Updated Oct. 19 - “No Jab, No Job!”?

Author’s note: This article was updated following news reports of the Pfizer representative’s October 10, 2022, hearing in front of the special COVID committee of the European Parliament, and the press conference which was held by members of the European Parliament one day after (October 11, 2022).

Vaccine mandates are perhaps one of the most controversial policies to be introduced to today’s modern workplace. Many argue that they are necessary to keep everyone safe, while others argue that they are unethical and discriminatory.

So, are vaccine mandates in the workplace justified? More importantly, are they unethical and discriminatory?

Before we answer these questions, we first must understand what vaccine mandates are.

What is a Vaccine Mandate?

According to the British independent think tank the Institute for Government, “Vaccine mandates are a way to compel people to get vaccinations. This could mean fining people who do not comply or excluding them from certain activities and locations, like hospitality venues or workplaces.”.

Therefore, vaccine mandates are a set of regulations that not only force people to take a vaccine, regardless of whether they want to or not, but also punish those who refuse to take it with loss of work and by excluding them from participating in a wide range of activities.

Now that we’ve defined what a vaccine mandate is, let’s examine whether they are justified in the workplace.

Are vaccine mandates in the workplace justified?

As previously mentioned, many argue that vaccine mandates in the workplace are necessary to keep everyone safe and protected from infection and from spreading the virus, however, this justification slowly begins to fall apart once carefully analysed.

One of the first pharmaceutical giants to announce a COVID-19 vaccine was Pfizer Inc., and its November 9, 2020, press release claimed that the “Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis”.

Additionally, and on November 16, Moderna Inc. announced its vaccine candidate, and its press release not only claimed that the vaccine efficacy was at 94.5%, but that it could also “prevent COVID-19 disease, including severe disease”. Shortly after – two days later to be exact – Pfizer announced in yet another press release that its vaccine efficacy was now 95%, putting its vaccine ahead of Moderna’s by 0.5% in terms of efficacy.

Unfortunately, and with the rollout of these vaccines to the public, the notion that COVID-19 vaccines prevented against infection or transmission began to slowly fade away, and by April 2021, the narrative had completely shifted from “preventing infection” to “preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death”.

Of course, the narrative changes did not end there, because with the emergence of different variants such as Omicron, even the narrative regarding the number of vaccine doses began to change, and people were now required to get booster shots. And even then, the explanations given regarding why booster shots were required were not that convincing.

For example, in January 2022, and in an interview at JPMorgan’s health-care conference, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla made the following statement according to CNBC:

“’The two doses, they’re not enough for omicron,’ Bourla said. ‘The third dose of the current vaccine is providing quite good protection against deaths, and decent protection against hospitalizations.’”

However, he does later say the following:

“The question mark, it is how long that protection lasts with the third dose”

The above statements made by Bourla are not only alarming, but not the type of statements you’d expect from a man in his position. I mean, why would the CEO of a company recommend a product when he’s not even sure how long it would work for? Perhaps Bourla and other Big Pharma CEOs are following the CDC’s mantra that “the benefits outweigh the risks”? After all, companies such as Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna were reported to have been making $1,000 profit every second, according to a November 2021 press release by OXFAM International.

This now brings us to the new Omicron boosters or bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, and a November 16 Time’s magazine article titled Here’s Why Experts Believe the New Omicron Booster Will Work, where the author begins the article with:

A study published Sept. 16 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) makes a strong case for an Omicron-based COVID-19 booster shot.”

However, the author then immediately follows up with:

“But first, a caveat: There are no data available yet demonstrating the effectiveness of the new Omicron booster authorized on Aug. 31, which protects against BA.4 and BA.5.”

Now, while I do give the author credit for this “caveat” or warning, it must be pointed out that she failed to remind her readers that the data submitted (by both Pfizer and Moderna) to the FDA for emergency use authorization (EUA) at the end of August, only included information on the safety and efficacy of the booster in animals; something she reported on at the time, and which will be discussed later on in this article.

However, this does raise some very important questions, questions any responsible journalist should ask [emphasis added], which are:

1. If the EUA requests – according to the Times – were submitted to the FDA at the end of August, which were then approved on August 31, does this mean the FDA only took a few days to approve these new boosters despite the absence of any human trials data?
2. If no human trials data was available at the end of August, how were the scientists that published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine on September 16, able to “make a strong case for an Omicron-based COVID-19 booster shot”?

