Posted originally on TRIALSITE News by Dr-Ron-BrownNovember 16, 20210 Comments
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial
November 15, 2021
TrialSite previously reported on the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision to halt U.S. President Biden’s vaccine mandate: Conservative 5th Circuit Makes Move to Block POTUS COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. The opinion of the Appeals Court is documented under Docket 21-60845, available for download here. Reading deeper into this court document implicates the true purpose of the vaccine mandate, which applies as well to a long history of vaccine mandates that I have previously written about. For example, in my editorial, Fear and Coercion in Public Health Vaccination Campaigns, I quoted testimony of a U.S. public health official from the early 20th century who admitted using identical workplace coercion policies to drive vaccination rates for smallpox almost 100 years ago.
On page 3 of the recent Appeal Court document, the Circuit Judges wrote that the case involved the “Mandate” issued by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The mandate required “employees of covered employers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination or take weekly COVID-19 tests and wear a mask.”Subscribe to the Trialsitenews “Vaccine” ChannelNo spam – we promise
On page 15 of the document, the Judges wrote about the “underinclusive” nature of the mandate that didn’t apply to companies with under 100 employees. The Judges questioned why employees of smaller companies would be denied the same safety afforded to larger companies if the mandate’s true purpose was workplace safety during a public health emergency. This caused the Judges to question “the premise that any of this is truly an emergency.”
Moreover, the Judges wrote, “The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary.”
Furthermore, in a footnote on page 15 of the document, the Judges pointed out that vaccination alone doesn’t prevent employees from spreading the virus, and that weekly testing is insufficient to prevent daily exposures to infections. These points raise additional doubts about the Mandate’s intention to address workplace safety during a true public health emergency.
Coercion is not a new tactic to “ramp up vaccine uptake.” Coercion can also apply to “deputized” employers who may be threatened with shutdowns for non-compliance. On page 4 of the Appeal Court document, the Judges wrote about the employers covered by the Mandate:
“…the Mandate imposes a financial burden upon them by deputizing their participation in OSHA’s regulatory scheme, exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces…”
History shows that these coercion tactics to promote vaccination have been used by public health agencies for at least a hundred years or more. At least we have the courts to step in to halt the damage…temporarily.
It’s up to state legislatures to make it an official crime for public health agencies to issue and enforce coercion policies that threaten workers and employers while under prioritizing workplace safety during a questionable public health emergency.