patrick.net

Mass General Brigham Used Vaccine Mandates to Wipe Christian Beliefs from Their Workforce

In addition to claiming the right to have their individual cases heard, plaintiff Michelle has a new cause of action. She applied for employment again in 2023, two years after she was denied religious accommodations and terminated for not getting the Covid gene drug therapy inappropriately called a “vaccine.” MGB hired her again in 2023 as a staff nurse and approved her religious exemption request for the flu vaccine. She worked for 2.5 months and then HR learned she had not taken the Covid “vaccine” or that she was still in a lawsuit against MGB. Michelle then requested an exemption from the Covid “vaccine.” MGB denied her the exemption and fired her again.

"MGB hired her again in 2023 as a staff nurse and approved
her religious exemption request for the flu vaccine."

Patrick says

"MGB hired her again in 2023 as a staff nurse and approved
her religious exemption request for the flu vaccine."

Why do we need a religious reason to refuse a vaccine that we don't trust?

This study makes it abundantly clear that vaccine mandates were a disgraceful violation of informed consent and bodily autonomy, discriminating against—and ultimately harming—those who chose not to comply.

According to a previous study, also conducted by Chaufan et al, employer vaccination mandates led to suicidal thoughts in 23.5% and depression/anxiety in 81.4% of healthcare workers...

Patrick says

"MGB hired her again in 2023 as a staff nurse and approved
her religious exemption request for the flu vaccine."

Why do we need a religious reason to refuse a vaccine that we don't trust?

True, but that bodily autonomy argument has been legally closed off to us by Pfizer.

It's very serious corruption, but still, at the moment I don't think you can win in court by saying you just don't trust the mRNA jabs, or any other injection that the state mandates, like all the profitable poisons they push into children as a requirement for attending school.

The real problem is the mass of sheeple who buy the Pfizer bullshit. They prevent laws protecting bodily autonomy from getting passed.

James Madison initially opposed the idea of creating a bill of rights, primarily for two reasons:

1. The Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights. The federal government’s powers are “few and defined” (listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). Any powers not listed in the Constitution reside with the states or the people themselves.

2. By creating a list of people’s rights, then anything not on the list was therefore not protected. Madison and the other Framers believed that we have natural rights and they are too numerous to list. So, writing a list would be counterproductive.

James Madison initially opposed the idea of creating a bill of rights, primarily for two reasons:

1. The Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to take away people’s rights. The federal government’s powers are “few and defined” (listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). Any powers not listed in the Constitution reside with the states or the people themselves.

2. By creating a list of people’s rights, then anything not on the list was therefore not protected. Madison and the other Framers believed that we have natural rights and they are too numerous to list. So, writing a list would be counterproductive.

Perhaps the most important natural right is the right to bodily autonomy, including the refusal to reject any medical treatment without penalty.

Tanner Smith, 14, played football at Western Guilford High. In 2021, the school rounded up the football team for a surprise vaccination. Tanner protested and said he didn’t want one. Clinic nurses tried calling his mother, who didn’t answer, but ignored Tanner’s advice to ask his stepfather, who was waiting in the parking lot. Then, Chief Judge Newby wrote, “Ignoring additional protests from Smith himself, the workers forcibly injected him with the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine."

The Smiths sued the covid clinic and the school district. The trial court and the appellate court threw out their case, citing the PREP Act’s broad immunity. But last week, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that, while Tanner’s tort claims, like battery, might be federally immunized, his claims under the state constitution were not immune. His case continues. ...

This North Carolina decision is promising but limited. Obviously, having been forcibly injected, and having state constitutional protections, Tanner is in a small class of victims. So I might not have reported the story, but for the initial background paragraph in the Supreme Court’s opinion. Read this and be encouraged:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, "we may have experienced the greatest
intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country." Arizona U.
Mayorkas, 143 S. Ct. 1312, 1314 (2023) (statement of Gorsuch, J.). "Fear and the
desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action almost any
action- as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat." Id. at
1315. Government officials across the Nation "imposed lockdown orders forcing
people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and
private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored
businesses to carry on." Id. at 1314. And in our State, medical workers affiliated with
a public school forcibly vaccinated a fourteen-year-old boy despite knowing they
lacked consent from both the child and his mother.

