Where we are with the mandatory COVID lawsuits and what may be coming in California Soon

Where we are with the mandatory COVID lawsuits and what may be coming in California Soon

Now that I am finished with Kelly Sutton’s medical board hearing, (or at least the evidentiary part of the case), it is time to focus on the COVID mandate situation. (And by the way, if you are interested in the California medical exemption issue, you might want to consider donating to her legal defense fund. here is the link:

The Lawsuits against the COVID mandate

Most of you know about the two recent lawsuits against the COVID vaccine mandates, but let me give you my take on them.

The Methodist Hospital employees lawsuit

As you know, over 100 employees of the Methodist Hospital sued to try to stop the Hospital’s COVID mandate. The case didn’t go well in the first round. The judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, basically saying injunctive relief was unnecessary because if they would prevail at trial they could get money damages in the form of lost wages, etc. That’s a fair point insofar as an injunction is an extraordinary remedy only available if money damages are not adequate. I suppose you could argue it either way about a job, but the judge said money was an adequate remedy. Several days later the judge dismissed the case, the operative and memorable part of the judge’s opinion was that the hospital is trying to protect its employees and its patients against the pandemic disease and that takes precedence over the “vaccine preferences” of individual employees. If you are against vaccine mandates, the judge’s decision is disheartening. Some say that the precedential effect is limited since arguably the core issue in the case had to do with Texas employment law.

FYI: I spent 20 plus years practicing law in Houston, and I have appeared in front of the judge in the Methodist case several times, and he would be the Right Honorable Lynn Hughes. I guess he is about my most favorite federal judge I have ever appeared in front of. I view him as a libertarian and a guy who is not afraid to do justice even if it means he gets reversed on appeal. He is also not afraid to take on and rule against the government. In fact, in my book, Galileo’s lawyer, one of the cases I discuss is an injunction action I filed on behalf of a group of dying patients who have kicked off an experimental treatment by the FDA and the other big hospital in Houston, MD Anderson. He did right by these patients, and I feel forever indebted to him for that. As I said, Judge Hughes knows how to dispense justice. The point being that if a libertarian and fearless judge like Lynn Hughes is not going to uphold the “vaccine preferences” of a minority of people, that is not a good sign. Or, at least it isn’t until the US Supreme Court gives guidance beyond and different from Jacobson, which to the great chagrin of most of you, is still the law of the land.

And Judge Hughes did not pay much attention to the whole “EUA vaccines are experimental, can’t be mandated, and require informed consent” argument.

One thing that most people do not understand is that vaccine mandate laws are a matter of state law, not federal law (except for federal employees). Jacobson and all the other cases upholding state or local mandatory vaccine laws are based on the state’s power to protect the public under the state’s police powers. The cases hold that there is no federal constitutional right protecting against a state’s decision to issue a vaccine mandate under the 14th Amendment (which only protects people against government action). Ok, technically the case holds that there might be a right to challenge, but there is extreme deference given to the authorities who have police power. While the constitutional tests/language about review standards have changed since 1905 when Jacobson came down, the deference to the state’s police power has not, at least not yet.

Jacobson was the rationale and precedent for the California courts’ rejection of all the SB 277 lawsuits, or at least the parts of those decisions which dealt with the federal constitutional claims. (Federal and state education claims faired no better). So I think the short of it is that changing the result in these cases in all likelihood requires having the Supreme Court revisit Jacobson, unless the case involves a different legal principle or theory.

The Indiana University Lawsuit

Recently, a number of students studying at Indiana University filed a lawsuit trying to stop the COVID vaccine mandate. A preliminary injunction motion has also been filed but has not yet been heard. Indiana has dealt with the vaccine passport issue and the legislature has apparently ruled that vaccine passports are not legal. Originally, the university’s mandate required proof of vaccination via this passport. However, the University changed that and now requires some kind of online proof, on the hopes that this change would not run afoul of the vaccine passport prohibition. The plaintiffs are arguing that the University’s policy is still illegal under Indiana’s law. Of course, they make the obligatory federal constitutional arguments as well. It will certainly be interesting to see how the trial court rules on the preliminary injunction motion, but even if the judge rules for the students, if the ruling is narrowly based on the Indiana statute, that will not be of help to other litigation like what will be coming in California. Now let us turn to California.

