May I ask why you believe that? I'm not doubting you, I'm genuinely curious. I"m not a doctor either. I just have MS (diagnosed at 37) & my grandmother (born 1922) also had an autoimmune disorder. I'm not vaxxed and never intended on taking it. Early on, my neurologist did advise me against getting the vax. I've read numerous studies regarding the vax & autoimmunity. Many have linked the vax to the onset of autoimmunity in "predisposed" people. However, I haven't found anything on what would make someone "predisposed". I know studies have continuously shown (before COVID) that the 1 thing all people with any autoimmune disorder have in common is that we're all significantly Vit D deficient at onset.
Isn’t that a violation of HIPPA??
Yes. How can they get away with it? Simple. The same way Walmaet gets away with asking to see your receipt when you leave the store when they don't have probable cause. If you voluntarily comply, you've waive your rights.
I believe Dr. Shiva has been replaced and will not be testifying today.
Vitamin D - 5,000 IU every day - get tested and get levels up to at least 80 mg/dl
I agree 5,000 IU of Vit D per day is tolerable for most adults & everyone should have their Vit D levels tested regularly. I would also like to expand on the Vit D subject. I'd suggest having a Vit D test as swiftly as possible. Far too many teens and adults in the U.S. are Vit D deficient. If someone is deficient, they may be need to take 50,000 IU per day for a certain amount of time to rapidly increase their levels to correct the deficiency. Also, Vit D is a fat soluble so the more fat someone has, the more Vit D they may need to maintain proper levels. The breakdown looks like this: Below 30 mg/dl - Deficient 80 mg/dl - Optimal 100 mg/dl - Toxic
I've been a huge Vit D advocate for many years now. Studies have continously shown the importance of maintaining proper Vit D levels is to prevent and in some instances reverse early effect of various health issues.
I would venture to say that you & your son have had the flu in the past & even COVID but you both have good immune systems so you end up being asymptomatic. Just my 2 cents. Edit: Or you both wash your hands frequently, don't invade people's personal space (different from this social distancing crap) & most importantly, don't have a habit of touching your face.
I would typically agree OP's mother using the "not vaxxed" as just an excuse or even justification to herself for divorce.
However, given OP's mother is immunocompromised, it could very well be her get vaxxed out or get divorced ultimatum is fear driven.
I'm immunocompromised & can attest to the incredible amount of pressure & fear mongering day in & day out I've received from friends, family, coworkers, etc, even from people who are against getting vaxxed themselves. People automatically equate immunocompromised as being high risk & think not only should be be jabbed but we shouldn't be around people who aren't jabbed. You know, for our safety. I personally absolutely refuse to get the jab. I finally just started telling everyone my treating physician said that because of my medication, I have a higher risk of death from the vax than from COVID & my hubby & son have natural immunity. This was the only thing that shut people up.
That's irrelevant. It's not about safety, it's about compliance. Notice not a single child in the video even attempted to remove their mask. Why? Because the children in this video haved already lived half their lives under compliance of COVID mandates. This is normal for them.
I think it's important to keep in mind this letter was written during the tenure of Pope John Paul II and Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would go on to become Pope Benedict XVI. Both were staunchly opposed to abortion. In fact. Pope Benedict criticized Biden's pro abortion agenda in March 2021. As far as the position of the Catholic Church stated in the letter, it isn't as simple as vaccines derived from aborted fetuses are ok when there isn't an alternative. According to the letter, the only time the use of a vaccine derived from aborted fetuses it's morally acceptable for Catholics is in extreme circumstances when (1) there isn't alternative vaccine AND (2) it's to stop the spread of a pathological agent that poses an existential health threat to yourself or others OR (3) the vaccine is compulsory. Considering there are sucessful treatments for COVID that don't derive from an aborted fetus and the COVID survival rate and consistent with the Church's position stated in the letter, Catholics are morally obligated to make a conscientious objection to the COVID vaccines. The only exception would be for those who COVID poses an existential threat to their health.
it is my sincerely held believe all this stuff is the Mark or leading to the Mark.
My point being it doesn't matter if you object to the vaxx because you believe it to be the mark of the beast or because it's made from aborted fetal tissue or because it (at least temporarily) changes your DNA or all the above. So long as you believe it violates your sincerely held beliefs. Like I said, your employer is prohibited by from challenging you on it.
I brought up the "undue hardship" exemption to serve as a warning. I do not know our employer and it's not out side the realm of possibility for a company to have an HR dept that's a militant pro vax. This will be their legal arguement so we must be prepared.
It seems to me those who have had COVID should qualify for a medical exemption. They have natural immunity & we know the vaxx is of no benefit to them. In my opinion, this would be a better route to go if you've had COVID. Or even if you haven't had COVID, your doc may provide you 1.
As far as a religious exemption, it applies to those who have a "sincerely held" belief. Both Title VI (public) & Title VII (employment) make it clear that neither a business nor an employer may not challenge you as to whether the vaxx would violate your "sincerely held" belief.
