Blackrock’s Edward Dowd reveals how Big Pharma is going to become the next potential financial crisis.
As Pfizer try to ‘pump their stock’ Hedge Fund guru Dowd, takes us inside what he calls the third great fraud in his lifetime, in this new bombshell interview with Dr Naomi Wolf.
Will CDC's Rochelle Walensky be found guilty of fraud? She is testifying before a grand jury.
If you found this video informative I would suggested watching this video of Edward Dowd. Pfizer, FDA Hid Failed Clinical Trials Data, Says BlackRock Advisor
ICYMI: Oregon Sen. Kim Thatcher, Dennis Linthicum and Dr Ealy have filed Grand Jury Petition in 9th Circuit Court against CDC, Rochelle Walensky et al.
Suit alleges Covid data fraud, conspiracy, malfeasance, misappropriation of taxpayer $ and more. 👇🏻https://t.co/ChWNYC1fyt
Due to the irregular nature of the COVID-19 responses, this is a crowdsourcing tool for organizing the economic ramifications, scientific inconsistencies, and legal issues. Our desire is to see a rational and principled approach to COVID-19 where the rights of citizens and commerce are protected.
This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in courts, not general news stories.
Submitted items may be edited or deleted to ensure the quality of content. 188 issues and counting!
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Reports $37B COVID Vaccine Sales in 2021
Pfizer reported global sales and alliance revenue from its abortion-tainted COVID vaccine brought in $36.78 billion in 2021, helping to more than double profits across its business operations compared with 2020.
In an earnings report issued Tuesday, the pharmaceutical giant also estimated that sales of its vaccine and anti-viral pill will top $54 billion in 2022, buoying shareholders’ hopes that profits at the company might soar for the second year in a row.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company plans to aggressively expand the use of messenger RNA beyond just COVID vaccines, pointing to potential treatments of muscle, the liver and nervous system, despite warnings from many researchers that the use of mRNA technology carries significant risks.
Despite record earnings, Pfizer shares fell 3% yesterday on Wall Street due to lower than expected 2022 sales forecasts for its anti-viral pill, Paxlovid, which it sells at $530 a course in the United States.
Anti-viral pills like ivermectin, which health chiefs have sought to ban or restrict, typically sell for a few dollars when available, with several scientists suggesting the much-maligned pills are more effective than those produced by Pfizer.
Pfizer said its overall sales in 2022 across the company’s product range could reach $102 billion.
“In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we committed to use all of the resources and expertise we had at our disposal to help protect populations globally against this deadly virus, as well as to offer treatments to help avoid the worst outcomes when infections do occur,” Bourla said yesterday. “We put billions of dollars of capital on the line in pursuit of those goals, not knowing whether those investments would ever pay off.”
Reacting to the earnings on Twitter, some commentators remarked on how beneficial mass-vaccination programs had been to the company’s balance sheet.
Bourla also said yesterday that Pfizer’s vaccine for the Omicron variant would not be ready for distribution until March, casting further doubt on calls from health officials and mainstream media outlets to vaccinate people now with shots made for previous variants.
The CEO acknowledged that the eradication of COVID is unlikely to be achieved because of mutations and the virus’ global spread, with some scientists previously warning that new vaccines were contributing to the growth of variants.
Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer vice president and chief scientist for respiratory research, last week called on the media to apologize for their “lies” about vaccine safety as leaked data from the U.S. military indicated a 300% increase in miscarriages in 2021.
Yeadon, who spent 32 years in the industry leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with the most senior research position in his field, was an author of a submitted petition to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020 that raised substantial concerns regarding a lack of sufficient testing of the experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines before their emergency use authorizations.
With regard to the possibility of the shots endangering the fertility of women, Yeadon and his colleague, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, wrote, “There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case, this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”
Such a possibility would need to be ruled out through standard experimentation before imposing such substances onto the entire population, according to the doctors.
“It’s important to note that none of these gene-based agents had completed what’s called ‘reproductive toxicology,’” Yeadon wrote in his recent statement. “Over a year later, this battery of tests in animals still has not been done. So there was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy or prior to conception.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data in December showing a total of 965,843 reports of adverse events after COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The data included a total of 20,244 reports of deaths and 155,506 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same period.