The UC COVID vaccine mandate status

July 15th is going to be an important day from what I have heard and read about the UC COVID mandate. July 15th is the day that at least some employees will have to comply with the COVID mandate, which means either getting the vaccination or applying for a religious or other allowable exemption. I also hear that July 15th is the date that the final policy for the COVID mandate for students will be issued. If so, I would hope and expect that it would follow the employee mandate, especially since that was one of our biggest complaints when we filed against the UC flu mandate, namely that employees were given a religious accommodation, but students were not. I hope the UC learned its lesson.

Many of you have asked whether there will be COVID mandate lawsuits against the UC and other universities in California. There might well be and I am working on one right now but it is going to depend on community support. In the next few days, I will start a gogetfunding campaign and see what kind of financial interest I get for filing one or more actions.

Here are a few things about what I expect the UC mandate to include. The mandate applies to everyone including people who have already had the disease. So far as I can tell, there are not any studies yet which show any benefit of any COVID vaccine for people who had the disease. The infectious disease Mafia is basically making an argument for the vaccine for these folks by analogy, and something about that getting the disease does not actually give you as good immunity as the vaccines, which seems crazy to me and most immunologist who are not card-carrying members of the aforementioned Mafia. They argue by authority and analogy that natural immunity needs a booster or something like that. They do everything but cite a single study that shows that the vaccines confer any benefit to people who have had the disease. Only in the infectious disease mafia world (and regrettably in the judiciary) is science based on analogy acceptable.

There is the problem of the narrowness of the ACIP contraindications, and the fact that since the vaccines are still emergency use authorized only, it is unclear how thorough the data is to support the relatively narrow ACIP general guidelines.

Another thing that really bothers me (and all of you) is the 5000+ deaths reported by VAERS as associated with the vaccines. As most of you know, that is more than all the reported deaths from all vaccines since the inception of VAERS. Apart from a few cases of that heart condition thing, I am not aware that either the FDA or the CDC has investigated let alone reported on whether or not that 5000+ deaths had a causal relationship with the vaccines.

I am aware that Norway has looked at the first 100 vaccine-associated deaths and determined that 10 were causally connected to the vaccine, another 26 were possibly connected, and 59 were “unlikely connected to the vaccine. I am not aware of any federal government agency reporting the same kind of analysis of the 5,000 plus US deaths associated with COVID vaccines, which is shocking but not surprising, because the authorities probably don’t want to know the answer. It is possible that some of these problems might worry a judge and not just blindly follow the ID mafia’s religious-like incantations of safety and benefit.

So like I said, I’ll start a go-get funding campaign on the case, talk to some possible big donors and the folks I worked with on some of the other cases and see where we are and what we can do. If it all works out, we should be filing mid to late July. I am still thinking about the employee mandate July 15th deadline for compliance and how that can be, but I am not ready to talk about that just yet.

Stay tuned.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

45 thoughts on “Where we are with the mandatory COVID lawsuits and what may be coming in California Soon

  1. I am an employee of UCR and am very interested in following this to see where it goes. Someone on our campus in a position of authority stated that if an even requires you to be vaccinated and you attend without a mask that you could be disciplined for “willful intent to harm others.” This just does not sit right with me. I am waiting on the policy to come out to see what the actual language is and what my options are.

      1. I was denied religious exemption for the flu shot and expect the same for this covid policy. Even if I get mask exemption would have to wear a face shield and policy says you have to be tested 1-2 times per week. Should figure out how to test positive then I can just work from home forever

  2. In the Texas case, it’s odd that ‘vaccine preference’ was presented as the reason to not accept the mandate. That’s puny. The real reason is ‘I don’t want to die or damage my health and my family’s.’ I hope that reasoning was presented. I am glad Peter McCullough MD is working on this case. He has the deepest knowledge of covid early tx and as cardiologist can comment on the 800 cases of myocarditis in young people post-covid shot.

  3. I understand that Jacobson is the law of the land although I do think it’s ridiculous. But the outcome in that case was a five dollar fine had to be paid. Adjusted for inflation why isn’t that being spoken of as the punishment for not excepting this vaccine?

  4. My husband works for UC Davis and is being discriminated against because of his vaccine status. We are very interested in being a part of this case. He is being basically bullied to be vaccinated. I think an interesting way to attack this case is definitely the already had the disease aspect. Another aspect should be investigated is how much the UC system receives in grant money and compensation from Big Pharma for research. We need transparency on how much money is pumped into research and if there has been any agreement for vaccine mandation in order to get this research money.

