Apologies, looking for an Anti-Vaxx-Mandate in the workplace letter I saw posted somewhere here

Hello, my apologies, and if this is not the right forum or an inappropriate way to ask this, then mods, please do the needful...

I saw a post with a link and content of a letter that I believe a woman had drawn up with the help of her attorney. I thought I had bookmarked it and/or downloaded the letter, but for the life of me I cannot find it.

She had gotten an email from her employer management announcing they were considering mandating the jabs. She had this letter drawn up in response, and after presenting it to her employer, they sent another email announcing they had decided not to move forward with the mandate.

The letter had some excellent content, specifically threatening a lawsuit, basically saying if they were going to take responsibility for protecting everyone from the VID, they would need to do the same thing for all of the other communicable diseases, like HIV, TB, Flu, etc etc. It was very well worded, and based on sound legal arguments - and best of all, it apparently worked, as they immediately backed down.

If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tanstaafl

DM for you.

Thanks, but not it...

originally posted by: network dude
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tanstaafl
This may not be the one you're looking for, but it is one I ran across recently that I thought was well done.
Employer Letter Example

Sometime posted Something s few days ago but some mod saw fit to ax it.

I guess it didn't meet the ATS factcheckers' standards.

a reply to: network dude

That guy's a jerk.

a reply to: Klassified

That is a good letter, BUT it needs to be updated, as the Cominarty vaccine is no longer considered "experimental," and this letter claims that all of the vaccines are experimental. Of course, there's a low supply of Cominarty, and I have read that the FDA/CDC is allowing Pfizer to use their vaccines produced under the EUA as a replacement for Cominarty. Legally, they are different vaccines, and therefore if the supply says "Pfizer/BioNtech" instead of "Cominarty," you are still able to refuse the jab per federal law, even if Pfizer has one that has been FDA-approved.

And that assumes that the mandate is based on the recent FDA full approval. If not, and it's just one of those tyrannical companies that doesn't care about your health and is giving an ultimatum to get an experimental shot or be fired, then that's a different ballgame. Hopefully most employers aren't that heartless and unconcerned with the right to personal choices.

Go to Americas Frontline Doctors

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Klassified

That is a good letter, BUT it needs to be updated, as the Cominarty vaccine is no longer considered "experimental," and this letter claims that all of the vaccines are experimental. Of course, there's a low supply of Cominarty, and I have read that the FDA/CDC is allowing Pfizer to use their vaccines produced under the EUA as a replacement for Cominarty. Legally, they are different vaccines, and therefore if the supply says "Pfizer/BioNtech" instead of "Cominarty," you are still able to refuse the jab per federal law, even if Pfizer has one that has been FDA-approved.

And that assumes that the mandate is based on the recent FDA full approval. If not, and it's just one of those tyrannical companies that doesn't care about your health and is giving an ultimatum to get an experimental shot or be fired, then that's a different ballgame. Hopefully most employers aren't that heartless and unconcerned with the right to personal choices.

Yes, the 'not really a vaxxine' is STILL experimental.....it is still in trial phase until 2023

Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals

Study Description
Go to sections
Brief Summary:
This is a Phase 1/2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, dose-finding, vaccine candidate-selection, and efficacy study in healthy individuals.

The study consists of 2 parts: Phase 1: to identify preferred vaccine candidate(s) and dose level(s); Phase 2/3: an expanded cohort and efficacy part.

The study will evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of 3 different SARS-CoV-2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID-19 and the efficacy of 1 candidate:

As a 2-dose (separated by 21 days) schedule;
At various different dose levels in Phase 1;
As a booster;
In 3 age groups (Phase 1: 18 to 55 years of age, 65 to 85 years of age; Phase 2/3: ≥12 years of age [stratified as 12-15, 16-55 or >55 years of age]).
The candidate selected for efficacy evaluation in Phase 2/3 is BNT162b2 at a dose of 30 µg.

Participants who originally received placebo will be offered the opportunity to receive BNT162b2 at defined points as part of the study.

In order to describe the boostability of BNT162, and potential heterologous protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, an additional dose of BNT162b2 at 30 µg will be given to Phase 1 participants approximately 6 to 12 months after their second dose of BNT162b1 or BNT162b2. This will provide an early assessment of the safety of a third dose of BNT162, as well as its immunogenicity.

The assessment of boostability will be further expanded in a subset of Phase 3 participants at selected sites in the US who will receive a third dose of BNT162b2 at 30 µg or a third and potentially a fourth dose of prototype BNT162b2VOC at 30 µg (BNT162b2s01, based upon the South African variant and hereafter referred to as BNT162b2SA). A further subset of Phase 3 participants will receive a third, lower, dose of BNT162b2 at 5 or 10 µg.

To further describe potential homologous and heterologous protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, a new cohort of participants will be enrolled who are COVID-19 vaccine-naïve (ie, BNT162b2-naïve) and have not experienced COVID-19. They will receive BNT162b2SA given as a 2-dose series, separated by 21 days.

Study Type : Interventional (Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment : 43998 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Triple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator)
Primary Purpose: Prevention
Official Title: A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2 RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS
Actual Study Start Date : April 29, 2020
Estimated Primary Completion Date : May 2, 2023
Estimated Study Completion Date : May 2, 2023

a reply to: shaemac

Yeah, I've seen that. I find it absolutely immoral that a federal agency would give approval to something that is literally just 5 months into the process of official clinical trials under that agency.