So, given this continuously changing narrative, the fact that these vaccines and booster shots clearly do not protect against infection or transmission, the unconvincing and alarming statements made by some Big Pharma executives, as well as the lack of any reliable data, it becomes quite clear that vaccine mandates in the workplace are unjustified.

Next, let’s examine whether vaccine mandates in the workplace are unethical.

Are vaccine mandates in the workplace unethical?

According to a 1997 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) titled, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code, medical ethicist Evelyne Shuster, Ph.D. writes:

“The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.”

Later in the paper, she adds:

“The Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or as ethics by any major medical association. Nonetheless, its influence on global human-rights law and medical ethics has been profound. Its basic requirement of informed consent, for example, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).”.

Of course, many argue that the Nuremberg Code (1947) is not relevant today and/or does not apply to COVID-19 vaccines because “they are not experimental”, and the reason they are “not experimental” is because they were initially given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), before ultimately being approved.

However, aren’t they exactly just that? Experimental?

Most of them use new technology never used on humans until now (i.e., mRNA technology), there is barely any short-term safety data available, and no long-term safety data at all. Furthermore, whatever short-term safety data there is, has been questioned on multiple occasions, even by the prestigious BMJ or The British Medical Journal which reported the following on November 2, 2021:

“A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial.”

Unfortunately, the controversies do not end there, because on October 24, 2021, and during the opening ceremony of the World Health Summit 2021, Bayer executive Stefan Oelrich made the following statement as part of his speech:

“And for us therefore, we are really taking that leap -- us as a company Bayer -- in cell and gene therapy, which to me is one of these examples, where we are really going to make a difference, hopefully, moving forward.

Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before.”

Of course, despite Oelrich clearly stating that mRNA vaccines were in fact “gene or cell therapy”, many media outlets wrote amusing – and in some cases – laughable “fact check articles”, that are not even worth mentioning here; especially the ones that deliberately misquoted him while failing to provide a link to his speech.

However, the part of his statement that really caught my attention was how he “thought” the pandemic had “opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before”, completely ignoring the dozens of media reports and “fact check articles” that stressed to the public that mRNA vaccines were NOT gene or cell therapy. This level of false marketing and mass deception not only brings us right back to the Nuremberg Code and informed consent, but is also a reminder of how the United States Department of Justice announced in September of 2009, the largest health care fraud settlement in its history, with Pfizer being ordered to pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing.

This now brings us back to the new Omicron boosters or bivalent COVID-19 vaccines and another Time’s magazine article, this one was published on August 26, 2022, and stated the following:

“They [the FDA] asked the vaccine manufacturers to develop a new vaccine, one that combined the original vaccine and also targeted Omicron BA.4 and BA.5. At the end of August, both companies [Pfizer and Moderna] submitted data on their new, bivalent vaccines to the FDA for emergency use authorization.

Given the short time they had to develop the shot, however, the data only included information on the safety and efficacy of the booster in animals. Human studies are planned and will be ongoing even if the FDA and CDC decide to authorize the shots and the government starts distributing them. The FDA has also decided to review the animal study data without consulting its advisory committee again.”

Now, if these new booster shots or bivalent vaccines are not the very definition of experimental, then I’m not sure what is, and no matter where you may stand on the issue of vaccine mandates and informed consent, we can all agree that mandating something clearly experimental would be highly unethical.

Next, we look at whether vaccine mandates in the workplace are discriminatory.

Are vaccine mandates in the workplace discriminatory?

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.” – Eleanor Roosevelt, Member, Drafting Committee on the Bill of Human Rights

This quote by the late Eleanor Roosevelt brings us to Article 23, paragraph one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states the following:

“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”

Additionally, the UN OHCHR in a December 2018 press release stated that “Roosevelt also helped ensure that Article 23 spelled out, in four paragraphs, the right of ‘everyone’ to work, with equal pay for equal work, and without discrimination.”.

Now, one key phrase we keep seeing here is “without discrimination”, which leads us to conclude that working in an environment free of discrimination (in all its forms), is a fundamental human right.

