Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

899

I understand this is convoluted. But if you go through it, it makes sense.

My company issued a mandate that everyone get jabbed. Since they're following the federal "mandate", it has to be for the legally FDA APPROVED jab - NOT just an EUA jab.

Since the LEGALLY APPROVED jab (Comirnaty) is not available, why couldn't I just turn back to my company and ask them where to get a FDA APPROVED jab? When they have no answer to that, I sit quietly and let them figure it out.

I'm pretty sure neither the federal gov't nor a private company can make you get jabbed with something not fully approved by the FDA.

Would this work?

I understand this is convoluted. But if you go through it, it makes sense. My company issued a mandate that everyone get jabbed. Since they're following the federal "mandate", it has to be for the legally FDA APPROVED jab - NOT just an EUA jab. Since the LEGALLY APPROVED jab (Comirnaty) is not available, why couldn't I just turn back to my company and ask them where to get a FDA APPROVED jab? When they have no answer to that, I sit quietly and let them figure it out. I'm pretty sure neither the federal gov't nor a private company can make you get jabbed with something not fully approved by the FDA. Would this work?

(post is archived)

[–] • 8 pts

I have talked to several employers about this exact point.. they authorised holdi g out for the non emergency jab. Spread the word. Note that the Chinese and Russian vaxxes are NOT emergency, just not available to YOU..

[–] • 2 pts

So then employers know they can be sued for forcing employees to get the EUA jab which is not FDA approved.

This needs to be spread far and wide.

[–] • 7 pts

Many employers are being sued for it. If you follow Robert Barnes on locals.com (vivabarnes.locals.com), he posts video commentary and the briefs of numerous cases all over the country.

[–] • 0 pt

follow him?

why he actively partnered with a kike who obfuscates about all things White

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Yep I said last June start getting lawyers involved to type up a disclaimer.

Stating that now they are taking on the role of your doctor they now assume all responsibility for any adverse affects that may happen after you willing uphold an unconstitutional mandate for me to continue working by injecting this experimental theraputic. In the event of death or disability caused by the experimental theraputic. You assume all responsibility for my funeral or on going health care costs. In the unfortunate event my life expires from this experimental theraputic you also assume responsibility of my family and next of kin.

Please sign on the dotted line.

Silence.

[–] • 4 pts

You have the right of it but understand that they have already done many things they "can't" do... so if you're putting your foot down, don't expect it to be a magic spell that stops their actions. Often times you will be persecuted, fired etc and you'll have to bring the fight to them legally after the fact.

It won't stop until people do this.

[–] • 4 pts

Unfortunately most people don't seem to recognize the difference between what's "legal" vs what's going to happen. Legality is always somewhat open to interpretation, and these criminals are all tightly knit in their obstinacy. You can be legally right, and the Judge will still rule against you, and you now get the moral satisfaction of "being right" while they busy themselves with further oppressing you.

Our strength lies in numbers, and they've done an excellent job of dividing and conquering. It's every man against his HR department now, and being right won't save you.

[–] • 1 pt

This is a really good point, legality is overhyped. Many things that happen are legal but not morally or ethically OK. We need to reinforce that legality is not the be all end all. The same is true for the inevitable outcomes, in this case they are going to cite the strange FDA wording that makes the Pfizer vaccine sound in some 'legal' way the same as the cormirnaty product. You have to remember that the premise isn't morally or ethically sound. Forced injections of a dangerous product to protect you from a disease with an incredibly low mortality rate is wrong. It is clear were suffering an extreme form of regulatory capture. You're probably going to loose your job. Its wrong morally and ethically but that isn't going to stop the machine.

[–] • 1 pt

Most laws are really designed to only work against you, the common man. Suddenly everyone grows blind and deaf when you can finally use the law in your favor. Like they'd say, "It's only illegal when you do it, goy!"

[–] • 3 pts

The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee)

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

They'll just say it's the same thing and just a brand name change.

[–] • 3 pts

But research shows 1) It’s not chemically the same, and 2) the legal definition of the approved jab is bound by the brand name. If employers push on this and force employees to get a EUA jab they could be sued.

[–] • 1 pt

Don't forget that the quality (and therefore safety) of the currently available vaccines are not even close to the "approved".

[–] • 0 pt

To what research are you referring showing that the EUA Pfizer gene therapy is not chemically the same as the approved-but-not-available Comirnaty gene therapy?

[–] • 1 pt

It is in the FDA regulatory documents, FDA wrote this. The two products are legally distinct and have different ingredients but the differences are said to not be significant.

