Saturday, May 22, 2021

UPDATED: Update On OSHA Reporting Mandates

A couple of days ago I noted--Could The Covid Regime Be A Boon For Lawyers?--that OSHA had ruled that employers who required employees to be vaxxed would need to report any adverse effects as workplace injuries.

Today, sundance has drawn attention to a new statement issued by OSHA. Note this well. OSHA is not saying that these are not workplace injuries--they are. OSHA is simply saying that it will not enforce its own regulations because they want everyone to participate in a medical experiment. They want everyone to be vaxxed.

Think about that. This is an experimental treatment that is known to cause serious side effects and injuries--including death. The legality of requiring employees to receive an experimental treatment of this sort is questionable in and of itself. But OSHA is saying any injuries caused by such a workplace mandate may be ignored. Read it here (h/t CTH):

OSHA – “DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.” (LINK)

I'm unaware of any legal challenges to the various aspects of the entire Covid regime, but I have to believe they're coming. For example, the anti-science mask mandates. The forced participation in a questionable experiment with known serious side effects. This is a crazy world we're living in.

UPDATE: Here's a good example of what's going on. I just saw this tonight, reported by Fox:. It seems that there are a "relatively few" reports that appear to link the Pfizer and Moderna injections to myocarditis in young people. Of course, "relatively few" is a relative term, and it's relative to who gets it. If you've got it, it doesn't seem like "relatively few". Anyway, the bottom line is, which would you prefer: A "mild" case of myocarditis or no case of myocarditis?

The Centers for Disease Control is investigating a small number of young adults and adolescents who may have experienced heart problems following a COVID-19 vaccine, though the agency stressed that it is unclear the vaccine is responsible. 

There have been "relatively few" reports of myocarditis and "most cases appear to be mild," but the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group said it felt the potential issue should be communicated to providers. 

The CDC noted that mRNA vaccines, which are made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, are potentially causing the problem. 

Reports of myocarditis have been mostly in adolescents and young adults, are more common in males than females, typically occur after the second dose, and show up about 4 days after vaccination. 

So, all those universities requiring kids to get vaxxed? C'mon--no legal responsibility? Really? For God's sake, this is an experiment! 


  1. Avoid may be the thing that finally breaks the kangaroo court on injuries... Wouldn't that be something!

  2. FWIW, after first following the OSHA link above, you have to scroll down to the "Vaccine Related" tab and click on the link "Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?"

    There you'll find the actual "Move along people, nothing to see here" verbiage.

  3. I wonder if this is a distinction without a difference? Iow, just because the government says that they are suspending enforcement of requirements to record an adverse inoculation response as a workplace injury does not mean that an employer cannot be found liable if it requires the shot and the employee then suffers death or injury. This isn't even the govt saying that it isn't a workplace injury, only that they won't enforce what even they admit *should * be recordable. Any corporate attorney worth a dang would not advise their client to take the risk of mandating experimental drugs like this and the possibility of being sued by employees for millions. And any plaintiff atty worth a dang should be getting the commercials ready now prospecting for anyone injured as a result of employer mandated shots.

    Trial lawyers to the rescue!


    1. Good point. I was thinking about that this morning, wondering if I'd misspoken. Yes hopefully there will be lawsuits over many of the issues raised by the Covid regime, especially the continued enforcement of anti-science measures.

    2. To me the greater significance is the fact the government would do this at all. Not significant in terms of its being any sort of a game changer, but that it's exactly what we have come to expect: no stone left unturned to fudge the numbers and leave the people as benighted as they possibly can.

  4. Not requiring companies to record adverse side effects of mandated Covid-19 injections is pretty much of an admission that there are many instances of adverse side effects.

    In effect, it puts companies on notice that there are very serious potential side effects from a Covid-19 vaccine.

    Can only imagine how a plaintiff's attorney could use this information.

    Company attorneys, if they are smart, should tell their clients to take no position on the vaccines as it relates to employment.

    1. Yep. Now if patriots were half as clever as the neo marxists we would be organizing a network of attorneys nationwide to sue on behalf of anyone threatened with vaccine extortion. Class action that makes the tobacco litigation of the 90s look puny.

  5. For a digestible picture of current covid science, see
    James D. Agresti, at , w/ links to dozens of studies.