The only way to know who your enemy is in the age of disinformation is to follow the money.
China's Wuhan laboratory is owned by GlaxoSmithKline which owns Pfizer the company that makes the vaccines. Dr. Fauci funded the research at the Wuhan lab through NIH. GlaxoSmithKline is managed by the Private Equity finance division of Black Rock which manages the finances of Open Foundation Group for George Soros which manages the French Accent Group. Soros owns the German company that built the Wuhan laboratory which was bought by the German Alliance which has Vanguard as a shareholder. Black Rock, Vanguard and Alliance control the central banks and also have a large stake in Microsoft where Bill Gates is the Chairman. Bill Gates is a shareholder of Pfizer and BioNTech and a sponsor of the World Health Organization.
In initial deals with the U.S. government, Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine costs $19.50 per dose, compared with $15 for Moderna's shot, $16 for Novavax's program, $10 for Johnson & Johnson's vaccine and $4 for AstraZeneca's.
The EU is also paying less for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than the U.S., $14.70 per dose versus $19.50, according to figures reported in BMJ. On the other hand, the U.S. is paying less for the Moderna vaccine (about $15) than the EU (about $18), according to the BMJ piece. The contribution governments have made toward vaccine research is the explanation for the price differences. Moderna is charging the U.S. less for its vaccine because the U.S. government funded research that led to the vaccine’s development. Similarly, the EU supported research that led to the development of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, thus the lower price for that vaccine for the EU.
So far, governments around the world have been the only purchasers of the COVID-19 vaccines, so the price has been set by government contracts. But different countries are paying different prices. South Africa, for example, reportedly paid $5.25 per dose for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in January, more than twice the price of $2.15 per dose paid by the European Union (EU), according to a report in BMJ. The South African government has announced that it is holding back on administering that vaccine because it may be less effective against the country’s namesake variant.
First to receive emergency use authorization in the United States, the Pfizer shot has become the world’s most popular, with 3.5 billion doses purchased. Sales could double in 2022, according to projections.
But the rapid proliferation of the vaccine, under contracts negotiated between the company and governments, has unfolded behind a veil of strict secrecy, allowing for little public scrutiny of Pfizer’s burgeoning power, even as demand surges amid new negotiations for one of the world’s most sought-after products.
A report released Tuesday by Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group that gained access to a number of leaked, unredacted Pfizer contracts, sheds light on how the company uses that power to “shift risk and maximize profits,” the organization argues.
The Manhattan-based pharmaceutical giant has maintained tight levels of secrecy about negotiations with governments over contracts that can determine the fate of populations. The “contracts consistently place Pfizer’s interests before public health imperatives,” said Zain Rizvi, the researcher who wrote the report.
Public Citizen found common themes across contracts, including not only secrecy but also language to block donations of Pfizer doses. Disputes are settled in secret arbitration courts, with Pfizer able to change the terms of key decisions, including delivery dates, and demand public assets as collateral.
Sharon Castillo, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, said that confidentiality clauses were “standard in commercial contracts” and “intended to help build trust between the parties, as well as protect the confidential commercial information exchanged during negotiations and included in final contracts.”
Both Pfizer and Moderna, another U.S. company that developed a vaccine using breakthrough mRNA technology, are facing pressure from critics who accuse them of building a “duopoly.” Although Pfizer did not accept government funding through the vaccine development program called Operation Warp Speed, it received huge advance orders from the United States. It opposed an intellectual property waiver that could have meant the sharing of its technology.
Experts who reviewed the terms of contracts with foreign governments suggested that some demands were extreme. In contracts reached with Brazil, Chile, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, those states forfeited “immunity against precautionary seizure of any of [their] assets.”
“It’s almost as if the company would ask the United States to put the Grand Canyon as collateral,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University.
The company rejected that logic. “Pfizer has not interfered and has absolutely no intention of interfering with any country’s diplomatic, military, or culturally significant assets,” Castillo said. “To suggest anything to the contrary is irresponsible and misleading.”
Some contract demands appear to have slowed vaccine rollouts in countries. At least two countries walked away from negotiations and publicly criticized the company’s demands. However, both later reached agreements with Pfizer.