    1. Respectfully, we are in a pandemic, maybe it’s ending or maybe just between waves and I think all this stuff about big phama and how much money it is making and conflicts I think sounds tone deaf at least to a majority of people at best, and makes most people think people who say it are nuts. I think a better tack is the adverse events and how they are not being adequately investigated (other than heart inflammation).
      The conflict and pharma argument makes more sense to me PR wise in the vaccines on the school mandatory schedule since the risk of contracting those diseases is extremely small, so it makes sense to ask why are they doing it.

  5. I cannot attest to any veracity here but in the interest of supporting information in addition to the under reporting of VAERS, still there doesn’t seem to be any age demographics of the usual victim pool for respiratory based deaths.

    CDC and WHO now have a category of PIC as a catchall for Pneumonia, Influenza & COVID.

    The other argument follows of risk/benefit for various age groups especially after you reverse the fright stats and go with overall survival rates for the general population.


  6. “….the judge’s opinion was that the hospital is trying to protect its employees and its patients against the pandemic disease and that takes precedence over the “vaccine preferences” of individual employees….” I don’t know the particulars of that case but my attention went to “vaccine preferences.” These days people hear the word preferences and think of computer preferences, browser settings. But individuals are not preferences. Once dead or seriously injured we can’t go back to a default state or factory settings. In this way, we are like the other employees and patients in the hospital setting—vulnerably human.

    1. I have made it through this pandemic and work in and around patients that are covid positive my boss who is vaccinated just got covid. So tell me again how its going to protect me.

    1. My understanding of it: As ‘pandemic’ is used today, yes. There have been many definition changes and moving of goalposts throughout the last 18 months. But it seems the planning and changes began decades ago. “At the time WHO declared the H1N1 swine flu a pandemic, only 144 people worldwide had died from the infection. As Wolfgang Wodarg, then chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Health Committee, explained:
      “The WHO had a definition of a pandemic, which it defined as a virus with high mortality and high morbidity. And in 2009 they suddenly dropped those two characteristics, saying nothing about severity or mortality.”” As usual, the committee setting up new guidelines was made up of people with financial interest.

      https://www.asia-pacificresearch.com/video-bell-tolling-for-the-swine-flu/15980 Dr. Teresa Forcades Asia-Pacific Research


    2. Respectfully, if you are asking that, you aren’t helping the issue of the right to chose to be vaccinated or not.

  7. My daughter will be an incoming freshman at SDSU this August and is already getting harassed via text and phone calls to get the shot. On SDSU’s website they state that they cannot mandate the vaccine unless it’s fully approved by the FDA and there’s enough stockpile for all to receive that shot. Meaning whatever one gets approved first, Moderna, J&J etc…

  8. What about CSU students that don’t have medical exemptions but may be able to get a religious exemption? Also the thing that needs to be included in the lawsuit is no regular mandatory NASAL covid testing and masking for exempt students.

  9. I am a UC employee and am concerned about this mandate on the following grounds: 1) safety of students and staff; 2) issues of informed consent and absolute medical consent. Furthermore, UC is issuing this mandate prior to FDA approval, and even after probable FDA approval, the safety record of these vaccines is yet unproven. I am interested in following this issue and in receiving information on what recourse employees might have. I support collective action but fear retaliation.

  10. Again Rick, I would like to say thank you for keeping us abreast of your legal proceedings regarding Covid vaccinations.
    I have several concerns that I haven’t seen addressed as yet (unless I missed them). One is that we are no longer in a pandemic (by definition) and thus emergency use should be off the table. Second, the vaccines have not been shown to lessen spread of the disease. In other words the so called protection received is only for the individual given the jab. How does that create herd immunity and protect society? Third, there are game changing, effective, low cost, safe medications available for anyone that has this illness. There is no need for a vaccine. Anyone based in science would agree that immune protection is greater for the the individual who contracts and beats the disease over one who is ‘vaccinated’ for it. Lastly, no one is paying attention to the horrific death and severe injury rates the government itself has reported on VAERS secondary to this experimental gene therapy that is NOT being given informed consent for.

    1. interesting question about the status of the pandemic. I may do a post about that. Seems to me only history can affix a time when a pandemic ends. Maybe it’s over for us, but it’s not over in parts of the world. Maybe there will be another big outbreak what the delta strain. We should know by the late fall. My guess is that there won’t be in the US, but there will be in other less developed places.

