Can your employer require you to be vaccinated for Covid 19? As the US campaign to distribute coronavirus vaccines continues to ramp up, over 8 million doses have now been administered in the US as of Jan. 11. For awhile only very specific groups of people -- mostly health care workers -- had been cleared to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Some of those medical professionals were required by their employer to get vaccinated, which lead to the question: Can your employer make you get a COVID-19 vaccine?
The answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no. Generally speaking, yes, employers can require employees to receive a vaccine during a pandemic to better ensure the health and safety of their overall staff. However, there are a few exceptions that could exempt you from having to receive a vaccine if your employer makes it mandatory.
Let’s look at what gives employers the right to require their workers to get vaccinated for the coronavirus, as well as what laws are in place to protect you if you have a valid reason for not wanting to get vaccinated yourself. This post is intended to be a general overview and not a source of legal or medical advice. US government says employers can require vaccines.
According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, US employers can require employees to receive vaccinations against diseases that have been recognized as pandemics, like COVID-19. The agency's guidance dates back to the H1N1 (aka "swine flu") outbreak of 2009 but was updated in March 2020 to address the coronavirus pandemic specifically. As was the case in 2009, there are two main exceptions to this rule; keep reading for an explanation of both. Americans with Disabilities Act protects some people from mandatory vaccination.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide "reasonable accommodations" to workers with medical conditions that would make them unable to take a vaccine. For example, the FDA has recommended that people with certain allergies not get a coronavirus vaccine, but there may be other reasons as well, such as having a compromised immune system.
Civil Rights Act also protects people with religious beliefs opposing vaccines Even if you don't have a medical reason for not wanting to get vaccinated for COVID-19, you may be able to object on other grounds -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people who refuse to take a mandatory vaccine on account of sincerely held religious beliefs. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not require membership in a church or even a belief in God to substantiate religious objections: Strongly or sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs are also covered by the law.
What happens if you object to receiving a vaccine when your employer requires it? Just because you have a valid medical or theological objection to receiving a coronavirus vaccine doesn't mean your employer has to let you continue working under the same conditions you've been used to. All of the above objections require employers to make "reasonable accommodations" if an employee objects to receiving a vaccine. Such accommodations could include allowing the employee to work remotely or take a leave of absence.
A 1905 Supreme Court case allows employers to require vaccines.
In 1901, a deadly smallpox outbreak in New England prompted local governments to order mandatory vaccinations for everyone in the area. Some residents, however, objected, and one took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (197 U.S.11 (1905), that the government may impose ‘reasonable regulations’ such as a vaccine requirement during a pandemic, for the purpose of protecting the "safety of the general public." It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine.
This court case forms the basis for guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which makes clear that employers may make similar demands of their workers.
Masks are ineffective and in many ways they harm.
It’s a myth that masks prevent viruses from spreading. The overall evidence is clear: Standard cloth and surgical masks offer next to no protection against virus-sized particles or small aerosols. The size of a virus particle is much too small to be stopped by a surgical mask, cloth or bandana. A single virion of SARS-CoV-2 is about 60-140 nanometers or 0.1 microns. The pore size in a surgical mask is 200-1000x that size. Consider that the CDC website states, “surgical masks do not catch all harmful particles in smoke.” And that the size of smoke particles in a wildfire are ~0.5 microns which is 5x the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus! Wearing a mask to prevent catching SARS-CoV-2, or similarly sized influenza, is like throwing sand at a chain-link fence: it doesn’t work. There has been one large randomized controlled trial that specifically examined whether masks protect their wearers from the coronavirus. This study found mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2-infection.”
Consider also, that the existence of more particles does not mean more virus.
Research shows less virus does not mean less illness. Dr. Kevin Fennelly, a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for viral transmission. Fennelly wrote: “current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are transmitted by large respiratory droplets- i.e., larger than 5 [microns] – produced by coughing and sneezing, …Unfortunately, that premise is wrong.”
Fennelly referenced a 1953 paper on anthrax that showed a single bacterial spore of about one micron was significantly more lethal than larger clumps of spores. Exposure to one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease. This is not an alarming thought - it simply means what it has always meant, that our immune system protects us continually all our life.
There have been hundreds of mask studies related to influenza transmission done over several decades. It is a well-established fact that masks do not stop viruses. “Part of that evidence shows that cloth facemasks actually increase influenza-linked illness.” Bacteria are 50x larger than virus particles. As such, virus particles can enter through the mask pores, yet bacteria remain trapped inside of the mask, resulting in the mask-wearer continually exposed to the bacteria.
