More than 150 Houston hospital workers fired or quit after refusing COVID-19 vaccine

[Mayzoo]

So apparently, because all the vaccines are still classified as "experimental", it is illegal to force anyone to take it. So it explains why schools and business can require a hepatitis vaccine but cannot require a covid vaccine. The hospital may potentially have 150 lawsuits on its hands.

The employees already filed suit. Suit dismissed already. I am sure the appeal is pending.

The employee is not forced to be vaccinated. They may quit and get a job where the vaccine is not required.

The employer is permitted to fire anyone without giving a reason. You must prove you were discriminated against based on a protected class or illegally fired (ie fired due to refusing to perform an illegal act) to get anywhere with a lawsuit.

 

[ralliann]

I see no reason to believe this claim.



If it was shut down, how did you see it?

As the post clearly says, T.V. I am sure you don't see it, and I cant give you a link to a video from the internet. Move on nothing to see here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So many questions..
Why don't we have testing available to see who has and hasn't had it? They won't need a vaccine? Haven't we heard over and over how people can have it especially younger people and not have known it?

That's what Rand Paul and the Dr. Makari from Johns Hopkins keep saying...how can we entirely discount natural immunity as if it doesn't exist? Millions have either been exposed and never became ill, and they are immune. Others had it and had some to many symptoms, and they are also immune.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Emergency use=approved for use. The pandemic wasn't willing to wait on the usual slow pace of approval.

Did you feel the same way about the "treatments" promoted by the EX President and hucksters like Jim Bakker?

What "treatments" are those?

If I were an ER doc, I would have tried anything and everything to save my dying patients. Drugs are used off label all the time.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I guess if it ever becomes an actual issue rather than a hypothetical one someone can start a thread on it. But why not stick to what's actually happening now in this discussion?

What is actually happening is that people are being fired because they won't comply with an experimental treatment before it is even approved, and for which many side effects are still coming out. That seems wrong. People have the right to bodily integrity.

That IS what is happening. But the legal issue matters too. Precedents we set tend to rule...good and bad.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Forget the larger legal question, how about the largest legal question? Do we want a society where employees (or anyone) can insist that their right to be suspicious of extensively tested and systematically approved drugs should allow them to place others, especially vulnerable others at risk? Or not?

And really, your rhetoric! It is either profoundly ill-informed or cynically constructed to mislead. You refer to an "experimental invasive drug". Can you tell me which drugs are not invasive? It's rather difficult for them to function if they don't "invade" our bodies. Loose or contrived usage such as this is a warning flag. It is duly noted in your case.

In reality, your rhetoric is the alarmist rhetoric here, and you are making many assumptions. I'm discussing legal issues and precedents. If you are talking about this vaccine, it has not been "extensively tested" at all. It has been tested short term (months) in small numbers (relative to the population).

Are the nurses placing people any more at risk than they were last year, wearing masks and PPE. Stats for that?

Only now are all the heart inflammation cases in young people becoming obvious, and it is currently in the thousands. Others have had other issues or even died. I'm sure the benefit wasn't worth the risk to them.

It is quite rational and reasonable to express concerns about what else might happen with a brand new, not-even-FDA-approved drug utilizing a brand new technology never before used on humans.

 

[Ophiolite]

In reality, your rhetoric is the alarmist rhetoric here, and you are making many assumptions.

Go ahead. List the many assumptions.

I'm discussing legal issues and precedents.

I've noted zero reference to any law, legal case, court judgement, etc. Thus far you have talked about legal issues and precedents, but have presented precisely zero. You don't post like a lawyer, I doubt you are competent to objectively present the legal issues and precedents you claim exist. I am quite prepared to be proven wrong when you post appropriately.

If you are talking about this vaccine, it has not been "extensively tested" at all. It has been tested short term (months) in small numbers (relative to the population).

It has been tested to the same extent as is typical for vaccines. The condensed time frame is a reflection of the urgency. Instead of testing 20,000 or 30,000 instances over three years it was done over a few monts.

Are the nurses placing people any more at risk than they were last year, wearing masks and PPE. Stats for that?

Despite masks and PPE many medical staff died in the UK. Are you suggesting none of them inadvertently infected others?

 

[Aldebaran]

What is actually happening is that people are being fired because they won't comply with an experimental treatment before it is even approved, and for which many side effects are still coming out. That seems wrong. People have the right to bodily integrity.