Aspects of the contracts are not uncommon, including the reliance on arbitration courts and clauses designed to give companies legal protection. Pfizer’s price for its vaccine, as low as $10 per dose in Brazil, appeared to be lower than some competitors’ prices.
“Pharma companies have concerns,” said Julia Barnes-Weise, director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliance Accelerator. “One of them is, especially for a not-yet-approved vaccine, that they could be held liable for any injury that that vaccine seems to have caused.”
Secret contracts
Pfizer has formalized 73 deals for its coronavirus vaccine. According to Transparency International, a London-based advocacy group, only five contracts have been formally published by governments, and these with “significant redactions.”
“Hiding contracts from public view or publishing documents filled with redacted text means we don’t know how or when vaccines will arrive, what happens if things go wrong and the level of financial risk buyers are absorbing,” said Tom Wright, research manager at the Transparency International Health Program.
Much of what is known about Pfizer’s contracts has come out in leaks, often through journalism from local outlets or international ones, including the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Public Citizen analyzed an unredacted draft agreement between the company and Albania, as well as unredacted final documents from Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Peru and the European Commission. Redacted documents published by Chile, the United States and Britain provide further context, though they are missing key details.
The contract reached with Brazil prohibits the government from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.
“This is next-level stuff,” said Tahir Amin, an intellectual property lawyer who co-founded I-Mak, a nonprofit global health organization.
Pfizer exerted control over the supply of vaccine doses after contracts were signed. The Brazilian government was restricted from accepting donations of Pfizer doses or making its own donations. Pfizer also included clauses in contracts with Albania, Brazil and Colombia that it could unilaterally change delivery schedules in the case of shortages.
In contracts with Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, governments were required to sign a document that says each “expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future.” The first four were also required to waive immunity against “precautionary” seizure of their assets.
Public Citizen found contracts that required governments “‘to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer’ from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, damages, costs and expenses related to vaccine intellectual property.”
An opaque giant
Pfizer has not experienced the same level of public scrutiny as Moderna, which has been accused of price-gouging and delaying deliveries. Analytics firm Airfinity this week predicted Pfizer will sell $54.5 billion worth of coronavirus vaccine next year, almost twice the value of Moderna’s sales.
One official from a country in the midst of negotiations with Pfizer, who was not authorized to speak on the matter, said that the country found Pfizer difficult to negotiate with but reliable in the delivery of vaccine doses.
Like Moderna’s, Pfizer’s vaccine has been found to be highly effective against the delta variant of the coronavirus and to provide long-lasting immunity. From the leaked documents, Pfizer appears to have offered lower prices for its vaccine to poorer countries that had less leverage.
Castillo said that Pfizer had committed to a tiered pricing approach, with wealthier nations paying about the cost of a takeout meal per dose and lower-middle-income countries offered prices at a not-for-profit price. Some 99 million doses had reached low- and lower-middle-income countries so far, and the company expects “substantial increase in shipments to these countries through the end of the year.”
Contract terms related to sovereign immunity may have been an attempt to cover for some risks over which the company has little control, including the use of new, unapproved vaccines in partner countries where the company has little oversight over storage and distribution. Pfizer may have been worried about opportunistic lawsuits in countries where it had not filed patents, Barnes-Weise said.
Some countries, including the United States, have laws that provide indemnification to vaccine manufacturers, but most do not.
However, Transparency International argued that at least four contracts or drafts it examined went “much further” than other vaccine developers, with “more of the risk onto national governments, and away from the developer, even if missteps are made by the developer or supply chain partners, and not just if there is a rare adverse effect of the vaccines.”
Suerie Moon, co-director of the global health center at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said that restrictions on donations were “appalling” and “counter to the goal of getting vaccines as quickly as possible to those who need them.”
Castillo said Pfizer is not currently pursuing legal action against any government related to its coronavirus vaccine.
At least two countries that initially backed out of negotiations with Pfizer later returned. In January, Brazil publicly said Pfizer was insisting on “unfair and abusive” contractual terms, pointing to the confidentiality clauses. Just months later, Brazil signed a $1 billion contract with the drug giant for 100 million doses. Public Citizen says that the signed contract, later leaked, contained many of the provisions that Brazil once opposed.
