Virus and Vaccine Experts and "Experts"

[Revmitchell]

J.C. you are straight up trolling.
Anyone requiring a medical procedure is removing, not granting, freedom.

yep exactly

 

[Wingman68]

Let’s not forget, what they are mandating is not only a medical procedure, but an experimental medical procedure. The shots they are administering are emergency use, they have no ‘approved’ Comirnaty by design. Got to protect big pharma from any responsibility. Now they are saying you can mix & match whatever maker for your booster! How can they even track back shot results to any maker when you’ve taken a cocktail?! Is this by design too? Further pharma protection? Who is protecting your interests by the way??

 

[JonC]

You need to stop with your accusatory rhetoric. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a socialist is just upping your game from calling them a democrat. You are inciting. The left always accuses the very thing they themselves are guilty of, & it certainly rings true with you. Here with the flat earthers verbiage again, why don’t you just cut to the chase and throw out knuckle draggers? RevM was 100% correct.


Oh, you're a woke-poke employer eh?

You think hiding behind OSHA -- or the threat to issue a mandate by the government -- in some way prevents you from being liable for injuries and/or deaths related to the vaccines?

Uh, how would you like to defend that position in court given all of the following are true:

• The PREP act has no provision giving you legal immunity and cannot be amended by executive order as it is law, so you would need both houses of Congress to pass such a thing -- and they have not.
  
  
• The producing firms and health care providers are immune from damages under that same PREP Act. Therefore under the general principle of joint and several liability guess who gets all of it: You do.
• You could have tried to claim that the Federal Government refused liability (and got away with it) for direct employees, or even that "there's no such thing as vaccine injury from these jabs" and claimed that the Federal Government itself said this is so..... except, oops, that just went up in a puff of smoke.

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) covers injuries that occur in the performance of duty. The FECA does not generally authorize provision of preventive measures such as vaccines and inoculations, and in general, preventive treatment is a responsibility of the employing agency under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7901. However, care can be authorized by OWCP for complications of preventive measures which are provided or sponsored by the agency, such as adverse reaction to prophylactic immunization. See PM 3-0400.7(a).

Further, deleterious effects of medical services furnished by the employing establishment are generally considered to fall within the performance of duty. These services include preventive programs relating to health. See PM 2-0804.19.

However, this executive order now makes COVID-19 vaccination a requirement of most Federal employment. As such, employees impacted by this mandate who receive required COVID-19 vaccinations on or after the date of the executive order may be afforded coverage under the FECA for any adverse reactions to the vaccine itself, and for any injuries sustained while obtaining the vaccination.

Oops.

If you mandate, as a private employer, "vaccination" against Covid-19 any and all adverse events as a result of said jabs are now chargeable to you, as the Federal Government itself has deemed that "mandated" vaccinations are indeed injuries that occurred while performing the job in question, irrespective of where the jab took place, and that said adverse events, up to and including death do in fact occur.

Got that employers and HR Departments? Said "adverse events" are expected.

Oh by the way your insurance firm has likely inserted a "pandemic exemption" into your liability coverage. That's shown up in a whole lot of those policies over the last year or so, and it's odds-on that's the case for you as well.

Incidentally there is plenty of evidence that these jabs will be eventually found to be responsible for a whole host of serious problems, and those do not end within a couple of weeks of the jab itself. Indeed, the evidence is mounting rapidly (see the all-cause "excess death" rates for various age groups, particularly cardiac and circulatory related, among young people now showing up in places like Scotland and England for examples) that there is a causal link between both strokes and heart attacks.

I remind you that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry claimed, not all that long ago, that no such link existed for Vioxx. It was only after about 60,000 Americans had heart attacks and died, and several hundred thousand had non-fatal heart problems caused by it, that it was withdrawn from the market -- five years later.

Moderna and Pfizer may be immune from lawsuit but you are not, and further, the precedent by the Federal Government itself now exists based on their own public statement that if an employee gets screwed by the jab you demanded they take you're on the hook whether that injury is evident five minutes afterward or five years later.

If OAS or ADE shows up as is being indicated, but not yet proved by the data out of both Scotland and Britain then you're really in trouble as every single vaccinated person who gets Covid-19 and dies or is permanently harmed in your organization, and that will be a very sizeable percentage of the whole, is going to result in a huge lawsuit that you will lose.

It is not rhetoric.

I oppose the position you (and @Reynolds and @Revmitchell ) suggest.

It is wrong to deny a man the right to decide for himself how he will run his business as long as he is operating legally.