[–] • 0 pt

They can say that all they want, legally it's not true though. FDA granted approval to Comirnaty, not the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech "vaccine", and the ingredients are different.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It's a corporate attempt at a CYA.

Because they know it's not a vaccine wasn't approved and there are going to be on going health consequences because of it.

It's their attempt at distancing itself from the bed it shat in. In hopes the community at large has a ten second memory and forgets that it was never approved by the FDA.

[–] • 0 pt

But it is not the same. Maybe chemically, if the production process is untainted. But not legally. The EUA vaccines come without any liability for the manufacturers. If people suffer from Comirnaty side effects, they are entitled to compensation. That's why it isn't sold in the US.

[–] • 0 pt

Chemically they aren't the same either, they have significant differences in ingredients.

[–] • 1 pt

Why negotiate with the devil? And the federal government has already argues that they have the right to require a jab, even if only EUA is available.

And frankly, do you really trust the FDA at all now? The stamp of approval just means the pharmaceutical companies have paid their fees.

[–] • 0 pt

If you're going to accept any form of coercion you might as well just find a shit walk in clinic in the hood and bribe the nig CNA to squirt that shit in the trash

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Or on her face.

I'll give you fity dawluhs tuh lemme shoot it awn yo face biiiiatch!!

[–] • 0 pt

That will be the basis of my wrongful termination suit once I get fired.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

You always have a choice.

I've been saying this since I've been hearing people keep repeating. I didn't have a choice.

I told them back in June when they were ramping up the next varient lie it was going to be job or jab.

So prepare yourself now.

I was laughed at.

How's that working out?

[–] • 0 pt

Yes. My exemption letter, written by a lawyer, consisted of the following

1) the only FDA approved jab is not available. 2) my client maintains the right to bodily autonomy which is provided to her by god.
3) here are the details of my client's sincere religious beliefs. 4) if you choose not to accommodate your unvaxed employee we will reply by filing a torte (next step of sueing). 5) please see the attached documents which substantiate our claims. (this included every doc either of us could find, including veritas leaks)

Lawyers in my area are asking $500 to handle exemption, $350/hr for any follow up work. It was worth the money to have a professional on my side.

[–] • 0 pt

Any particular place you searched for lawyers offering these services? Any chance you'd be willing to post or send me a redacted version of your letter?:)

[–] • 0 pt

Mine was very specifically written to fit into a (loaded) questionare form for my company. There are free ones out there that would work better for most than mine. Many lawyers are advertising their assistance for vaccine exemption letters. I would also advise you to call lawfirms specializing in medical malpractice. Many of them represent the vaccine injured and could point you to a lawyer who is taking exemption letters.

I live in the NYC area, and it took me a while to find a based lawyer to help out. Last I knew mine was overrun with work but an esquire by the name if Carol Gallagher is taking new cases.

[–] • 0 pt

it's a good argument. try it.

[–] • 0 pt

EUA is FDA approval. Your entire argument fails quite quickly and no one would fall for this besides retards.

And the lawyers taking retards money to peddle this talking point know exactly what they are doing: ripping retards off.

Either get jabbed or find an employer not pushing the jab.

OSHA is about to fuck as all, anyway. They are arguing about that OSHA mandate. If OSHA wins (and they will), your employer can deal with the $4.9 million a year fine in perpetuity if they want. Or just replace all the people who won't get jabbed.

[–] • 0 pt

EUA is absolutely NOT legal FDA approval. The word "approval" carries a very specific legal definition and EUA is not in it.

[–] • 0 pt

EUA is absolutely NOT legal FDA approval.

It absolutely is. If it wasn't, you couldn't get the jabs outside of phased human trials.

The word "approval" carries a very specific legal definition and EUA is not in it.

This is 100% incorrect. See above for why.

[–] • 0 pt

Question .Is Comirnaty available in any other Countries aside from the US?. Specifically in shithole New Zealand ??. That is the vaccine they are 'supposedly' offering in NZ at present, yet on the Govt/ Health dept websites, they 'claim' Comirnaty was the vaccine used in the two Pfizer Clinical trials at the beginning of the mRNA vaccine rollout -provably horseshit as the formulation known as Comirnaty wasn't even a thing back then. Any Official Pfizer information about worldwide availability would be helpful as NZ holocough websites are joo-ed to all fck.

[–] • 0 pt

As far as I know, Pfizer stated they would not be producing Comirnaty at all.

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah, that's what i thought i had initially read too, but then it seemed like Comirnaty was only not available in the US . I'm guess i'm asking if anyone has that pfizer document discussing 'non-availability of the formulation know as comirnaty'.

Load more (3 replies)