be mandated; recognizing the option to refuse under federal law governing EUAs.

“To be clear,” the website adds, “the EEOC’s guidance updated on May 28, 2021, related to language suggesting that vaccines may be ‘required’ by employers, only states that ‘federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated…’ This is called a word game or word salad. This is a limited statement which does not include other federal law, specifically 21 USCS § 360bbb-3 under the Food Drug and Safety Act, discussed above, which requires that EUAs are administered with the option to refuse and the right to informed consent, which requires both the benefits and the negatives of an EUA vaccine.”

EEOC guidance, the website continues, also recognizes religious or medical exemptions.

A religious exemption, for example, “can apply to those who oppose abortion based on their faith because the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, (the Jansen vaccine), uses retinal cells from a fetus that was aborted in 1985 and treated in a lab since; the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines test the mRNAs on fetal cell lines from an aborted fetus from 1973.”

On April 20, OSHA issued guidance that says, “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”

More recently, however, the website points out that due to Biden administration “virtue signaling, the language from OSHA appears to have been updated to state: ‘Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log? DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.’

“Are they arbitrarily changing the law – to fit virtue signaling…? The question would then become, can an agency change enforcement of a regulation without following the APA and putting out notice of a rule change?”

INFORMATION WORLD WAR: How We Win . . . . Executive Intelligence Brief