Argentina also rejected early negotiations with Pfizer, with the country’s former health minister publicly saying the company “behaved very badly” and was making demands that did not comply with Argentine law. The country later agreed to purchase 20 million doses. The unredacted contract has not been released.
Covax, a World Health Organization-backed vaccine-sharing initiative, has purchased only a relatively modest 40 million doses directly from Pfizer, with reports of disputes during subsequent negotiations. Covax later reached an agreement with the United States for Washington to buy and redistribute 500 million Pfizer doses to low-income countries through Covax.
In its report, Public Citizen called on the U.S. government to use its leverage to force Pfizer to take a different approach, including requiring the company to share technology and intellectual property so that other manufacturers can produce the vaccine.
“The global community cannot allow pharmaceutical corporations to keep calling the shots,” Rizvi said. “The Biden administration can step up and balance the scales.”
The employees, who include two pilots and one flight attendant, accused the airline of discrimination against workers who requested accommodation, saying the policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, according to the lawsuit.
Pittman's restraining order, which expires on October 26, is only a temporary halt to United's policy while he hears more arguments on the case.
Six United workers sued the company last month over its plans to put on leave any employees who requested religious or medical exemptions. The suit said the employees were effectively told they’d be terminated if they sought exemptions and alleged that the company was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA.
“United’s actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing their livelihoods. In doing so, United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity,” the suit states.
United and the plaintiffs reached an agreement that the company would not place exempted employees on leave during a Sept. 24 hearing, Pittman said, obviating the need for an immediate ruling. He planned to hear arguments on a motion for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 8 but United filed a partial motion to dismiss, alleging the court lacked jurisdiction over some of the claims.
The hearing was reset to Oct. 13. Ahead of the arguments, Pittman said he concluded it was necessary to issue a temporary restraining order that is effective through Oct. 31.
Absent entry of the order, “the parties’ stipulation will expire before the Court can rule on whether a preliminary injunction is warranted,” the Trump nominee wrote.
“If the parties’ stipulation were to expire without temporary injunctive relief in place, nothing would prevent hundreds of workers from ostensibly either: (1) being compelled to take a vaccination in violation of their religious beliefs or medical restrictions, or (2) being placed on indefinite unpaid leave by United,” he added.
United said earlier this month that 320 workers in the United States, or 0.5 percent of the U.S. workforce, were not in compliance with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
United told news outlets after Pittman’s order that “vaccine requirements work and nearly all of United’s U.S. employees have chosen to get a shot.”
“For a number of our employees who were approved for an accommodation, we’re working to put options in place that reduce the risk to their health and safety, including new testing regimens, temporary job reassignments, and masking protocols,” the airline said.
Mark Paoletta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times in an email that United’s “refusal to provide reasonable accommodations to its vaccine mandate violates the federal civil rights protections of our clients, the hard working men and women at United,” adding, “We look forward to our clients’ rights being permanently protected.”
No one loses their job for refusing to get the vaccine. Southwest CEO blames Biden for Vaccine mandate:
“I’m not in favor of that, never have been. But the executive order from Biden mandates that all federal employees, and then all federal contractors, which covers all the major airlines, have to have a mandate.”
Southwest CEO denies massive flight cancellations were related to vaccine mandates, blames ‘absenteeism’.
Southwest CEO says he is AGAINST vaccine mandate, but defers to Biden’s federal mandate (which does not actually exist)
In response, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order on Monday which prohibits any entity - including private businesses, from imposing vaccine mandates on either employees or customers.
"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should remain voluntary and never forced," said Abbott in a statement. The rule follows several executive orders Abbott issued over the summer banning local governments and school districts from mask or vaccination mandates - with $1,000 fines for those who fail to comply.
Last week, Southwest announced that its 56,000-person workforce would need to be fully vaccinated with the Covid-19 jab by Dec. 8 in order to remain employed - an announcement which came days after other carriers (including American Airlines, Alaska Airlines and JetBlue Airways) announced similar measures, according to CNBC.
Doubling down on the airline's claim that widespread flight disruptions over the past four days weren't related to an employee protest over the mandate, Kelly blamed "absenteeism" - which, we're quite frankly
Good!
