(Big League Politics) – When it comes to medical tyranny, very few industries if any have been as ironic as the health care industry. Indeed, hospitals across America, after relying on their overworked health care employees to navigate waves of pandemic infections, are now looking to navigate the pandemic by threatening unemployment on those same workers for resisting the medical tyranny of forced vaccinations. Fortunately, an increasing number of these frontline workers are fighting back.
According to The Epoch Times, two hospital networks in the state of Louisiana, a state that is supposed to be a bastion of personal independence and autonomy, are facing lawsuits that have been launched by dozens of their neglected employees who wish to leave vaccination decisions, especially those that have not been properly tried and tested in the traditional way, up to individuals and not their corporate employers, to say nothing of governments.
One of the main concerns these health care workers have with being forced to take a vaccine from a multi-billion-dollar rootless conglomerate, apart from the affront to personal autonomy, is that studies have shown the vaccine to be woefully ineffective at preventing the transmission of the virus, especially in its more transmissible and weaker Delta Variant. There is of course the overhanging concern with regards to the long-term side effects of taking the vaccine on fertility and many other life processes.
The lawyers who are representing these neglected health care workers have expressed that they are indeed seeking temporary as well as permanent injunctions against this medical tyranny that has been perpetrated by the Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center and Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center. Indeed, the lawsuit filed against Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center touched on the axiom that the citizens of the state of Louisiana have “a fundamental right to decide whether to obtain or reject medical treatment” that is enshrined in the state’s Constitution, in addition to legal precedent regarding informed consent and privacy protections.
One of the main arguments being made regarding the failure of the vaccine at preventing transmission of the virus is that this failure makes taking the vaccine unnecessary even from a practical standpoint. However, CDC and FDA officials have justified encouraging vaccinations on the grounds that while they are not too effective at preventing transmission, they are still effective at mitigating severe symptoms of the virus in many cases. However true those claims might be, they nonetheless have not been weighed with the potential long-term side effects by these agencies which the taxpayers support in order to conduct such cost-benefit analyses.
“There is no longer any serious argument that mandating vaccines will prevent transmission or eradicate the disease as previously claimed,” the court filing reads. “Nevertheless, Defendant is attempting to force Plaintiffs, and others, to undergo vaccination for COVID-19 over their personal objections and in disregard of their uniquely well-informed understanding of the virus and treatment options.”