Related to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, there was almost universal agreement among experts, that deaths were virtually never caused by the influenza virus itself but resulted directly from severe secondary pneumonia caused by well-known bacterial “pneumopathogens” that colonized the upper respiratory tract.
Dr. Fauci and his National Institute of Health studied pandemics and epidemics and concluded, “the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.”
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole school clinical experimental trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use, and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the CDC and others. The fact is after reviewing ALL of the studies worldwide, the CDC found “no reduction in viral transmission with the use of face masks.”
Additionally, Children have been repeatedly shown not to be drivers of this contagion. It is well-accepted that children have a statistically zero chance of dying from COVID. The CDC shows the K-12 mortality rate from or with COVID is .00003.
Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipient than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of requiring children to wear an investigational face-covering with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Anthony Fauci was very clear that asymptomatic transmission was not a threat. He stated, “in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.”
Furthermore, the mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to a child’s development. It ignores the essential needs of a growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. Masks create a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult.
Moreover, people with cancer, will be at a further risk from hypoxia, as cancer cells grow best in a bodily environment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes systemic inflammation which, in turn, promotes “the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.” Repeated episodes of low oxygen, known as intermittent hypoxia, also “causes atherosclerosis” and hence increases “all cardiovascular events” such as heart attacks, as well as adverse cerebral events like stroke. becomes difficult.
Informed consent is required for investigational medical therapies.
Regardless of the lack of safety and efficacy behind the decision to require a child to wear a mask, it is illegal to mandate EUA approved investigational medical therapies without informed consent. Mask use for viral transmission prevention is authorized for Emergency Use only. Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, means “the products are investigational and experimental” only. The statute granting the FDA the power to authorize a medical product of emergency use requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of his or her right to refuse administration of the product. This statute further recognizes the well-settled doctrine that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the Unites States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research.
The law is very clear; It is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency), unless steps taken to … secure informed consent of all participants.
Furthermore, by requiring children to wear a mask, you are promoting the idea that the mask can prevent or treat a disease, which is an illegal deceptive practice. It is unlawful to advertise that a product or service can prevent…disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence… substantiating that the claims are true.
The FDA EUA for surgical and/or cloth masks explicitly states, “the labeling must not state or imply… that the [mask] is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related, or for use such as infection prevention or reduction.”
Illegally mandating an investigational medical therapy generates liability.
There are no efficacy standards on child-sized masks and respirators under OSHA, but there are proven microbial challenges as well as breathing difficulties that are created and exacerbated by masking children.
Requiring children to wear a mask sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19, and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, a mask may very well put children at an increased risk of infection, and if so, having a far worse outcome.
The fact that mask wearing presents a severe risk of harm to the wearer should – standing alone – not be required for children, particularly given that these children are not ill and have done nothing wrong that would warrant an infringement of their constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. Promoting use of a non-FDA approved, Emergency Use Authorized mask, is unwarranted and illegal. This mandate is in direct conflict with Section 360bbb-3€(1)(A)(ii)(I-III), which requires the wearer to be informed of the option to refuse the wearing of such “device.” Misrepresenting the use of a mask as being intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, and/or misrepresenting masks for use as infection prevention or reduction is a deceptive practice under the FTC.
It is clear, there is no waiver of liability under deceptive practices, even under a state of emergency. As such, forcing children to wear masks, or similarly forcing use any other non-FDA approved medical product without the child’s (or the child’s parental) consent, is illegal and immoral.
Any compulsory Covid-19 vaccination requirement is a violation of federal law. I urge you to advise every one you know that they have the right to refuse or to take any COVID-19 vaccine. Any other action is contrary to federal law.
Covid-19 Vaccines are Experimental.
Covid-19 vaccines are not approved by the FDA. The Covid-19 vaccines are only approved under an Emergency Use Authorization, for investigational use only. Covid-19 vaccines lack requisite studies and are not approved medical treatment. The FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”
Title 21, Section 360bbb-3 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the permissive authority to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (“EUAs”) providing that appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed:
-
that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
-
of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
-
of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks. 1
The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the United States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. It is unlawful to conduct medical research, even in the case of an emergency, unless steps are taken to secure informed consent of all participants.
