The multiplication of lawsuits in America against employers and public bodies that have imposed covid-19 vaccination mandates is ongoing. There are lawsuits addressing various aspects of vaccine coercion, censorship of information necessary for informed consent, and the conduct of the vaccine trials, which are of major significance and which the public need to know about, don’t know enough about and in some cases don’t know about at all. These cases relate to America only and not Ireland but it is only a matter of time before there will be cases in Ireland as the vaccine role out was handled with a particularly iron fisted manner in Ireland and many if not all of those involved are guilty of serious crimes. Therefore the following examples should be of interest to Irish readers.
Refusal of Exemptions for Covid-19 Vaccinations
The issue of vaccine coercion of employees who are refused a religious exemption is of major relevance in America. The rights to freedom of religious practice are protected in the American constitution. Where exemptions were claimed on religious grounds (on the basis of cell-lines used in the vaccines commonly) the response was by and large to refuse these exemptions, where vaccines had been mandated by the military for instance, and by corporate employers including public bodies. It must surely be evident by now to the public at large that a ‘no exceptions’ vaccine drive is what we have been presented with from the outset. The universal vaccination drive allows for no exceptions, not on medical, not on legal and not on cultural grounds. The more vulnerable the recipient, the more insistent was the drive to vaccinate. No exceptions and no rights, effectively, to question this state of affairs. The result being that many people claiming religious exemptions – in the US – were refused and coerced into receiving these shots, or they were fired.
A recent class action was settled successfully on the 29th July 2022, against a private employer, North Shore University Health System. It was decided in favour of the applicants, paving the way for redress for those who had been refused a religious exemption and fired, and significantly, for those denied an exemption who actually received the covid-19 vaccinations. The case was settled on terms that the fired employees must be re-hired, with no position off limits. Every employee affected is entitled to claim from a settlement fund to be approved by the court, whether they took the vaccine or not. The unlawful refusal of religious exemptions is to cease. The case was bought by lawyer group Liberty Counsel before the federal Northern District Court of Illinois. The decision is the first of its kind and described as historic by Liberty Group, who say that the settlement serves as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse these exemptions to those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.
A Significant Victory
This is a significant victory in America where many people claimed religious exemptions and were affected by these refusals. The outcome does not go to the root of matters such as informed consent, or the safety and efficacy of the shots. It is a step on the way, rather, in challenging government supported mandates, a step on the road to challenging the immunity shield bestowed by national governments on the pharmaceutical companies.
Ad Hominem attacks and Censorship of Medical Experts
Dr Robert Malone is currently suing the Washington Post. The law suit alleges that ‘WP falsely accused Dr Malone of fraud, disinformation, dishonesty, deception, lying to the American public, lack of integrity, immorality and ethical improprieties’, on the basis of the contents of his speech at the Lincoln Memorial on the efficacy of the covid-19 vaccines. He has sued the newspaper on account of its printed accusations of disinformation, and the criticism and ad hominen attacks made by the newspaper against him personally. Dr Malone believes that outcomes from discovery, if the case is allowed to proceed, will be very significant in terms of exposing the alignment between the WP and other major newspapers with the government and government policy. The case is pending. If successful it may well precipitate a slew of such cases from other medical and scientific independent experts who have been censored and characterised by various publications, (and lets not forget social media platforms) in a similar fashion. The potential for such cases to snowball against the mainstream media and social media is significant.
Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer & Others
Of overriding interest is Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer and two other contractors, alleging that the pharmaceutical company manipulated data and committed other acts of potential malfeasance in the covid-19 clinical trials. Jackson brought the case after she was fired following her allegations to Ventavia and Pfizer of serious and significant irregularities occurring in the course of the trials. She provided a case-full of internal company documents to the British Medical Journal revealing the alleged wrongdoings, including evidence of alleged falsified data, blind trial failures, poorly trained.