Congratulations on taking the RED PILL and for seeking out the truth that lies beneath.

What we will present you with here is unbiased, scientific data, as it unfolds to us. We have a background in medicine as well as economics so we know how to read and interpret scientific articles and statistics. Feel free to message us any data you would like us to analyze for you, and feel free to take our links and information and repost them often because search engines don't know how to interpret QUALITY. They only understand numbers. So if an article is referenced 30 times and another is referenced 40, search engines ASSUME the latter is BETTER. But we all know this is not always true.  What we present here may not always fit YOUR agenda either, but we are as factual, logical, and neutral as we can be. (Yes we recognize we too have biases). We try to ONLY use trusted sources but even they can be biased. We have seen plenty of published peer reviewed articles that were absolute nonsense. And case studies, although low on the totem pole of research, are still valuable information as they help to guide changes in logical thinking. Sometimes, we only have logic because there can be no control group like when we test parachutes. 

So read on, follow our posts in GETTR and GAB under Wuhan Whistleblower and shop our store for great gear to stand up to tyranny. If you don't find what you are looking for, email us.

Just wanted to give you some things to think about for your letter. While these are great notes to add as supporting evidence, they are not religious based arguments, and your company may say this is personal not religious. You will need to tie them into things like how you are against lying and stealing and how big pharma and the government are partners in the vaccine and that is a big lie to the people (Moderna shared its patent with the US government back in 2015 before Covid, before Trump.) Tie these research reports to your belief that killing is immoral and that allowing people to die in order to sell vaccines over cheaper and effective drugs like Ivermectin is a sin. 

 

I was told to always start with an affirmation statement of how much you like working at your job. How you enjoy the facilities, coworkers, and education or whatever you like about it and how your disagreement with this vaccine mandate should in no way be construed as a cause for you to want to discontinue working there. This blog by a lawyer has a great one plus some other info but read this whole letter before using his arguments.  https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-october-4e1

Don't fall for the easy out by saying that you disagree with aborted fetal tissue or other argument because the counter to that argument would be that a new vaccine or different manufacturer doesn't use it and so you will be expected to follow the mandate. If you then change your argument (even if the new argument was genuine as well) it can legally and will be questioned as insincere by the employer. That doesn't mean you can't include it in your argument. But technically you don't need a specific argument at all. 

Federal Law provides you with protection from religious discrimination regardless of the religion or the exact belief. You simply have to say this mandate goes against your values and ethics of what is right and wrong. Because religion is a set of rules to provide people with ethical and moral hierarchy. There are no specifics that have to say you oppose a specific rule or law. 

 

Legal issues. The law says from the 1964 Civil Rights act Title VII

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

The term SEGREGATE can also include the fact that the mandate requires employers to force testing on those who refuse the vaccine. This causes separation based on medical status but it is NOT protected under the ADA as many will claim if you do not qualify as having any substantial difficulty with any ADLs such as breathing, seeing, speaking, etc. Now if you do have issues with these basic life skills, then feel free to apply ADA protection clauses. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/ada-your-responsibilities-employer  Otherwise, simply claiming legal rights under the Civil Rights Act will suffice. 

 

From the stand point of Medical effectiveness and safety.

 

Data are constantly changing and effectiveness numbers are being shown to completely fall apart with time regarding the vaccine. So any data can easily be refuted therefore should not be used as an argument for vaccination. And there are reports of UNKNOWN LASTING EFFECTS OF NATURAL IMMUNITY. Here is a study of natural immunity for SARS and MERS from 2020 that reports over 17 years later people still have immunity from SARS and MERS as well as for people who caught NEITHER!! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

So to deny the effectiveness of natural immunity is also wrong considering SARS is the same corona virus family as COVID. 

Since the vaccine is EUA (Emergency Use Authorized) because it has not gone through appropriate testing as defined by the FDA, the Nuremberg Code states no human can be forced to take it. So you are given the option to not take it. But offering a test out option, which is segregation as stated above and in violation of Civil Rights Act Title VII, has to admit that the tests themselves are also EUA and therefore require an opt out clause. Here are the links to see all of the FDA EUA testing devices and vaccines. NONE ARE FULLY APPROVED. Therefore, any mandate violates the Nuremberg Code if it states a test can replace the vaccine as well as violates the law of Civil Rights Act 1964.   https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained#:~:text=Under%20an%20EUA%2C%20FDA%20may%20allow%20the%20use,there%20are%20no%20adequate%2C%20approved%2C%20and%20available%20alternatives.

The concept of EUA is such that in the event of a rapidly advancing disease, the FDA could allow a more rapid dissemination of medications to help the public. However, their own standards are to protect the public and so they can make an EUA because early studies show that the drug is safe but its effectiveness is yet unknown. However, effectiveness studies are more readily available much faster than safety because safety has to include time constraints to see if pregnant women give birth to children with defects, time to see if cancers develop, time to see if mental deterioration happens. So EUA in and of itself is a poor excuse for rapid advancement of ANY drug because safety will always take longer to prove than effectiveness. So it is not possible to provide the public with any sense of reasonable safety reports before effectiveness can be established. And as for effectiveness, well there are plenty studies to show this vaccine is not effective, hence the need for a booster already before 1 year time. Also, the FDA has rescinded even full approvals for as much as 26% of their drugs in the past 20 years due to studies showing poor safety. Most of these rescinded drugs are on the market between 2-8 years. Some are as far out as 50 years. So there is no possible way the FDA can say with any certainty that any of these vaccines are safe.  We all remember Vioxx.   https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fda-approved-prescription-drugs-later-pulled-from-the-market/ 

 

But here is what you say to really get your employer by the balls. 