Southwest Airlines CEO Says No Employees Will Be Fired Over Vaccine Mandate https://t.co/o1uZKnRK9V
This photo was just sent to me of a grounded Southwest plane flying a Gadsden flag out of the cockpit. The Hero Pilots at Southwest and other Airlines deserve our support. True patriots worthy of the American Freedom Fighter tradition. Don’t Tread On Me. God Bless Them 🇺🇸✈️🙏🏻 pic.twitter.com/tAo9pT4Q60
Tech manufacturing giant INTEL is resisting vaccine mandates.
They even allow antibodies from prior infection to count as a full substitute for vaccination for people who must quarantine after a Covid exposure or for travel requirements.
Intel's rational, moral C19 vax policies: vaxxed employees cannot say they do not want to work with unwaxed employees; FORBIDS managers from asking for vax status; ACCEPTS antibodies as a full substitute for vax for people who must quarantine after a C19 exposure or for travel
Their lawyers know what the future holds.
Finally a company with (excuse my wording) balls. This along with the airline industry employees, I want to say thank you.
1/ Intel's rational, moral C19 vax policies: vaxed employees cannot say they do not want to work with unvaxed employees; FORBIDS managers from asking for vax status; ACCEPTS antibodies as a full substitute for vax for people who must quarantine after a C19 exposure or for travel
Intel does not require covid19 vaccinations for its workforce. Hint: It’s arguably the most science-driven of all. Alex Berenson pic.twitter.com/MA3XK3csGe
Americans in many different fields of work are suddenly having to choose between taking an abortion-tainted, poorly tested, and dangerous coronavirus injection or being fired from their jobs. Students are also having their educational opportunities denied without proof of COVID-19 vaccination. As many conservative commentators on Twitter are pointing out, over the course of 18 months, “15 days to slow the spread” turned into “two shots to feed your family.”
President Joe Biden’s September 9 announcement, that all employers with over 100 employees will soon be required to force those employees to receive coronavirus injections or submit to weekly testing, will impact an estimated 80 million Americans. The edict is stricter for federal employees and contractors, and healthcare workers at facilities that receive Medicaid or Medicare: they must submit to the vaccine and there is no testing opt-out option. It does appear that religious and medical exemptions will be accepted by the government.
Most of the below exemption resources can be used by physicians, nurses, students, or employees of any company. Most are not specific to any field. Read this resource carefully and fully to determine the best letter for your situation. Obtaining an exemption is not overly complicated.
MILITARY
The exception to the above note about the ease with which exemptions can be obtained is the military.
Here is what Children of God for Life says about military vaccine exemptions:
Military personnel in active duty may or may not be allowed an exemption depending on permission granted by the Commanding Officer. (Read the story of one US Coast Guard officer who fought and won.) However, military dependents are allowed religious exemptions. Click here to access the Military Dependent Children Vaccine waiver form.
Military matters are further complicated because active-duty military personnel essentially give up some of their basic rights upon joining the armed forces. The military even has its own legal system through which members can be court-martialed. “The application of military law to members of the military reflects a recognition that such individuals are subject to different duties and expectations than civilian citizens,” Justia explains.
This is the only sample language for requesting a religious accommodation or exemption for members of the military of which LifeSiteNews is aware.
Service members should also carefully read this primer from Children’s Health Defense on religious liberty and vaccine exemptions in the military.
PRIESTS
Biden’s mandate that all employers with over 100 workers force their employees to be injected will impact every diocese and likely almost every Catholic university in the U.S. How strictly the vaccine will be forced upon priests and laity employed by Catholic institutions will depend on how far left the diocese or school is. Catholics who can’t get a medical exemption may well need to find another job. Priests are in a particularly difficult situation. Priests can contact LifeSiteNews or attempt to use one of the below resources if they are trying to avoid being jabbed.
OPTIONS FOR MOST PEOPLE
Options for avoiding an employer- or university- mandated vaccine are: obtain a medical exemption, obtain a religious exemption, ask for accommodation (like being allowed to work from home if one works for a small company), or sue.
State law matters: Employees will have much recourse if they live in a state like Florida, rather than New York, Oregon, or California. Fourteen Republican governors have said they will push back against Biden’s vaccine edict. Meanwhile, Montana law actually prohibits proof of coronavirus vaccination as a condition of employment. How will that work for huge companies like Amazon or Walmart?
MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS
If you have a contraindication to the coronavirus vaccine or are seeking a medical exemption based on previous infection and thus natural immunity to the coronavirus, the easiest way to file a medical exemption is by getting a trusted doctor to write one for you.
Pregnant women, those with allergies to vaccine ingredients, people who went into anaphylactic shock or had a similar adverse reaction after their first coronavirus vaccine dose are also likely to seek medical exemptions.
.@VP, do I have the right as a woman to wait till clinical trials are done on people with autoimmune diseases before I get the vaccine? Or will you try force me, regardless? https://t.co/5ALRKwRbxK
The most disturbing part of Biden’s speech is that it was a direct attack against pregnant women, people w health conditions, and minorities—the large groups that make up the unvaccinated. His words opened the door to blame, shame, terminate, and potentially physically harm us.
Many Christians oppose the taking of vaccines that were tested on or contain body parts of aborted babies (a full chart showing which vaccines in use in the U.S. – and not just those for COVID-19 – were created unethically and which were created ethically can be accessed HERE). Others oppose vaccination for other reasons.
As numerous Catholic bishops have explained, the moral teaching of the Catholic Church holds that “a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment.”
Recent documents and statements from the Vatican, the Pontifical Academy for Life, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and modern catechetical teachings note that although the Church allows Catholics to take abortion-tainted vaccines or medicines if no other options are available and the intent is to preserve life, vaccination itself must be voluntary.
Catholics opposed to taking the coronavirus vaccine needn’t necessarily submit a Catholic-specific letter but can use a more general Christian letter that does not contradict Catholic teaching. Given the divide amongst U.S. bishops and in the hierarchy in general about the vaccine, this may be wise.
Liberty Council has a sample letter for Christians who do not want to take the coronavirus vaccines for religious reasons.
“In order for an employee or student to prevail under a claim for a religious exemption, whether based on pro-life or other religious beliefs, religious beliefs must be sincerely held, and the requested accommodation must be ‘reasonable,’ and not constitute an undue hardship on the employer or institution,” Liberty Council explains. “The manner in which the employer or institution continued its operations in 2020, prior to the availability of the COVID shots, establishes a baseline of treatment of employees or students that is not an ‘undue hardship.’ It will NEVER be an ‘undue hardship’ for the entity to allow the employee or student to continue doing what was considered ‘safe and effective’ or ‘mitigating’ in the absence of the vaccine.”
The eminent legal group continues, “However, such treatment may become discriminatory, if novel or additional restrictions or requirements are applied to the person who should otherwise be exempt. If the COVID shots work, those people who have received them are protected, and it is not an undue hardship for individuals who have religious objections to not receive such shots.”
Liberty Council also provides a sample “pastor verification letter.” Such a letter “is beneficial to proving the sincerity of the belief, but is not legally required. It is nonetheless very helpful in substantiating a claim that one’s belief is religious in nature, and that it is sincere.”
Liberty Council urges people not to copy the text of their sample letters verbatim but let them serve as a “guide only.”
The Catholic bishops of Colorado have a letter template that Catholics can have their pastors sign when seeking a religious exemption from a vaccine mandate.
Another option for Catholics is to join the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima. Members or those wanting to become members can follow the simple process outlined on this page to request a personally signed letter from Bishop Athanasius Schneider. His Excellency will attest to a person’s membership in a Catholic organization, namely the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, that holds that abortion-tainted vaccines are gravely immoral.
The Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima also provides the following religious exemption letter template which can be downloaded and modified.
“It has been reviewed by trusted legal counsel,” the Confraternity says. “However, it is not legal advice and it does not guarantee you will receive an accommodation. You should carefully review this language and confirm that it accurately reflects your individual beliefs and objections.” The Confraternity also notes that the Thomas More Society accepts requests for legal help via this form.
First Liberty has produced a very easy-to-read pamphlet on religious liberty and vaccines that includes sample language for requesting a religious accommodation or exemption. The samples are:
A general request for a religious accommodation based on Christianity.
A request for an accommodation focused on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which includes an accompanying essay by Father Kevin Flannery, S.J., “Avoiding Illicit Involvement with Evil.”
A request for an accommodation focused on the teachings of Islam provided to us by Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, Associate Professor of Islamic Law at Zaytuna College.
