We believe that there is no vaccine for any virus or disease that is safe for everyone. All individuals have unique medical issues which may or may not interfere with a vaccine, and therefore the choice of whether or not to get vaccinated must not be mandated.
See this Report:
This report summarizes and analyzes data gathered from more than 1,800 in-house lawyers, HR professionals and C-suite executives. The survey gauged employers’ key concerns, plans and strategies related to COVID-19 vaccination among their workforces.
Disclaimer: The survey questions and their resulting findings cover issues that are governed by various laws and regulations. The content does not convey or constitute legal advice, nor is it intended to be acted upon as such.
For employers, the new year has brought an urgent question to the fore: Should we mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for our workforce?
The sentiment gathered from more than 1,800 in-house lawyers, HR professionals and C-suite executives across the country who responded to our survey boils down to two words: “Probably not.”
Less than 1 percent currently mandate vaccination for all employees, and only 6 percent say they plan to once vaccinations are readily available and/or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants full approval. Though that number might go up as time goes on – 43 percent haven’t written off the idea of a mandate completely – 48 percent have already decided that they will not require employees to be vaccinated.
Given the potential legal and administrative issues at play – for instance, exemptions or accommodations for employees with religious objections, pregnant or lactating workers, and those with disabilities that may prevent them from getting vaccinated – it’s unsurprising that 64 percent of respondents expressed concern around legal liability (if employees experience an adverse reaction to the vaccine) and that 57 percent questioned the effectiveness of a mandate given the number of potential exemptions.
But perhaps more surprising is that these issues were not even employers’ top concerns. Those were reserved for cultural quandaries, like pushback from employees who refuse to get the vaccine or oppose it generally (79 percent) and the impact a mandate might have on company culture and employee morale (67 percent). The concern was also widely captured in verbatim responses, many of which noted that a mandate would be perceived as an infringement of basic civil liberties.
Mandate aside, most employers do plan to encourage employees to get the vaccine. Nearly 90 percent said they would provide information to employees (e.g., how to get vaccinated, the benefits of doing so) and nearly 40 percent said they would offer vaccine administration at their facility to increase convenience – even though this may be easier said than done. A third said they would offer paid time off for employees to receive the vaccine and/or recover from any side effects.
Of course, without a mandate, there will inevitably be a split in the workforce between those who have received the vaccine and those who have not. Thus, nearly 75 percent of respondents have some level of concern about providing reasonable on-site accommodations to those who have not been or refuse to get vaccinated. There is also widespread recognition that other policies – involving remote work, testing and more – will play a crucial role in providing safe workplaces.
We are huge fans of the work of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, so we hope that the Freedom of Information request on COVID vaccination safety described below will give more information to private and public employers on how to balance the health and safety of all employees while protecting the workplace and the general good.
November 1, 2022
Why is the Biden administration hiding information about the safety of the vaccine it is so aggressively pushing on everyone?
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for records on COVID-19 vaccine safety studies (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-03153)).
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (a component of HHS) inadequately responded to a June 1, 2022, FOIA request for:
- All safety studies, data, reports, and analyses produced by the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (DMID) relating to the safety of ‘vaccines’ and/or gene therapies to treat and/or prevent SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 made by Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen.
- All emails sent to and from the following DMID officials relating to the safety of ‘vaccines’ and/or gene therapies to treat and/or prevent SARSCoV-2 and/or COVID-19 made by Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen:
b. The head of the Office of Genomics & Advanced Technologies
On May 3, 2022, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a paper titled “Safety and Immunogenicity of a Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine – An Interim Analysis” that “evaluated early safety and immunogenicity after a third mRNA vaccination in adults who received the mRNA-1273 primary series in the Phase 1 trial approximately 9 to 10 months earlier.”
Contributors to that study include three affiliates of the DMID: Mamodikoe Makhene (DMID medical officer), Wendy Buchanan (DMID Clinical Project Manager) and Paul Roberts (DMID Chief Respiratory Pathogens Clinical Research).
The Biden administration is playing shell games with documents on the COVID vaccine. The arrogant cover-up of COVID vaccine safety information further undermines public confidence in these already controversial drugs.
Through previous FOIA activity, we uncovered a substantial amount of information about COVID-19 issues:
- In October, we uncovered FDA records regarding the COVID booster vaccines through a FOIA lawsuit for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause. On September 13, 2021, Gruber and Krause were among a group of resigning doctors who agreed that, “Available evidence doesn’t yet indicate a need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots among the general population …”
- In July 2022, NIH records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
- FDA records showed top officials being pressured by companies and the Biden administration to impose timelines on approval for the booster shots “that make no sense”
- HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
- NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.
- HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high-level commitment from China.”
- HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appears to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone.
- HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding COVID data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials.
- University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records show the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the COVID issue by Congress.
- HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the COVID-19 vaccines show a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.
- Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) reveal safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins.
- HHS records include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH) then-Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
- HHS records show that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
- Fauci emails include his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.
Despite all of this work, Judicial Watch is just getting started! I’ll keep you updated as more lawsuits are filed and more information comes in!