Unfortunately, many companies that introduced vaccine mandates, not only created an uncomfortable working environment (with unfavourable working conditions) for their employees, by forcing them to declare their vaccination status, but also introduced policies that openly discriminated against those of them unwilling to take COVID-19 vaccines and punishing those who refused to get vaccinated with termination of employment. Additionally, these policies extended to those hoping to join these companies, and unvaccinated candidates were not welcome as well.

Of course, the discrimination did not end there, with anyone – even the “fully vaccinated” in some cases – being labelled as “anti-vaxxers” or “science deniers” for having the courage to use the analytical skills they use in their everyday life or jobs to analyse what was going on and ask the important questions most people were failing to ask.

This now brings us to “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” or “DE&I”, which took a big hit the minute most companies began introducing vaccine mandates.

For example, many companies told their employees to get vaccinated or face termination, providing them with very little wiggle room; the “wiggle room” here being medical or religious exemptions, and anyone who has been through that process will tell you how complicated it can be. On the other hand, other companies opted to ask employees what their working preferences were (office, hybrid, or remote), but only did so before mandating vaccines, and therefore taking away their employees’ rights to making an informed decision; with a medical or religious exemption again being their only resort.

Basically, decisions were made to deliberately exclude anyone unwilling to accept workplace vaccine mandates or submit to being coerced into getting vaccinated in fear of losing their job. However, what was truly ironic about all of this, was that when this was all taking place, “fully vaccinated” individuals were still contracting the virus, and still transmitting it to others, but that did not stop companies from mandating vaccines, or vaccinated employees from being hostile towards their unvaccinated colleagues.

Based on the above, its quite clear that vaccine mandates in the workplace are indeed discriminatory, and deliberately so, and with the overwhelming evidence that “fully vaccinated” individuals can contract and transmit the virus, the questions we should all be asking are, how hard could it have been for these companies to create more inclusive policies rather than using threats and coercion to get employees to comply with unethical vaccine mandates?

After all, isn’t that what "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" is all about?

The European Parliament Special COVID Committee

Finally, this brings us to the special COVID committee of the European Parliament, the Pfizer hearing which took place in front of it on October 10, 2022, and the press conference which was held by six members of the European Parliament the very next day, October 11, 2022.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out here, is that most people would not have heard of this hearing, or even the press conference that followed, because mainstream media has been completely silent on the matter, but that is probably because mainstream media seems to be predominantly sponsored by Pfizer.

So, what took place during this hearing? And why was it so important?

On September 29, 2022, Politico reported that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla pulled out of “an appointment to testify before the European Parliament's special committee on COVID-19”, and that a “spokesperson for Pfizer said the company's president of international development markets, Janine Small, would attend the committee hearing”. The report also stated that Bourla’s decision to pull out followed “an audit report [by the European Court of Auditor] into the EU's vaccine procurement strategy published earlier in the month that raised new questions about contact between Bourla and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that preceded a multibillion-euro vaccine contract”, something the New York Times reported on last year in a article titled “How Europe Sealed a Pfizer Vaccine Deal With Texts and Calls”. The ongoing “Text and Calls” scandal also prompted several MEPs to call for the resignation of the European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen.

Furthermore, and during the almost two-hour hearing, Small was asked a wide range of questions regarding the redacted EU contracts, the ongoing “Text and Calls” scandal, the clinical trial data Pfizer submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as if Pfizer had tested its vaccine on stopping transmission of the virus. Of course, Small, and other Pfizer representatives did a poor job providing any real answers to any of the important questions, on the other hand, they did do a great job reminding the committee that “the only reason they were all here, was thanks to pharmaceutical companies”.

However, the two most important revelations were the ones that came to light thanks to the comments and questions put forward by the MEPs from Romania and the Netherlands.

MEP Cristian Terhes from Romania not only pointed out how Small was not providing any real answers to questions put forward by MEPs, but also revealed how Pfizer had submitted clinical trial data to the EMA for a trial that began on January 14, 2020, only two days after China had shared the genetic sequence of the virus with the world (see WHO Novel Coronavirus Situation Report-1, January 21, 2020).

