Tuesday, April 23, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Workers are being experimented on with mandatory jabs, say US medics

Workers are being experimented on with mandatory jabs, say US medics


WITH more and more employers, particularly the Big Tech companies, demanding that their staff are Covid-vaccinated, a ringing declaration against this assault on workers’ liberty is being made by US doctors. 

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has spoken out after a joint statement by some other medical organisations and societies called for vaccinations to be made mandatory for health and care personnel. 

This is the association’s rebuttal in its Statement in Support of the Right of All, Including Medical Workers, to Decline Medical Intervention:

Due to the Joint Statement by various organisations that all ‘health care and long-term care employers’ should impose a requirement to receive ‘the Covid-19 vaccine’ on all their workers, the AAPS declares that all human beings have the right to liberty, which they do not forfeit when they serve the sick or the disabled.

The ethical commitment to protect others does not require workers to surrender their bodily integrity and self-determination and accept ‘the’ intervention dictated by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. 

As around half the population has received injections permitted under an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), which by federal law cannot be coerced, variant strains of SARS-CoV-2 have been proliferating, and hospitalisations and deaths are increasing, not diminishing, as one would expect in an effective vaccination campaign.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons are succumbing. Reports of post-injection death or long-term disability to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) are reaching unprecedented levels. 

Medical interventions are rarely completely safe or effective, and risks and benefits differ in individual patients and differing circumstances.  

Achieving a premature stamp of approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – premature because studies are not scheduled to be complete until the end of 2022 – does not confer safety or effectiveness. FDA-approved products have frequently been withdrawn in the past. 

The Joint Statement recognises only a medical exemption, and omits mention of a religious exemption, though many workers object to receiving these products based on their religious beliefs. Medical exemptions are virtually never recognised for the Covid vaccines, because there is improper denial that they cause harm to anyone. 

Long-term effects of these novel, genetically-engineered products cannot possibly be known at this point. These could include auto-immune disorders, antibody-enhanced disease, infertility, cancer, or birth defects. 

Employers are obligated to protect their workers from foreseeable hazards, even from risks as low or lower than one in 10,000, and to compensate them if they suffer an injury. They are not permitted to impose risks that may well be that significant, especially without compensation.  

Benefit to the public does not justify sacrificing workers who do not willingly accept the risk. Moreover, the benefit to the public in this instance is purely hypothetical.  

Uninfected persons cannot transmit infection just because they are unvaccinated. Vaccinated persons can still infect others. Many medical workers already have natural immunity, and mandated shots impose risks with little or no benefit, yet there is no provision to exempt them. 

AAPS favours insistence on fully-informed, truly voluntary consent for all medical interventions. This includes full disclosure of all risks, and a diligent effort to identify and track risks.  

Otherwise, workers are being conscripted into a mass experiment, one which would not be approved by an Institutional Review Board on both ethical and scientific grounds: No consent; no disclosure of the experimenters’ conflicts of interest; no control group; no follow-up of subjects for Covid status, immune parameters, or adverse effects; no provision for medical care of the subjects; and no criteria for stopping the experiment if subjects are being harmed. 

Instead of depending solely on experimental vaccines, medical institutions should be leading the way in innovative infection control such as ventilation and air purification; exemplary housekeeping to protect against all pathogens, including antibiotic-resistant bacteria; prophylactic and proactive early treatment, which is generally not being provided today; and immune system support including adequate vitamin D.  

Our medical organisations should be advocating for free and open discussion, and opposing censorship by governmental agencies, media, Big Tech, and corporate health care. 

Without freedom, there is no safety for either workers or our patients. Liberty has overcome every crisis in the past, and if given a chance it would overcome this one, too. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Edited by Kathy Gyngell

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.