However, be forewarned that under Title VII, an employer does NOT have to provide a religious exemption or accommodation should it cause an "undue hardship" for the employer. For years the EEOC has given the example of an ER who sees a significant increase in patients on Christmas Eve & Christmas requires all employees to work. Should someone who is Christian who requests those days off to observe their religious holiday, the employer can legally deny the request. The reason being if the employer Grant's the religious accommodation to 1 Christian, they would have to provide it to all Christian employees which would cause a shortage is staff (aka i.e. an undue hardship). I can foresee the EEOC using this as a reason to deny a religious accommodation & force employees to get vaxxed.
If you have had COVID, you have natural immunity. Ask your doc for a medical exemption. You would give someone whose has chicken pox the chicken pox vaccine. Why should this be different? Not to mention studies have shown that the 2nd shot serves absolutely no benefit to people w/ natural immunity.
I'm also immunocompromised but in the same way as a cancer patient. I don't have B cells which are needed to store antibodies for long term memory. It also takes me longer to fight off infections & such. I haven't discussed whether I should get vaxxed with my doctor because I know I'm not going to get vaxxed.
I can't tell you how many texts and calls I've gotten like this. Finally, I just started telling people that because my immune system is compromised, I'm more likely to die from the vax than COVID.
HIPAA pertains to Protected Health Information which is any health/medical information where an individual is identified. This is especially true if the health/medical information is used to communicate information about a past, present or future medical condition.
There are times when employers do recieve Protected Health Information records from health insurance companies, providers, etc or even employee themselves. In order for the employer to be HIPAA compliant, any and all Protected Health Information records must safeguarded from any unauthorized disclosure. For you see, supervisors/managers who are authorized to access personnel files are not authorized to access health/medical files. Disclosure of Protected Health Information must be limited in scope and only for legitimate business reasons.
Any record identifying which employees have and/or which emoloyees have not gotten the vax is definitely considered Protected Health Information under HIPAA. Your HR dept absolutely has a duty to safeguard vax status information.
In short, under HIPAA, your HR dept may inquire into your vax status but in doing so, your HR dept is mandated to safeguard the information/records from unauthorized disclosure. You should be able to request access to your own personnel file. Should your vax status information be found in your personnel file, you would be able to file a non compliance complaint with the Office of Civil Rights.
However, when it comes to employees who have not gotten the vax, employers cannot violate their rights under Title VII or the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Unfortunately, no.
It's a narrow ruling applicable to only to recipients of temporary protection status (TPS) on humanitarian grounds after U.S. recognized qualifying catastrophic event as defined in our immigration laws. It should be noted that TPS designations for countries are only valid for up to18 months but they end up being continuously renewed long after the catastrophic event is resolved.
DACA recipients recieved temporary protection because their parents brought them into the U.S. illegally or kept them in the U.S. illegally after their Visa expired. Also, DACA is an executive order, not a law.
In my opinion, once the fraudulent/illegal ballots are identified & the legal ballots are counted, there isn't a need for a new election.
It would be great if the person elected through fraud congratulated the rightful winner & stepped down. But that's not gonna happen.
The rightful winner ciuld file a quo warranto where the seated official would have to show in court under what authority they're hold the seat. In my opinion, this would be the best course of action. If the seated official cannot prove they legally won the election, they'll be forced to vacate the seat & the rightful winner will be seated. Of course this would be dependent on the judiciary hearing the quo warranto.
As far as the presidency, AZ flipping to Trump will only result in their 11 electoral votes moving from the Biden column to the Trump column. It will not result in a change to the outcome of the election. This is why it's so imperative for other states to do forensic audits. Once Trump has 270 electoral votes, maybe he files a quo warranto & the military removes Biden when he fails to prove he legally won the election.
In 2007/08 I worked a temp job at a private university. The dept I was assigned to handled student and staff complaints. While I was there, a law school student filed a complaint that her professor sexually harassing her. Here's where things took a weird turn and why I'm mentioning it. The student said the reason why her professor harassed her was because he knew her father is JFK, who wasn't actually killed and was living under CIA disguise as a musician. Of course 14-15 years ago, it was a ridiculous claim and no one, including myself, believed her father was JFK. Now, I just can't help but to wonder if she meant JFK, jr not JFK and there's some truth to her story. NOTE: I was not involved in the investigation so I only know what was discussed in dept meetings. I do not remember the student's name. I know she was an out of state student but I do not know/remember her home state. I do not know if the investigator spoke to her father but I doubt it. I do know she showed/gave photos of her father to the investigator but I did not see them. I don't know how to get in touch with the investigator but I hope and pray she sees this and is willing to give more info.
Actually, i think it's possible there may be 9 or maybe 8 anomalies & 1 comm. The watch in the pic is an IWC watch. While i couldn't find anything about a member of the British royal family owning one, I did find that both Channing Tatum and Jaime Foxx wore IWC watches in the movie "White House Down"