You imply that you have the right to demand men relinquish contr of their businesses....their property...to a minority of Americans.

That is not right. It is a slap in the face to those who have fought and died to protect tge freedoms we have in this country.

 

[JonC]

J.C. you are straight up trolling.
Anyone requiring a medical procedure is removing, not granting, freedom.

This is not true.

For my job I have to take hospitals (including an EKG). I have to have blood drawn for a baseline mercury program.

These are requirements of the job.

I have to be stuck with a needle and blood drawn as a condition of employment.

I can refuse. They are not forcing me. I'd just have to find another job.

You are trying to strip away a man's rights to their own business. That is un-American, unconstitutional, and wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not rhetoric.

I oppose the position you (and @Reynolds and @Revmitchell ) suggest.

It is wrong to deny a man the right to decide for himself how he will run his business as long as he is operating legally.

You imply that you have the right to demand men relinquish contr of their businesses....their property...to a minority of Americans.

That is not right. It is a slap in the face to those who have fought and died to protect tge freedoms we have in this country.

Is it wrong to deny a man the right to not do business with minorities?

 

[Wingman68]

It is not rhetoric.

I oppose the position you (and @Reynolds and @Revmitchell ) suggest.

It is wrong to deny a man the right to decide for himself how he will run his business as long as he is operating legally.

You imply that you have the right to demand men relinquish contr of their businesses....their property...to a minority of Americans.

That is not right. It is a slap in the face to those who have fought and died to protect tge freedoms we have in this country.

Was it wrong when bakers get run out of business for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake?
It was a slap in the face for every man & woman who fought in Afghanistan too. It was a slap on both sides of the face to be a Nam vet. You are spewing more rhetoric.

 

[JonC]

Is it wrong to deny a man the right to not do business with minorities?

It is illegal (see Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Businesses are required to operate within the confines of the law. Chemical companies can't just dump into a river.

But it is not illegal for a business to require immunizations, physicals, drug tests, ekg's, blood tests, etc. as a condition of employment.

 

[JonC]

Was it wrong when bakers get run out of business for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake?
It was a slap in the face for every man & woman who fought in Afghanistan too. It was a slap on both sides of the face to be a Nam vet. You are spewing more rhetoric.

Was it legal or illegal? (See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

If it was not against anti-discrimination laws then yes, it was wrong.

 

[JonC]

@Reynolds , @Revmitchell , @Wingman68

You are all getting very silly here.

You are NOT saying a business should be prohibited from making illegal choices.

You are saying a man has no right to decide how his property is run even if he is within the law.

You are socialistic. Let companies devide. If you don't like their decisions then don't work for them....don't support them.

BUT stop trying to chip away at tge freedoms of Americans.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You are socialistic.

BUT stop trying to chip away at the freedoms of Americans.

You are spouting utter foolishness Jon. American civilization is crumbling. Totalitarianism is a click or two away. Tyranny has already been in full sway in most of Australia. New Zealand is following suit. Canada is falling in like with CCP methodology. Wake up.

 

[Revmitchell]

@Reynolds , @Revmitchell , @Wingman68

You are all getting very silly here.

You are NOT saying a business should be prohibited from making illegal choices.

You are saying a man has no right to decide how his property is run even if he is within the law.

You are socialistic. Let companies devide. If you don't like their decisions then don't work for them....don't support them.

BUT stop trying to chip away at tge freedoms of Americans.

Got it! So long as you agree with it then it’s socialistic! Carry on with your trolling and personal attacks. Remember God is watching

 

[JonC]

Here is an illustration to explain the diffetence:

I have a restaurant and decide to enforce a dress code (jacket and tie). That is legal. @Revmitchell ,@Wingman68 and @Reynolds take the position anybody who does not like the dresscode are being forced to wear a jacket and tie, therefore their freedom to not do so is taken. But they forget the person who prefers comfort does not have a right to eat at my restaurant and can go elsewhere.

Say @Revmitchell owns a restaurant next door and he hates Black people. So he decides to refuse service to a family because of the color of their skin. The family does not have a right to eat at Reverend's Bar and Grill....but it is illegal for Revmitchell to discriminate against them based on race.

Suppose @Reynolds has a store and decides he does not want any employees wearing masks. Unless there is a legitimate medical condition requiring the person to wear a mask he can make that decision. That said, Reynolds argument is he cannot....the people should decide.

 

[JonC]

You are spouting utter foolishness Jon. American civilization is crumbling. Totalitarianism is a click or two away. Tyranny has already been in full sway in most of Australia. New Zealand is following suit. Canada is falling in like with CCP methodology. Wake up.