Additionally, MEP Robert Roos from the Netherlands asked:

“Was the Covid Pfizer vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus BEFORE it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?”

To which Small said in response:

“No … You know, we had to … really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market”

Now, I don’t know what moving “at the speed of science” even means or how it even relates to understanding “what is taking place in the market”, or how any of that corelates to whether vaccines were tested for stopping transmission. More importantly, one must ask, why did Pfizer sit idly by when the likes of Anthony Fauci told the world – on CBS’ Face the Nation – that vaccinated people become “a dead end to the virus”? Or when countless health authorities worldwide told citizens that the only way to curb the spread of the virus was to get vaccinated?

Additionally, another more important question everyone should be asking here – especially world leaders – is, how did Pfizer begin clinical trials on a COVID-19 vaccine on January 14, when the genetic sequence of the virus was only shared with the world on January 12? The same question also applies in the case of Moderna, which submitted clinical trial data dating back to 2017. More importantly, why is it that no one at the EMA seems to have asked this question?

Now, what most people probably don’t realize – “thanks” to the mainstream media – is that this level of mass deception is not something new, and is simply history repeating itself, for in January 2010, and in the wake of the H1N1 or Swine Flu “pandemic”, it was reported that:

“The Council of Europe member states will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma's industry's influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the EU Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry.”

The article continues:

“The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, ‘In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make?them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of?insufficiently tested vaccines. The ‘bird-flu’-campaign (2005/06) combined with the ‘swine-flu’-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.’”

Additionally, it was also reported by the BMJ in June of 2010 that the Council of Europe condemns “unjustified scare” over swine flu, and there were tens of other articles published ?in 2010 by various mainstream media outlets “discussing” the Swine Flu scandal, unfortunately, these all fail to provide any real details regarding what actually took place or the size of the scandal.

However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because if we go further back in history, we will find even more examples of such mass deception, for example, the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine scandal, which saw 4000 Americans claim damages in the amount of $3.5 Billion from the US government at the time; two thirds of those claims were for neurological damage or death.

Even CBS’ 60 Minutes reported on the scandal in a damning news report – Unfortunately, we no longer see such journalistic quality or integrity today. Furthermore, and according to an article by Smithsonian Magazine, the official journal published by the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.:

“To avoid an epidemic, the CDC believed, at least 80 percent of the United States population would need to be vaccinated. When they asked Congress for the money to do it, politicians jumped on the potential good press of saving their constituents from the plague, di Justo writes.”

Does any of that sound familiar? Remember the “herd immunity” story we were all told, and which no one talks about anymore?

So, it seems that all those “anti-vaxxers”, “science deniers”, and let’s not forget “conspiracy theorists”, were right all along. The questions remain, will business “leaders” and employers ignore these red flags like they’ve ignored all the others? Or will they finally come to their senses, distance themselves from this crumbling narrative, and abandon these unethical and discriminatory mandates?

Only time will tell, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, because this was never about “saving lives”, and was always about falling in line, following the status quo, and ensuring business continuity.

Final Thoughts

Despite only scratching the surface when it comes to the subject of vaccine mandates in the workplace, it becomes quite clear that they are unethical, and discriminatory, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with how they were introduced, implemented, and continue to be enforced.

Furthermore, and as individuals, we must always remember that bodily autonomy, informed consent, and a workplace free from discrimination, in all its forms, are a fundamental right. More importantly, no crisis should allow us to forget that or allow us to shy away from taking a step back, analysing the situation and saying, “something doesn’t seem right here”.

Isn’t that exactly what employers expect their employees to do when it comes to their jobs?

Before you finish this article, I’d like you to take a moment and ask yourself these questions:

• How many of us would purchase a car, if the manufacturer was unsure how long it would run for, or worse, whether its safety features would work properly?
• How many of us, as working professionals, would recommend a solution to one of our clients, if we weren’t sure whether it would work or for how long?

If you know the answers, which I’m sure you do, then why are we punishing those who apply this mindset to vaccine mandates?

Finally, I leave you with this quote on knowledge and intellect:

“Use your intellect to understand something when you hear about it. The intellect that examines, that is, and not just the intellect that repeats what it hears, for surely there are many who repeat the knowledge that they hear, and there are few who examine it”