  11. Has anyone talked about employer or state liability for adverse events? If they are mandating it they should be liable for any harm that might result.

    1. no one is legally liable for manufacturing or administering vaccines. That battle was fought and lost with the 86 act and subsequent cases which eliminated all causes of action against anyone in the chain perhaps with one exception. Bobby Kennedy thinks there is a fraud exception against a manufacturer, but I think that’s hard to prove. So of course you’re entitled to your opinion that if it’s mandatory there should be a cause of action, but there isn’t, or it’s just what some vaccine court says is the remedy

      1. In addition, OSHA has halted enforcement of reporting requirements until May 2022. So if an employer requires the vaccine, and the employee experiences an adverse event, the employer is not required to report it. There isn’t a single government agency not currently engaged in the policy objective to get everyone vaccinated regardless of the actual health implications.

        1. The only thing that it looked like OSHA changed was the employer reporting requirement- nothing is stopping the employee from keeping a log and making that information available to relevant authorities. I don’t think it was the administration or manufacture of the vaccines that created the possible liability window (that ship has sailed), but the decision by an entity to make it mandatory. I believe, however, any compensation would be capped at workers’ comp levels.

          1. Maybe Rick can touch on this, but since it’s being mandated as a condition of employment sure. However, it’s not like you have to wear a uniform 9-5, this employer mandate would follow you home 24/7 therefore the employer should be directly liable as it’s making a medical determination that follows you even after you leave the employer. This is unprecedented.

  12. I’m an employee at CSU and I too am interested in PCR tests and masks, which seems to have EUA only, to also be a part of the lawsuit.
    While not directly relevant to the universities, I wonder how conducting the lottery jives with penal code section 319 at the state level (wouldn’t all, jabbed and not jabbed, be able to be eligible for the lottery?).

    “Vaccine preferences” do not hold as a valid reason for refusing vaccines; “sincerely held beliefs” do. The terminology is so important. I wonder if this latter term can be applied in the lawsuits.

    Reading your post, it sounds that the best defense would be an offense. You wrote, “One thing that most people do not understand is that vaccine mandate laws are a matter of state law, not federal law … The cases hold that there is no federal constitutional right protecting against a state’s decision to issue a vaccine mandate under the 14th Amendment (which only protects people against government action).” It sounds like this is what needs to happen – to have the federal constitutional right that would over ride the state’s decisions in these cases.

    1. vaccine preference seems about the same as a sincerely held belief to me, operatively and substantively. The difference is that I think Judge Hughes was minimizing and being sarcastic but it’s the same thing. Religious beliefs are different and federal employment law requires a religious accommodation for people with real religious opposition to vaccines, though most vaccine concerned people I know are not what I would consider to be be religious, except perhaps in their opposition to vaccines

  13. The UC did an about face on not waiting for the vaccines to be fully approved, banking on at least one or more being approved by the fall. So they are sort of gambling on that. The original policy drafted was written for campuses that have a medical center, then they changed it to one size fits all across all campuses.
    The July date is when the regents meet to finalize the policy. Actual deadlines might depend on each location, but it is 2 weeks before the fall quarter starts so they can verify the status. My guess is they would be checking against the state database (same used for the vax lottery). Anyone not vaccinated would be denied access to the buildings on a campus location. As it stands now, nobody seems to care if you are outside on campus, only inside.
    Currently since the state partially did away with the mask mandates (for vaccinated people) and fully opened Cal/OSHA also realigned their emergency temporary standards to follow the CDC and state guidance and state rules. It may differ from campus to campus/jurisdiction but after you self attest or say you have been vaccinated, it is good enough for now to be able to work without a mask anymore or any other pandemic protocols, save for a health self check questionnaire. So status quo seems to be same as walking into a store, going to church, or a community meeting.
    The mandate seems to be entering late in the game, and almost going backwards. If you continue with some remote instruction, it means students don’t have to be physically on campus, nor would they be occupying student housing which is part of a university’s revenue stream.
    A possibility is that some staff may end up not returning to campus, but working remotely from then on out or partially. This is a general theme across most UC campuses, since nobody can deny anymore that remote work is possible in a number of the jobs that removes the argument of having to be on campus, or subject to the mandate.
    As was mentioned before public sentiment during a pandemic seems to take a higher precedent than examining the current situation and making a more measured decision of leaving it up to the individual. There was language in an FAQ or draft of the policy that was unclear if this was going to be a on time thing, or ongoing year after year. One of the problems might be if they keep the mandate year after year, and yet COVID disappears, they you are telling people to get vaccinated against something that no longer is around, but this requires more foresight than the panic that brought about the flu vaccination mandate of the possible twin pandemic that most everyone could have looked at the 1918 flu pandemic protocols that were implemented and figure the flu barely would have made an appearance.