The following Emergency Use Authorizations have been issued for Covid-19 vaccinations:
12/11/20 Moderna - FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for recipients 16 years of age or older.
12/18/20 Pfizer/BioNTech - FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine for recipients 18 years of age or older.
2/27/21 Johnson & Johnson - FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (aka Janssen vaccine) for recipients 18 years of age or older.
Each of the above EUAs was issued in conjunction with a similar Fact Sheet from the FDA. For example, the Janssen fact sheet contains the following notice:
“INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO VACCINE RECIPIENTS/CAREGIVERS”
As the vaccination provider, you must communicate to the recipient or their caregiver, information consistent with the “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” (and provide a copy or direct the individual to the website to obtain the Fact Sheet) prior to the individual receiving the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, including:
• FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA approved vaccine.
• The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.
• The significant known and potential risks and benefits of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, and the extent to which such risks and benefits are unknown.
Clearly, any attempt to force anyone to take a Covid-19 vaccine is a violation of federal law and the conditions under which the Covid-19 vaccine has been authorized for use. The law is clear, experimental medical treatment cannot be mandated.
Businesses are not shielded from liability with experimental agents.
Under the 2005 PREP Act enacted by Congress, pharmaceutical companies that manufacture EUA vaccines are shielded from liability related to injuries and damages caused by their experimental agents. However, any employer, public school, or any other entity or person who mandates experimental vaccines on any human being is not protected from liability for any resulting harm. While vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability, your institution is not protected, those other entities are not.
In California, 9CCR 784 states in pertinent part, "
§ 784.29. Informed Consent to Medical Treatment. (a) It is the responsibility of a physician to determine what information a reasonable person in the client's condition and circumstances would consider material to a decision to accept or refuse a proposed treatment or procedure. The disclosure of any material information and obtaining informed consent shall be the responsibility of the a physician. (b) Informed consent must include a verbal explanation by a physician of the client's right to refuse or accept medical treatment. It must include a written consent form signed by the client indicating the above information has been given. The signed consent form is to be obtained and kept in the client's record as specified in Sections 851 and 852. (c) No medical treatment may be administered to a client without informed consent except in an emergency situation as defined by Section 853 or circumstances otherwise authorized by law. (Section 853 - "An emergency exists when there is a sudden marked change in the patient's condition so that action is immediately necessary for the preservation of the life or the prevention of serious bodily harm to the patient or others, and it is impracticable to first obtain consent. ) (d) The client has the right to accept or refuse the proposed treatment, and if he or she consents, has the right to revoke his or her consent for any reason at any time. Licensed mental health professionals or licensed nursing staff shall verify that the client's health record contains documentation that the client has given informed consent to the proposed treatment or procedure. (e) This section shall not be construed to require obtaining informed consent each time a treatment or procedure is administered unless material circumstances or risks change. (f) Treatment may be initiated without informed consent if there is documentation within the client's health record that an emergency exists where there is an unanticipated condition in which immediate action is necessary for preservation of life or the prevention of serious bodily harm to the client or others or to alleviate severe physical pain, and it is impracticable to obtain the required consent, and provided that the action taken is within the customary practice of physicians of good standing in similar circumstances. (g) A general consent provision in a contract for admission shall only encompass consent for routine nursing care or emergency care. Routine nursing care, as used in this section, means a treatment or procedure that does not require informed consent as specified in this section, or that is determined by the physician not to require the disclosure of information material to the individual client. Routine nursing care includes, but is not limited to, care that does not require the order of a physician. This section does not preclude the use of informed consent forms for any specific treatment or procedure at the time of admission or at any other time. All consent provisions or forms shall indicate that the client or incapacitated client's legal representative may revoke his or her consent at any time. (h) If a client or his or her legal representative cannot communicate with the physician because of language or communication barriers, the mental health rehabilitation center shall arrange for an interpreter. (1) An interpreter shall be someone who is fluent in both English and the language used by the client and his or her legal representative, or someone who can communicate with a deaf person, if deafness is the communication barrier. (2) When interpreters are used, they shall be physically present and documentation shall be placed in the client record indicating the name of the person who acted as the interpreter and his or her relationship to the client and to the mental health rehabilitation center.
They are heavy text so that those who read can understand the substance of the issue, When you give your friends knowledge, you are not telling them what to think. That is, you are not telling them what they are supposed to know, or what you want them to understand is true. When you give your friends wisdom, you do not tell them what to know, or what is true, but, rather, how to get to their own truth.