Patrick, I’ve been experiencing an inability to quote even, in this case (I just tried to to quote the last sentence of you’re post directly above), a small bit of any comment. It’s happening only on mobile device though. I always get a system message telling me the quote is too large.

From Patrick’s comment at 1025…

“ And in our State, medical workers affiliated with a public school forcibly vaccinated a fourteen-year-old boy despite knowing they
lacked consent from both the child and his mother.”

And why aren’t these people rotting in a prison cell?

Paging AG Pam Bondi.

I thought that patrick.net quoting never worked right on an iPhone. I worked on it a while, but concluded it's impossible because of limitations of iPhone javascript.

Introduction: In Timeline to Covid Tyranny: Part One – Constructing the Biosecurity Empire (1999–2018), HFDF writer and researcher, Mike Bryant takes a deep dive into the events leading up to the covid-19 pandemic, arguing that it wasn’t just a sudden crisis but the result of years of planning by powerful entities. Covering key legislative, policy, and purported public health moments from 1999 to 2018, HFDF explores how two decades of measures helped set the stage for the global response to covid-19, uncovering that the pandemic response wasn’t just about public health—it was about expanding control and reshaping society in ways most people never saw coming. ...

On this fifth anniversary of his declaration, some might question the need to revisit the covid story. Why not just learn from the “mistakes” of that public health crisis and move on from the events of 2020?

The answer to that question stretches beyond the fact that to date there has been no accountability for the years of pain and suffering caused by globe-wide government measures and mandates imposed on many millions—even billions—of people. To suggest—or, in some cases, demand—that we move past this historical event, as if it never happened, is the ultimate gaslight and a form of pacification and control.

The processes that led to the covid tyranny have not been properly revealed for what they are. Indeed, they are still in motion. The notion that we are out of the woods is an illusion. All the administrative, legislative, and financial infrastructure built before and during the covid era is intact. Thus, emergency countermeasures could return with the flip of the switch. We could once again be forced to bear the brunt of draconian decrees and repressive measures mandated by public health authorities.

Yesterday, the New York Times hosted a deliciously ironic guest essay headlined, “America’s Most Powerful Law Firms Won’t Stand Up to Trump.” They are finally experiencing how we felt during the pandemic, when America’s most powerful law firms wouldn’t stand up to Biden. ...

I happen to agree with the Professor about her main thesis, which is that Big Law is too conflicted, and too reliant on lucrative government largesse, to effectively do its most important job in protecting the Constitution. ...

I’m just happy they are finally getting a taste of their own medicine. They swooned over Big Law while it stood by and let Biden issue mandates for destruction and despair— over the flu. Now, the Big Law problem is smacking them about the face like an unhinged mask fanatic. Welcome to our world.

💉 Even worse, the results showed that the IgG4 increase lasted for years after repeated mRNA doses. The elevated IgG4 (and IgG2) levels stabilized above normal baseline levels and stayed that way for the rest of the study period— nearly three years. The researchers saw no sign of those levels returning to pre-booster norms.

Although they never came out and said it, the data the team collected suggested this could be a long-lasting, possibly chronic immune shift. And it’s not a shift for the better.

This kind of class-switching effect is called “immune tolerance.” It’s typically seen in cases of chronic allergies, long-term parasitic infections, and rare auto-immune disorders. In other words, victims’ immune systems get trained to chill out even though the virus keeps crashing the party and hogging the DJ stand.

Defenders continue to argue the shots may not “work” per se, but they reduce your chance of serious illness per infection. That tortured argument misses the forest for the viral trees.

They claim the shots reduce severity of covid cases. But even if you believe that, if each shot makes people catch covid more often, their total cumulative risk of a severe case may actually go up. A -10% drop in severity risk is worse than meaningless if you’re getting infected three times as often.

💉 This study reinforces early “conspiracy theories” that successive waves of covid would get increasingly deadly to people who’ve had lots of shots. (See, e.g., Geert Vanden Bossche.) It hasn’t happened quite so quickly as theorized by the heterodox researchers, but this study’s results add to evidence of a slowly unfolding disaster version of the same dark prediction.