    1. My husband’s job is completely outside and he is now being told he has to test every 4 days instead of 7 and wear a mask the entire time he is at work. It’s 100+ degrees most days and he works in a very dusty dirty area. Is there no concern for heat disease and masks? Again he has already had Covid.

      The general public’s concern is being generated by the news media, not because of real science.

    2. The mask policy was just reinstated by LA County, regardless of vaccine status. I believe a mask mandate is wise. It is the lesser of two evils because we can’t do nothing or we will look like Indonesia in a matter of months

  14. thanks for thoughtful and comprehensive response.
    During a pandemic, it may not be realistic to expect the authorties to leave it up to the individual to make individual decisions. I know most vaccine concerned question whether we’re still in the pandemic. For sure rates are down in the US, but only history determines when a pandemic ends versus a lull between waves, like what I believe to be the lull in the summer of 1918, and thereafter came most of the deaths.

  15. Thank you for the update. Looking forward to hearing the path forward and to helping in any way I can. This feels like a rubicon, and it is terrifying.

  16. Judge Hughes’ decision is disappointing and somewhat perplexing since the experimental nature of the vaccine argument and the informed consent argument are both solid and seemingly should be dispositive. (To my thinking- we presumably do not want to inject unduly dangerous substances nor force what may be dangerous to particular individuals on them against their will and to their detriment. If we do not have the legal right to be made aware of the risks involved leading to an informed decision, then we are each truly subjects of the state and arguably, as subjects, have no real say or recourse for a variety of state impositions that needn’t be supported by reason or logic beyond the empty conclusion that ‘it’s good for the whole.’ It doesn’t matter that such an idea might seem silly and could be broadly applied — property law, civil rights, whatever– if it is applied here [a sacred area], it may as well be applied anywhere, everywhere and at state’s whim [why not?]. Each step taken over the line of logic and reason [and I will assume here for the sake of argument that the requirement of an injection of a potentially deadly toxin into our bodies is over that line of decency and conscience, particularly given what we know about the virus, death rates, and treatments available] is a step taken which simultaneously nullifies our democracy [why would votes count under such a model?] and opens the gates to unemployment and one might therefore argue, increased poverty. Only to mention a couple of things as immediately spring to mind.)
    That Judge Hughes’ reached the decision reached in light of the rights necessarily ignored in so doing, and especially given your personal knowledge as one with a moral compass, it is disconcerting to consider that whomever is bribing, threatening, who knows what to a growing list of …turncoats- (not that the Judge necessarily is one) may have done so in this case, a case with the eyes not only of the nation raptly at attention, but truly, the eyes of the world.
    What will need to be done, then? The police power will need to be looked at on a state by state basis- though all enabling clauses are likely alike. Why does the state have police power at all, if not to protect the citizens at large, to best bring about good results for the state? If it can be shown that the deaths and injuries caused by the so-called vaccines are not suggestive of vaccine safety, but rather high risk (as many very reputable doctors have stated), then why is ‘police power’ an acceptable rationale? Does a state statute granting police power preempt what we’ve seen in the much talked-about of late Nuremberg Code? Is that Code too dusty for modern relevance? If so, then so should be Jacobson.
    It may be a little that the forces of opposition judges face by the- we’ll call it ‘the cabal’ for want of a better word- the forces judges face by the cabal may be too great to step forward against the grain even in cases where there is no direct implied threat of acting to the contrary. We have all been conditioned now- we all know the accepted narrative, see the censorship on social media, in the main stream news, in polite company. We feel the force of the opposition daily in many ways and circumstances, hanging there, as a “normal” (if unacceptable) trait in our 2021 lives. Judges will not be different. Perhaps we need to emphasize to them their awesome POWER- that they are not only allowed to make such rulings as desired, but that is their very role. I could be missing the mark, of course, I’m not in the pit. But I am passionate about this urgent issue and will continue to think on what can be done. Glad to have found your blog- many thanks.

