tyb
sorry, din know you were baking - thought just listing
>>61458 (You)
Houston Nurses Protest After Losing Their Jobs For Refusing COVID-19 Shots
More than a hundred hospital employees and supporters gathered in protest of the firing of employees who reject COVID-19 shots.
Houston – On Monday afternoon, employees of the Houston Methodist hospital system were joined by supporters from around the Houston area as they were suspended without pay for saying no to COVID-19 injections. The employees are now suing Houston Methodist in an effort to fight against COVID19 mandates.
The Houston Methodist hospital operates eight hospitals with more than 26,000 employees. On March 31, Methodist CEO Dr. Marc Boom announced that the shots – which have not received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration – would be mandatory for all employees. Houston Methodist hospital employees were told to take the shots by June 7th or lose their jobs. Methodist also required hospital managers to have at least one COVID shot by April 15th. Those who chose not to receive the treatments by Monday now have 2 final weeks before they will officially be fired.
“Mandating the vaccine was not a decision we made lightly. … Because science has proven that the Covid-19 vaccines are not only safe, but extremely effective, it became an easier decision to make,” Boom wrote in a letter to staff in April.
Despite reassurances from Boom, 117 employees filed suit against Houston Methodist for “forcing its employees to be human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment” by requiring an experimental treatment which has only been authorized for emergency use.
Jennifer Bridges is one of the nurses leading the charge. In recent months she has become the public face of the hospital employees’ fight against mandates they see as unconstitutional. On Monday evening, Bridges walked out of the Baytown Methodist hospital to a crowd of cheering supporters. “I am sad, I am happy, I am proud,” Jennifer said as she exited the parking lot for the final time.
Bridges stated that the hospital attempted to “bribe” employees with cash and required those receiving the injection to sign a waiver stating they would not hold Methodist hospital liable if they were to experience an adverse reaction. She says that nurses who treated COVID-19 patients in 2020 are now treating patients who have had reactions to the shots.
“We’ve already had nurses who took the vaccine – whether they wanted to or were forced – and so many have come down with adverse reactions. I’ve already heard from nurses who have had miscarriages,” Bridges stated during an interview with Free Thinker Radio.
page 1
never mind, din see in notes
yeah, i knew this in a general sense
but not seeing articles in response to that search
don't think msm want to talk about this
better to try qresear.ch
DIG on who owns the rights to the spike protein and what these rights entail
"spike protein +property" in qresear.ch found this article:
#77689 at 2021-04-28 07:26:53 (UTC+1)
QR Midnight Riders #354: Everyone Is Connected Edition
The NIH claims joint ownership of Moderna's coronavirus vaccine
6-25-2020
The National Institutes of Health ____may own intellectual property that undergirds a leading coronavirus vaccine being developed by Moderna, according to documents obtained by Axios and an analysis from Public Citizen.
Why it matters:
Because the federal government has an actual stake in this vaccine, it could try to make the vaccine a free or low-cost public good with wide distribution, if the product turns out to be safe and effective.
OR it could try to say it's safe when it's not
The big picture:
The NIH mostly funds outside research, but it also often invents basic scientific technologies that are later licensed out and incorporated into drugs that are sold at massive profits. The agency rarely claims ownership stakes or pursues patent rights, but that appears to be different with this coronavirus vaccine.
"We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property" behind Moderna's coronavirus vaccine, NIH Director Francis Collins said during an Economic Club interview in May.
Driving the news: New evidence shines light on the extent of NIH's involvement.
NIH and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS, for several years, and signed a contract this past December that stated "mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned" by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the novel coronavirus, and it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced.
Separately, four NIH scientists have filed for a provisional patent application entitled "2019-nCoV vaccine," according to disclosures in a pending scientific paper. Moderna scientists co-authored that paper, but none are listed as vaccine co-inventors.
That makes it clear "the government and the public have a stake" in the coronavirus vaccine, said Zain Rizvi, a health law and policy researcher at Public Citizen. "The vaccine would not exist without the intellectual contributions of federal scientists."
What they're saying: NIH said in a statement that its scientists created the "stabilized coronavirus spike proteins for the development of vaccines against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2," andthe government consequently has "sought patents to preserve the government's rights to these inventions."
https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-ownership-agreements-22051c42-2dee-4b19-938d-099afd71f6a0.html
>So if this spike protein finds its way into my body when I did not willingly accept its introduction, is the owner of the spike protein libel for not being able to control it?
liable, yes?
ought to be. guess it would depend on the wording as to liability for the vax companies. we know they are they not for damage caused to those who agree to get the shots, but does that include involuntary recipients?
they'll be lots of dicking around about such details unless crimes against humanity comes into play, which it should.
then the first step would be to show the mfrs knew spike protein or its effects could be passed to those who din receve the vax
or WORSE - that they designed it that way
i'm better on a deliberate design
just need to prove it
>AF1 and AF2
ok, i get that it's customary
at least, in the past
the article says these calls signs "are used"....
but they haven't been used lately
so 'sup?
is this a matter of custom or law?
if custom, who actually makes the decision - the pilot or some higher up?
but when AF1 and AF2 isn't used, what does that mean?
is it just a custom or mandated under xyz circumstances?