A military exemption request for religious accommodation form. (LifeSiteNews is not aware of any military-specific sample religious exemption letters other than this one.)
Personhood Alliance also provides a sample religious exemption letter that can be printed and signed.
Richmond, Virginia-based Founding Freedoms Law Center provides via its website sample religious exemption request letters for employees and college students. It also provides a sample Virginia certificate of religious exemption for all childhood vaccinations typically required for school attendance, and exemption letters related to face masks.
Children of God for Life provides a sample Catholic religious exemption here. The group provides more information about religious exemptions to vaccines here.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom has a form through which people can request a religious exemption letter template.
Andrew Torba of Gab has posted a sample religious exemption template for college students that addresses the fact that many students entering college in the U.S. will have received childhood vaccinations that were unethically made or to which they may not necessarily have been able to consent.
Lawyer Robert Barnes has posted at this link a sample religious exemption letter.
The above resources are free. For anywhere from $59 to $175, TheHealthyAmerican.org will provide religious exemption consulting and the option to mail forms to a pastor to be signed. The group also provides a fact sheet about religious exemptions.
For approximately $1,400 (the cost varies based on the situation), the lawyers at the high-powered law firm Siri & Glimstad will provide individualized assistance with preparing, filing, and obtaining medical or religious exemptions. Their intake form is available here.
Liberty Council also has a huge trove of legal and medical information about coronavirus vaccines on this page, which they regularly update.
America’s Frontline Doctors has a list of statements from different faith leaders (Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical/Non-denominational Christian) about the coronavirus vaccines that can be used to support religious exemptions or help formulate a person’s exemption.
Although, as noted above, it is not generally legal for employers to demand verification from a religious leader of a person’s deeply held beliefs, it can be beneficial.
SUING
The Republican National Committee has already announced it is suing Biden over his employer vaccine mandate.
“Like many Americans, I am pro-vaccine and anti-mandate,” said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “Many small businesses and workers do not have the money or legal resources to fight Biden’s unconstitutional actions and authoritarian decrees, but when his decree goes into effect, the RNC will sue the administration to protect Americans and their liberties.”
Liberty Council lists instructions at the bottom of this page for nursing students, students, and employees whose requests for religious exemptions to the vaccine have been denied. Nursing students, students, and employees seeking legal help can follow those instructions to contact Liberty Council about next legal steps.
America’s Frontline Doctors has a form through which you can contact them if you are looking for an attorney in your state to help if your employer is attempting to force you to take the vaccine.
Anyone wishing to make his or her employer aware of possible liabilities of mandating the coronavirus vaccines can give his or her employer this form (provided by America’s Frontline Doctors) and ask that the employer fill it out. (The form is also available here.) He or she can then go to this link and click “vaccine public letter,” edit the parts in red, and deliver it to his or her employer.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing people who have natural immunity to the coronavirus in their legal battle against Michigan State University’s vaccine mandate. Their website does not advertise that they are taking new clients, but their legal reasoning may be useful to any attorneys with which you are working.
Roger Severino, the former Director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has noted that it is against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to force unvaccinated employees to be tested for the coronavirus. Forcing employees to submit to medical tests is technically against the ADA, but LifeSiteNews is not aware of any lawsuits that address this yet.
The “vax-or-test” schemes that the federal government has mandated for private employers with over 100 workers appear to violate the ADA and could easily be challenged in court.
“Some argue that even if irrational or retaliatory, forced COVID testing does not impose a big enough indignity to sue over,” Severino wrote on July 30, 2021. “Let’s not be naïve. The DOJ memo and yesterday’s announcement are merely dress rehearsals for the ultimate goal of imposing a national vaccine mandate.”
“When asked…about whether he has the power to do such a thing, Biden said it is still an open question,” he warned. “In truth, the answer comes down to one thing — whether or not Biden thinks he can get away with it. Like the proverbial slow-boiling frog, if there is not a strong reaction now, we’ll all be cooked soon.”
As evidenced by yesterday’s vaccine mandate announcement, Biden apparently does indeed think he has the power to impose what essentially amounts to a national vaccine mandate. It’s now up to regular Americans who don’t want the federal government dictating their deeply personal and consequential medical decisions to stand up and fight back in every way possible.