    1. actually I don’t think his decision is perplexing at all.
      Whether you or others like it or not, public health decisions are made by public health officials or people entrusted to make such decisions for groups like universities or hospitals. In the area of infectious diseases and pandemics, the medical speciality most directly involved or having the most direct knowledge are infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists specializing in infectious diseases. LIke it or not, and for whatever sincere reason or financial stake or conflict or cognitive dissonance reason, these experts have concluded that the vaccine is working.
      Also, rationally, to me at least, it is far fetched to say that a medical intervention which has been given to 300 million people is experimental. There has never been a medical intervention to so many people in US history since the advent of FDA drug laws with as many recipients where the product has not achieved NDA approval/biological license.
      Yes, AE’s reported on VAERS are underreported. But still.
      Judges are not experts on science. They rely on the most credentialed experts presented to them, for the reasons stated above, the outcome follows the battle of the experts, notwithstanding the opinions of the vaccine concerned of their muscularized concept of informed consent.
      So, bottom line, not surprising even for a liberatarian judge. Maybe someone else will be different. We’ll know in a couple months.

    2. What scares me is I read an article about genetic patents. Doctors talks about a Supreme Court precedent with Justice Scalia that talks about being able to parent genetically modified humans. You can’t patent natural born humans but humans with altered DNA yes. That’s scary as heck

  17. Richard,
    I love your use of “incantation”. Like the truth could magically be waved away if you just speak “Vaccinesaresafe”.

    I ran into this article https://atlantabusinessjournal.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-gene-therapy/ which sounds like it was written by someone with a legal background. At any rate, I’ve wondered if any efforts i.e. a lawsuits have been brought forth, or could be filed, around this idea that the so-called covid vaccine isn’t a vaccine but is instead experimental gene technology. I always suspected pharma’s tried to get it recognized as a vaccine for the no-liability protection. Thank you.

  18. I don’t think much of the argument about the new vaccines not being vaccines, even if some state laws define a vaccine as including an antigen and technically mRNA vaccines don’t have them. it’s a biological subject to a biological license and a rose by any other name is still a rose. It’s not something I would even consider raising. It doesn’t matter what you call it, the law is clear that for public reasons, the state is allowed or mandate medical treatment to protect the public, like masks, social distancing (done in a way that doesn’t discriminate against churches) and order medical interventions.

  19. Received an email this morning about the UC Vaccine mandate. When the proposal first surfaced, it said when the vaccine was FDA approved. They are now saying they believe the vaccine deadline is 7/15, and I see the word “licensed” in regards to the vaccine, but I don’t see “FDA Approval” in their vaccine policy anymore. I am a UCD employee. Anyone else see Provost Croughan’s email from late yesterday? Am I missing something?

    1. Someone check me, but I re-read it, and I did find once FDA approved. Whew! Hoping that doesn’t happen!

  20. also, while I wouldn’t be considered “a big donor,” I would like to contribute to the funding for this fight. Please let us know how and when! Thanks, Rick!

    1. thx. I appreciate the thought, but I’ve decided I am not going to solicit small donations from individuals at this time. I am looking for an organization to put up a mid-five-figure fee. Too little time in too short a period to do it, but again, thx for the thought.

      1. 500 folks @ $100 could make the mid-five-figure fee…plus the organization to put up fees, as well. Count me in to help with any fundraising!
        I wish I could help you find the organization that could put up the funds. Any ideas on organizations?

  21. Hi Richard, Wondering if I could solicit some advice, the policy came out today and basically says get vaccinated, get an exemption or get fired. I tried to get an exemption from the first flu mandate and was denied, luckily since we worked from home it was never forced on us. However this new policy is not allowing any leeway, do you have any advice on how we can word a request for exemption to potentially get it approved? I do not participate in any main stream religion however I am against this vaccination policy and have no interest in getting the COVID or Flu vaccine, I know it says you can use a sincerely held belief that is as strong as a religious belief but how do I prove that or word that so I will be taken seriously? Or am I better off just seeking new employment at this point?

    1. I am interested in verbiage too. The original policy was based on “fDa approval” of a vaccine, which I thought would push this mandate out to a further date, but now they just went ahead and implemented based on a EUA. Thank am in total shock.

  22. It continues to trouble me that in addition to the small amount of efficacy information, we have a lack of safety testing AND they are hiding the ingredients! What about this graphene oxide? Images under a microscope: https://bityl.co/7syB

Leave a Reply