The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has put employers on notice that should they attempt to require employees to receive injections of experimental COVID-19 gene-therapy vaccines any resulting adverse reaction will be considered “work-related” for which the employer may be held financially liable:
OSHA released its new guidance on April 20 under a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website having to do with COVID-19 safety compliance.
The question asks whether an employer who mandates employees receive these experimental COVID-19 shots is required to record any adverse events as a result of these injections. Such recording requirements of serious work-related injuries and illness may not only leave an employer vulnerable to worker’s compensation claims, but such incidents could also impact the employer’s safety record.
The question and answer in full:
Q: If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable? A: If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.
This clarification comes as an increasing number of employers seek to mandate the experimental injections despite possible illegality. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported this beginning trend in varieties of fields, including machine operators, office workers, restaurant waiters, and medical staff.
“The Houston Methodist Hospital network is mandating vaccines for both existing employees and new hires, barring an exemption,” Chip Cutter of the WSJ wrote. “Those who fail to comply will at first be suspended without pay, and later terminated.”
Under the new OSHA clarification, such employers may be held liable for injuries due to these requirements.
For example, 39-year-old nurse aide Janet More died last New Year’s Eve within 48 hours of receiving one of these injections. According to her brother, she at least had the impression “it was a mandatory vaccine that she had to take for her job.”
A similar case involves the sad death of 28-year-old Sara Stickles, a nutritional specialist at Swedish American hospital in Rockford, Illinois who died just five days after her second shot of one of the mRNA gene-therapy vaccines. She too had the clear impression that these injections were required by her employer….
Furthermore, it’s also possible employers requiring these injections may be held legally liable for violating federal law. According to America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), products approved for emergency use only “are prohibited from being mandated by federal law.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization (EUA) specifically states that individuals must have the free “option to accept or refuse” these vaccines. Many argue the prospect of being terminated from one’s job by refusing such vaccines certainly undermines such necessary freedom.
Therefore, attorneys Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense, and Greg Glaser warned last January that employers and universities who seek to defy the EUA law and attempt to require such injections of employees and students “are likely to lose if challenged in court.”
In order to assist individuals who wish to challenge their employers, schools, or universities that are requiring experimental COVID-19 vaccine injections, AFLDS has provided a template letter that can be sent to these entities and persons putting them on notice of their legal vulnerability.
This is a very encouraging development — after all, the only reason that drug companies are willing to continue to make vaccines is because without blanket legal immunity from liability, they would be bankrupted overnight by all the lawsuits from people who are killed and permanently maimed from vaccines every year.
No business that mandates vaccines could possibly afford the coming legal liability when their vaccine-injured employees start filing lawsuits against them.
Of course, they will first try to deny the connection of the employees injuries and the mandated vaccines — but the CDC has already acknowledged the possible connection — which is why they set up a special vaccine court to handle just the COVID vaccines alone.
Most employees would never think of suing their employers if a mandated vaccine injures them — and that ignorance of the law will help protect many employers — at least initially.
What will also help employers is that there will be a significant time lapse between receiving the vaccine and when adverse side effects or death occur — enough time to give them “plausible deniability.”
So this ruling holding employers legally responsible will either have to be waived or changed — or the government is going to have to find another way of coercing the “vaccine hesitant” into putting their lives at risk by “volunteering” for the experimental and deadly shots.