 

If you participated this year in some training about Unconscious Bias and Cultural Sensitivity as well as Ethics training as well as being reminded every year about whistleblower laws, here is my take (Based on my company public statements - you will have to investigate your own company for their details)

Our company has 5 core values it prides itself on. "we treat others as they would like to be treated" and "we are team players" (which has a subheading of "We work together to achieve company objectives. We do our share of the work on time and with superior quality. We share ideas and information. We give honest feedback and accept constructive criticism. We confront difficulties directly and maintain positive working relationships.") are two that apply here. On their home page it states "We foster a culture of inclusion and equality" "we heal with empathy and compassion for all". "our 50k person workforce find strength and pride in its ability to see and treat each other as ONE" All of the research and doctor testimonials put on the COVID page are one sided arguments that conform to GROUP THINK which was explicitly warned against in the bias training modules. If our company is all about autonomy, inclusion, team players, acceptance, and all of that, why are there no loyal dissenters on the COVID team? Are they denying the possibility that there are not any alternative treatments to COVID? Why are NONE of the articles listed on their COVID page dedicated to the possibility of side effects since informed consent MUST include all possible issues real or exaggerated since that is the FDA practice for any drug study (even if one study participant has an issue it must be reported as a potential side effect since causal relationships can not be confirmed or denied and since EUA is all about safety, shouldn't all the effects be reported? Why else would we hear such long lists on TV commercials for drug ads?). Our company holds us to honor our practice acts which state that bodily autonomy is paramount to ethical treatment of patients. We are made aware of this annually. It is also the guiding principle of when to NOT manipulate a patient (number one contraindication is past bad experience by pt.) 

https://www.apta.org/siteassets/pdfs/policies/code-of-ethics-pt.pdf 

I could go through each and every line of this code of ethics and show how bodily autonomy and cultural differences are at the heart here but it would take too long. It also says not allowing conflict of interest to cloud judgment. Here are some things to consider that maybe the FDA and government have conflicts of interest. The FDA receives almost 50% of its funding from the exact companies it is investigating. Seems a bit of a conflict to me. And it has risen substantially since 2003. 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44576

Time magazine reported that about 27% of FDA officials leave the FDA and go to work for a drug company or lobby for them for whom they have either passed approvals or have denied approvals for a competitor. https://time.com/4510025/fda-drug-companies-pharmaceutical-industry-medical-reviewers/ The FDA answer to this was that it is the same across all government agencies. It is not specific to just the FDA. Which means 27% of government has a conflict of interest issue. So I do not trust anything they do all the time, not just now. Oh, by the way, the government has preemptively given big pharma legal relief of any lawsuits and it has been shown that Pfizer in particular has tried to contract other world governments into silence and active defense of Pfizer in the case of any defamation or legal action. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-20/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-contracts/100553958  This not only amounts to conflict of interest, it is now bribery, extortion, and blackmail all of which are not just unethical but illegal, even under the NY laws they are trying to hide behind. 

Lastly, here is the CMS payment schedule for choosing Remdesivir over Ivermectin as a treatment for hospital based COVID cases in the pandemic. Hospitals are paid 20% add-on bonus for choosing Remdesivir.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/covid-19/new-covid-19-treatments-add-payment-nctap Remdesivir is KNOWN to cause kidney failure which was an early issue in COVID in nursing homes and hospitals. COVID is not know to do this. 

Ivermectin is actually approved which would negate the EUA for a vaccine.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/

So where and to whom should I blow the whistle? Actually, as a medical company, with such deep values to "doing the right thing each and every time", I was hoping that our company and their medical legal team would have stood up for us employees, with the ever mounting research and illegal orders, to blow the whistle on behalf of us against the governor and now president for forcing EUA vaccines AND tests, as well as having an EUA in the first place with NIH approved treatments, for trying to bribe hospitals (which we own) for choosing drugs with known side effects, for forcing ventilators on what are clearly not respiratory based viruses (no other respiratory disease attacks the kidneys, just the lungs), and for using private companies through threats of fines from OSHA to force fire employees who have gone to battle to build a true corporate environment of "trust" and "empathy" based on sound medical judgement for the company. 

 

by the way... Basic issues of logic.

The "Vaccine" is not an inactive version of a virus but rather a mRNA sequence to force your own healthy cells to produce a mutant protein of a spike cell. This is not the definition of a vaccine but rather the definition of cancer or cellular hijack and aberrant protein synthesis which is known as toxicity. However, the CDC and others have now CHANGED the definition of a vaccine so as not to have the "vaccine" discredited. Here is the FDA link as to the mechanism of action of the "Vaccine" as well as Ivermectin. Which would you choose? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/

The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article (nih.gov)

 

 

Pick and choose any or all of the above arguments for your "defense". These should all be free of counter argument as well as changes in definitions or vaccine manufacture that will allow anyone to reverse your decision. I try to choose sources that are from the exact sources that are claiming vaccine safety and effectiveness to show that they have bias as well and that research is not about proving a hypothesis. It is about disproving it and in the absence of disproof, we learn to slowly accept its truth. Remember, you only need to say the law protects your right to choose based on values and morals of right and wrong. But all this really puts both the "vaccine" pushers and your employer on the back pedal based on airtight arguments using their own words and values.

 

Good luck and Godspeed.

​