Finally, since it was out of the study’s scope, the researchers did not consider whether chronically elevated IgG4 levels could suppress immune responses to other things besides covid, like infections, cancer, parasites, or any number of foreign invaders. The problem though is that elevated IgG4 is immunologically anti-inflammatory. It’s like issuing a permanent, body-wide “stand down” order to your immune system—the opposite of staying on high alert.

Rather, it’s on low alert. Like Jeffrey Epstein’s guards snoozing during his mur, I mean suicide.

Here’s the nub: Jab-takers were sold a medical product under the false assurance of zero long-term risk— an assurance that was always biologically impossible to make. It was the complete collapse of informed consent. Public health authorities assured us there were no meaningful long-term risk— not because they had any data to prove that, but because they had no long-term data at all, the world’s most fraudulent blank check on an empty bank account.

The public health morons played the most dangerous shell game in human history, and we still don’t know the full scope. ...

Because if I’m right, we’re headed toward a reckoning. A point where the machine can no longer hide behind silence or slogans. Once every other option has been exhausted, they’ll finally need to admit what they did. And when that day comes, the only way they can recover even a shred of public trust will be to name names, admit fault, and hold people accountable.

Everything is lining up behind that being the most likely timeline. Folks, accountability day is coming.

You may or may not recall this particular bureaucratic insect, but until Friday Dr. Peter Marks was the Director for FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). CBER’s job is to regulate vaccines and gene therapies. As you can imagine, Marks has long been despised for his key role in approving and helping roll out the covid shots in particular (as well as other mRNA products).

Marks was one of the main architects of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) process that enabled early approval of the jabs by lowering safety standards and axing long-term safety studies.

And Marks was the genius who expanded mRNA EUAs to children and infants. He rubber stamped the ‘bivalent’ vaccines, based only on a six-mouse study. He often criticized his own agency’s VAERS injury reporting system, calling it unreliable— even though it was his job to fix it. He was the creature who slow-walked the FDA’s public records response with jab data, and insisted responding would take 75 years.

But that’s nothing. The AP also reported that Dr. Mengele, sorry, I mean Marks, was the criminal who first came up with the name and concept for “Operation Warp Speed.”

In other words, Marks is another human cockroach. He is the FDA’s version of Anthony Fauci, except with even less charisma and more red tape. ...

What do you want to bet Dr. Marks reappears on Pfizer’s board of directors?

...the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that doctors must be held criminally liable for the deaths and injuries caused by the Covid “vaccines” they administered or recommended.

According to a ruling by the ECJ, all healthcare professionals who urged or vaccinated patients are civilly and criminally liable.

The decision was made in a case before the ECJ led by Professor Giovanni Frajese of the Foro Italico University of Rome in Italy.

In October 2022, the European Commission granted definitive marketing authorizations (MAs) for the Covid vaccines Spikevax (Moderna) and Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech), transitioning from the conditional approvals issued during the pandemic’s peak.

Dr. Frajese contested these decisions, arguing that the widespread availability of these vaccines imposed an obligation on physicians to assess their safety and efficacy, thereby exposing them to potential liability for adverse patient outcomes. ...

In addition, the reasons given by the court could also call into question the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against doctors who opposed vaccinations.

https://www.buongiornosuedtirol.it/2025/02/19/esclusivo-vaccini-covid-la-corte-ue-serviva-la-prescrizione-e-il-medico-poteva-sconsigliarli/

The ECJ ruled that doctors must take responsibility for the vaccinations they administer “without ifs or buts.”

Health professionals must also warn patients of the risk of death and other serious adverse events caused by Covid “vaccines.” ...

This ruling is considered groundbreaking, as it definitively dismantles the charges that have been brought, both in court and in disciplinary proceedings, against all doctors who have advised their patients against Covid vaccination or refused to promote it.

The ECJ’s decision will help to restore doctors’ full freedom of care.

the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that doctors must be held criminally liable for the deaths and injuries caused by the Covid “vaccines” they administered or recommended.