Could The Covid Regime Be A Boon For Lawyers?

No doubt you've heard that the Big Pharma companies manufacturing and distributing the experimental gene therapy anti-Covid medications are themselves immune--immune from legal liability, that is. That's not the end of the story, though. You're also no doubt aware of employers and other institutions--prominently, universities--have been mandating that persons subject to their pressure (employees, students, etc.) submit to participation in this medical experiment. That's problematic for those making such demands.

A reader brought this article to my attention:

Employers may be liable for ‘any adverse reaction’ from mandated coronavirus shots: OSHA

It’s also possible that employers requiring the injections may be held legally liable for violating federal law.

OSHA is perfectly clear on this point:

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 a resulting adverse reaction will be considered “work-related” for which the employer may be held 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: 

If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

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.

As you can imagine this is no small matter. While the Left wants you to believe that adverse reactions are rare--and rarely serious--that's not really true. Moreover, the alarming statistics that we've seen in just a few months may be just the tip of the iceberg. Consider:

Under the new OSHA clarification, such employers may be held liable for injuries due to these requirements. 

...

... adverse events with regard to these shots are not uncommon. Data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last Friday reveal that between December 14, 2020 and April 30 a total of 157,277 adverse events were passively reported to the U.S. government’s primary reporting system (VAERS), including 3,837 deaths and 16,014 serious injuries. 

While causation is not explicitly confirmed through the VAERS reporting system, neither can it be presumed that all such adverse events are reported. Indeed, one study in 2010 found that “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries” are reported to VAERS, suggesting the actual numbers of deaths and injuries due to these experimental substances are significantly higher.

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.

“The law is clear. An experimental vaccine cannot be mandated,” the introduction reads. And the text, drafted in the second person to the mandating authority, states, “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, and neither are you.”

I have absolutely no experience in this area of the law. I'm sure it's complicated by local Workman's Compensation laws as well as various federal statutes. Nor do I know whether class actions might be possible for these cases. One thing I do know--defendants who, in defiance of the law, injured employees and/or students by pressuring them to participate in a medical experiment will receive little to no sympathy from virtually any jury I can imagine.