Why would someone

The flu is also a workplace hazard, FDA approval means nothing with regard to what should or should not be an employer's business. What health procedures I have had done is nobody's business except mine and my doctor's. Period.

 

Let’s clarify this. The FDA approved a version of their shot that is basically unavailable. Comirnaty. Telling people the Pfizer shot is approved is not exactly above board. Unless someone see’s the vial, chances are they are submitting to the experimental version, & will not be covered by anybody for damages.

 

Wait, it's not the same thing?

 

Major law firm confirms FDA deceived America with its ‘approval’ of Pfizer vax | Principia Scientific Intl.

 

Are you talking to me? From my link, prove it wrong:

The FDA also acknowledges that while Pfizer-BioNTech has “insufficient supplies” (in other words, it is not currently available on the U.S. market) of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine actually available. However, the letter also states there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots which has been produced under the EUA and will continue to be offered under the same EUA status.

In its approval letter, the FDA specifies the Pfizer shot under the EUA should remain unlicensed, is still available for use, and can be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product. According to the FDA, the newly licensed Comirnaty injection and the existing Pfizer shot, while “legally distinct,” are not any different in terms of their “safety or effectiveness.”

 

The simple fact is this: the mRNA vaccine is not new technology. And, of course, you cannot provide evidence to the contrary since all the experts will attest to the fact that the mRNA technology underlying the vaccine has been researched for, yes, decades.

So what is your way of dealing with this? Answer: you pontificate about self-righteousness.

 

It is, of course, very much the employer's business - employers have the right to provide a safe workplace.

 

But to the general public, it is.

Being researched for decades is not the same as being in widespread use and in mass production for decades,
backed by reams of empirical data gathered over millions of successful uses and tons of doctors with glowing reviews.
It's also far from being fully tested and fully approved by any medical consensus, and most doctors in the field are pretty much new to it.

Simply put, these newer technologies have not been used in vaccines up until now,
and no amount of convincing by authorities who ( desperately? ) want to use them will ever get past the reality that their use in vaccines that impact millions is new.

IMO, what the medical community should be doing is throttling back, examining these for the risky rewards that they are, and slowing down to listen to those who have had serious and adverse reactions to them...instead of pressing forward at full speed.

Again, reports of serious side effects have been surfacing since they were first introduced, and there was no serious block of test subjects until millions volunteered this past spring to subject themselves to what was, and still is, largely experimental.

 

Respectfully, employees have the right to refuse to put anything they suspect will be bad for them into their own bodies,
without the threat of having their livelihoods taken away from them.

These new vaccines are not without sometimes serious risks, and they are proving to be quite unpredictable is some cases.
For example, in my own department I personally know of a man who has been in and out of recuperation since this past spring after voluntarily taking the Johnson and Johnson one...
He's never tested positive for CoVID-19, and he told me that if he had to do it all over again, he would not have taken the shot.

In addition, in the United States of America there is this thing called a "Constitution",
and it provides a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from government over-reach into people's personal lives, and it also allows for re-dress if something that governments, companies or even individuals do, leads to the injury or death of other people.
Thus far, my own opinion is that that document has been very much-ignored during this current trying time, by certain entities that seek to control something that is proving to be very nearly uncontrollable.

That said,
I will limit my replies to this subject from here on out, having made my opinions known.

As a United States Navy veteran with over 10 years of service ( both Active and Reserves ) and that has had his share of vaccines,
My own view is that I will not support vaccine mandates of any kind, and I fully believe that such things should be left up to individuals ( and parents in the case of children ) to decide...for better or for worse.


May God bless you sir.

 

Not relevant - what matters is that the technology itself is not new, not whether the public knows about it or not.

Strawman - I never claimed otherwise. I was simply replying to the incorrect statement that the mRNA vaccines use new technology: such a claim greatly distorts the truth.

 

No, employees do not have this right.

From the NY Times:

The bottom line is that companies are legally permitted to make employees get vaccinated, according to recent guidance from the federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

 

a) Because those things weren't politicized.
b) Because we weren't lied to about those things.
c) Because there wasn't an attempt to force us to take them.
d) Because there weren't potentially life threatening side effects to those drugs.
e) Because, with the exception of tetanus shots, we weren't told they were effective, then told we've have to have booster shots for the rest of our lives.

Any other questions?

 

What lies? Please be specific and provide evidence.

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. And, no, an employer making vaccination a job requirement does not entail force any more than a job requirement that I become proficient in Microsoft Word forces me to learn Word - employers have the right to set terms of employment.

Misleading - what reputable source guaranteed you that you would not need a booster?