One big difference in approved/nonapproved is that when those side effects are known, they have to be disclosed, and the list is usually quite lengthy. The TV commercials that push prescription drugs (most of which appear during the evening news broadcast) which are approved by the FDA spend most of the commercial listing the side effects and warnings. All we get with the urging to "get the shot" is a short list of the things they call "rare". The actual side effects are revealed by the people who end up severely injured, and it doesn't take very long for websites to shut them down on the basis of, "This post violates our policy of making false claims about the vaccine. The vaccine is safe and we encourage everyone to be vaccinated per CDC guidelines".

 

[wing2000]

What is actually happening is that people are being fired because they won't comply with an experimental treatment before it is even approved, and for which many side effects are still coming out. That seems wrong. People have the right to bodily integrity.

That IS what is happening. But the legal issue matters too. Precedents we set tend to rule...good and bad.

....yea, me and 181 million Americans have taken an "experimental treatment"....gee, I wonder why that is?

I suppose we should have waited two years to fully understand all of the side effects - seriously, is this how you evaluate risk?

 

[Aldebaran]

....yea, me and 181 million Americans have taken an "experimental treatment"....gee, I wonder why that is?

I suppose we should have waited two years to fully understand all of the side effects - seriously, is this how you evaluate risk?

Let those who choose to take it do so, and the rest can wait. Some people are early adopters of new technology too, and wait to see how something works before buying it. That's even more important when it comes to things being injected into our bloodstream.

 

[wing2000]

Let those who choose to take it do so, and the rest can wait. Some people are early adopters of new technology too, and wait to see how something works before buying it. That's even more important when it comes to things being injected into our bloodstream.

That's fine....however, hospital employees don't have the option to endanger others (i.e. immunocompromised patients) in a hospital setting.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's fine....however, hospital employees don't have the option to endanger others (i.e. immunocompromised patients) in a hospital setting.

But it's ok to allow their own life be endangered if they want to continue earning a living? If you don't believe what can happen to people after getting the shot, then at least listen to what those who have experienced it. Here's a very long video where people testified about what happened to themselves or loved ones after getting the "vaccine". If you want to call them liars or politically motivated, that's your choice. But at least listen to what they have to say. Testimonies from individuals starts at the 13:00 mark.
Don't put off watching until later. I can't imagine Youtube allowing this to remain for very long:

 

[cow451]

What "treatments" are those?

If I were an ER doc, I would have tried anything and everything to save my dying patients. Drugs are used off label all the time.

I am so happy to serve my fellow poster.

In a statement, AG Schmitt said, "Today I’m pleased to announce that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office has obtained a consent judgment against Jim Bakker and Morningside Church Productions that results in $156,000 in restitution and strong safeguards to prevent the marketing of ‘silver solution’ as a cure or treatment for COVID and other medical issues. My Office will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of Missouri consumers, and will not hesitate to take action when those consumers are being defrauded."

 

[cow451]

One big difference in approved/nonapproved is that when those side effects are known, they have to be disclosed, and the list is usually quite lengthy. The TV commercials that push prescription drugs (most of which appear during the evening news broadcast) which are approved by the FDA spend most of the commercial listing the side effects and warnings. All we get with the urging to "get the shot" is a short list of the things they call "rare". The actual side effects are revealed by the people who end up severely injured, and it doesn't take very long for websites to shut them down on the basis of, "This post violates our policy of making false claims about the vaccine. The vaccine is safe and we encourage everyone to be vaccinated per CDC guidelines".

The waiver I signed was quite clear about risks known at the time and that it was approved under "emergency use" authorization.

 

[cow451]

If I were an ER doc, I would have tried anything and everything to save my dying patients. Drugs are used off label all the time.

Now, let's see.... using medications off-label is OK. Using vaccines authorized under emergency use is not.

Excuse me, but I seem to be seeing double... standard wise.

 

[cow451]

NWMT

 

[wing2000]

But it's ok to allow their own life be endangered if they want to continue earning a living? If you don't believe what can happen to people after getting the shot, then at least listen to what those who have experienced it. Here's a very long video where people testified about what happened to themselves or loved ones after getting the "vaccine". If you want to call them liars or politically motivated, that's your choice. But at least listen to what they have to say. Testimonies from individuals starts at the 13:00 mark.
Don't put off watching until later. I can't imagine Youtube allowing this to remain for very long:

Life is full of decisions. There are risk with *any* vaccine. There is a greater risk from Covid. Apparently 181 million other AMericans agree.

In the meantime, yes, that means a medical worker may have to switch professions if they are refusing to vaccinated.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Maybe these downtrodden workers should seize control of the means of employment.

 

[Aldebaran]

Maybe these downtrodden workers should seize control of the means of employment.

Or maybe file discrimination lawsuits.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please keep your posts on topic which is in the OP.
Abortion is NOT the topic of the thread. ​