Not at all. I believe our freedoms are crumbling.

We have leftists Democrats who want to usher in "Democratic Socialism" (which is really just Socialism) on one side and we have anti-covid-vaxer socialists who want to do the same thing on the other side.

You seem to think it is OK to strip away freedoms from business owners if it is contrary to others who want to strip away freedoms.

In the end, you are just as bad as the Dems. Both of you are attacking America, just from different angles.

The fact you, @Revmitchell ,@Reynolds , and @Wingman68 are conservatives who want to decide for another man how that person will run their business but cannot even see how this is socialistic is proof that our freedoms are being eroded.

 

[JonC]

Got it! So long as you agree with it then it’s socialistic! Carry on with your trolling and personal attacks. Remember God is watching

No. Agreement or disagreements has nothing to do with it.

I would not agree that a business should prohibit masks. But I do support the owners right to make that decision (I'd just go elsewhere).

You, on the other hand, want to take away an owners right to conduct his business as he sees fit (within the law). That is socialistic.

It is not about the decision made. It is about not stripping away a man's right to make his decisions.

This is also why I am opposed to forced vaccinations.

People should make decisions unions for themselves - but they cannot take away another person's right to provide even more options.

You ate socialistic. There is no getting around that fact. You are just a conservative who holds socialistic ideologies as opposed to liberals who hold socialistic ideologies. Both of you would most likely enjoy some form of communism, but your communism would look differently and have different people at the top.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jonc is someone who calls himself conservative (doubtfully) who wants to tell another man what to put in his own body, what meds he must be forced to take. It’s unAmerican.

 

[Reynolds]

@Reynolds , @Revmitchell , @Wingman68

You are all getting very silly here.

You are NOT saying a business should be prohibited from making illegal choices.

You are saying a man has no right to decide how his property is run even if he is within the law.

You are socialistic. Let companies devide. If you don't like their decisions then don't work for them....don't support them.

BUT stop trying to chip away at tge freedoms of Americans.

You have been silly, and worse. Once you admitted you troll, enjoy trolling, and do it often; I can't take you serious. I think you are just enjoying stirring up a ruckus. You are just trolling for fun and it has become obvious.

 

[Reynolds]

Here is an illustration to explain the diffetence:

I have a restaurant and decide to enforce a dress code (jacket and tie). That is legal. @Revmitchell ,@Wingman68 and @Reynolds take the position anybody who does not like the dresscode are being forced to wear a jacket and tie, therefore their freedom to not do so is taken. But they forget the person who prefers comfort does not have a right to eat at my restaurant and can go elsewhere.

Say @Revmitchell owns a restaurant next door and he hates Black people. So he decides to refuse service to a family because of the color of their skin. The family does not have a right to eat at Reverend's Bar and Grill....but it is illegal for Revmitchell to discriminate against them based on race.

Suppose @Reynolds has a store and decides he does not want any employees wearing masks. Unless there is a legitimate medical condition requiring the person to wear a mask he can make that decision. That said, Reynolds argument is he cannot....the people should decide.

As usual, you are misrepresent our view to the point of dishonesty.

 

[JonC]

As usual, you are misrepresent our view to the point of dishonesty.

Ok....you tell me.

Do you believe a private business owner has the right to require immunizations, blood tests, physicals, etc. as a condition of employment or do you believe those rights (which owners currently have) should be taken away?

Do you believe people, including owners of businesses, should have the right to look at the evidence, risks, and benefits and make their own choices or should they submit to your opinions or the opinions of employees?

Do you believe employers have the right to choose employees or do you believe people have the right of employment?

So far you have taken a very socialistic position. Correct your position now and let us know what you think.

 

[JonC]

You have been silly, and worse. Once you admitted you troll, enjoy trolling, and do it often; I can't take you serious. I think you are just enjoying stirring up a ruckus. You are just trolling for fun and it has become obvious.

I have not admitted to being a troll. You are just blowing smoke to conceal the fact you are advocating removing the rights of private businesses.

I served our nation for 23 years and am more than disheartened to see you fighting so hard to take away freedoms.

 

[Reynolds]

I have not admitted to being a troll. You are just blowing smoke to conceal the fact you are advocating removing the rights of private businesses.

I served our nation for 23 years and am more than disheartened to see you fighting so hard to take away freedoms.

Really? I have it and have a screen shot of it. You did not say troll, you said antagonist. And you said you did It just for fun. Antagonist, troll, Same thing.