A group of 117 Houston-area hospital employees on Friday filed a civil lawsuit against Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital (a.k.a., Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital) because the hospital is forcing its employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations. The lawsuit alleges that doing so amounts to forcing them to participate in an experimental vaccine trial as a condition for continued employment.
According to the complaint, David Bernard, CEO, Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital (pictured below), stated:
Bernard’s hubris is only matched by his brutishness. How did someone with such muddled, illiterate cruelty get to be CEO of a hospital? This is not management, it is not leadership, it is thuggery.
The plaintiffs are up against misleading propaganda from the mass media that has perpetuated the myth that the COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental. For example, on May 14, 2021, Allyson Chiu and Lindsey Bever reported for the Washington Post that the COVID-19 vaccines were not experimental because they have completed clinical trials, they had been authorized for emergency use, and Pfizer filed a request with the FDA for full approval. It is misleading to allege that those facts change the experimental status of a vaccine. Those facts simply explain circumstances existing for the experimental vaccines; they do not change the experimental status of the vaccines.
While the stage three clinical trials have begun, that means nothing because the completion of the trials requires a two-year monitoring period. It is deceptive to say that those trials were completed simply because everyone in the trial has been injected with the experimental vaccine. The stage three trials of the experimental vaccines are ongoing and their existence does not somehow change the status of the vaccine.
Authorization for emergency use of an experimental vaccine does not change its status. The vaccines remain “unapproved” experimental vaccines during their emergency use authorization.
Simply because a drug manufacturer has requested that their vaccine be approved does not render the vaccine approved by virtue of that request. Neither does the request change the status of the vaccine. The vaccine remains an experimental vaccine.
The statute granting the FDA the power to authorize a medical product for emergency use requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of his and her right to refuse administration of the product. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) (“Section 360bbb-3”). Additionally, terms and conditions of EAUs preempt state and local laws that would impose obligations that are inconsistent with those terms and conditions. Here, Defendants do not inform Plaintiffs of their right to refuse administration of the experimental vaccine. In fact, Plaintiffs are not given a choice as to whether or not they want to participate in the experimental vaccine trials. The only choice the Plaintiffs have is to join the experimental trial and be injected with the experimental vaccine or be fired.
Id. at 8.
The complaint gives the court some historical perspective regarding the immorality of compelling a person to take part in a medical experiment.
Among the horrors that emerged from the rubble of World War II were stories of barbaric medical experiments performed on unwilling victims of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. On August 8, 1945, the prevailing Allies established an International Military Tribunal (“IMT”). Under the aegis of the IMT, the creation of U.S. military tribunals for the trial of “lowerlevel” war criminals, such as doctors accused of conducting medical experiments without the subject’s consent was authorized. A U.S. military tribunal subsequently found 15 doctors guilty of conducting nonconsensual experiments, which included the testing of drugs for immunizations against malaria, epidemic jaundice, smallpox, and cholera. “In every single instance appearing in the record,” the tribunal concluded, “subjects were used who did not consent to the experiments.” The tribunal sentenced seven of the doctors to death and the remaining eight to life in prison. As part of its final judgement, the tribunal promulgated the Nuremberg Code on Permissible Medical Experiments.
Id. at 8-9.
Federal law requires informed consent prior to the administration of a vaccine that has been authorized for use in an emergency. The complaint points out an often overlooked aspect of the federal law is that part and parcel of the informed consent requirement is that the person is informed of the potential harm from the experimental vaccine and alternative treatments.
Additionally, with respect to the subject of informed consent, and based on the Nuremberg principles for medical treatment/experimentation, an obligation exists to detail and suggest alternative treatments. Here, Plaintiffs are not given the option for any alternative treatments other than taking the experimental COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, Defendants must detail the medical process (and all that is included in it) as well as the advantages and the disadvantages/benefits and risks, existing in every treatment, to enable Plaintiffs to make an intelligent personal decision regarding the treatment they prefer. This must be done freely, without any coercion. Here, Defendants pressure their employees and solicit them (while blatantly violating the informed consent process). The Defendants conceal the information regarding the experimental vaccines’ potential risks and harms, creating an atmosphere of fear and coercion.
Id. at 28.
The memorandum mandating COVID-19 vaccination from the hospital is based upon the false premise that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. “Because science has proven that the COVID-19 vaccines are not only safe, but extremely effective, it became an easier decision to make.”
Arguably, if the experimental vaccine was any other vaccine or drug, it would already have been removed from the market. Usually, a new drug is withdrawn after 50 deaths, which is not typical because the FDA has a strict approval process. The COVID-19 vaccines have been exempted from the approval process, instead being temporarily “authorized” for emergency use.
Thirty-five hundred plus (3,500 +) reports is 70 times the normal threshold for pulling a drug from the market. Although this is raw data, previous VAERS studies have shown that only 1-10% of vaccine-related deaths are reported to VAERS —or less. The COVID vaccines are adding a year’s worth of VAERS reports every week. In just four months, more adverse reports were added to the VAERS database than any single vaccine has had cumulatively over the past 31 years. This is clearly a safety signal, further studies need to be done and Plaintiffs should not be forced to participate in these dangerous trials as a condition for employment.
Id. at 7.