Cry For Vaccine Freedom Wall

Welcome to NVIC's Cry For Vaccine Freedom Wall. Many familes and professionals have experienced vaccine harassment and coercion and have had to make hard decisions about employment. When kicked out of a medical practice for not vaccinating, many must seek out health care providers upholding the informed consent ethic. NVIC provides this space for the public to share their stories and they appear chronologically. Click to view stories about vaccine reactions and vaccine failures.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for options on reporting vaccine harassment, failures and reactions. When you submit your stories to NVIC your identity will be kept confidential.

Loading...
  • Posted: Apr. 7, 2024
    The following account is public knowledge and filed online in PACER. The case is Mike Borrello pro per v. Respironics CA LLC et al. ( now a defunct Philips subsidiary) Case in Federal District Court, Southern District of California : 3:23-cv-00580-GPC-VET Intro to first amended complaint This is an action by plaintiff, Mike Borrello, who was subjected to defendant’s corporate wide SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Vaccination Program (“Vaccine Mandate”) and was wrongfully terminated for refusing to comply. In this action, plaintiff claims that application of the Vaccine Mandate to him constituted unlawful invasions of inalienable rights to his privacy and bodily autonomy – including the right to make an informed decision to decline the COVID-19 vaccine injection. The defendants’ invasion of plaintiff’s privacy rights was compounded by defendant’s lack of due diligence or reckless neglect on not informing employees of the true risks and lack of benefit of the COVID-19 vaccines, information defendants suppressed to use the Vaccine Mandate as an opportunity, a pretext to a massive reduction in force across their North America operations without incurring severance and unemployment expenses. Plaintiff brings this complaint (‘Complaint’) suing all named defendants herein for economic, non-economic, compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages under peremptory international norms (codified into California statutes) that ban any form of coercion of experimental medicine, under the inalienable right to privacy and bodily autonomy expressly protected in the California Constitution, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and under other provisions of law pursuant to the causes of action claimed herein. Plaintiff has strong convictions that the allegations made herein violated his constitutional and civil rights, and that defendants acted in bad faith by terminating his employment after 9 years of excellent service to the company for unreasonable cause. Plaintiff exercised his inalienable rights and refused to receive any COVID-19 injections, was illegally terminated by defendants, and denied the benefit of severance because he exercised his rights. Application of the Mandatory Injection Program offends peremptory norms barring intrusion into the right of informed consent involving experimental medicine. Medical experimentation on human subjects may only take place with absolute free power of choice, without intervention of any element of force, fraud, duress or other forms of coercion. The injections that defendants demanded plaintiff receive in order to remain employed are based on a novel, genetic modification technology that has never been shown to be safe or effective. Defendants had the pressure of a major economic downturn and they perceived the Federal Vaccine Mandate as an opportunity; a means to significantly cut costs and so they believed their own vaccine mandate would result in many employees resigning, and of those that didn’t resign defendands rationalized a constructive termination was a reasonable and legal action. Defendants, admittingly being a healthcare technology company, should have known well that the injections mandated by their Vaccine Mandate are in an investigational stage, and will remain so for many years. Or if they were oblvious to this fact, defendants acted with sheer negligence and lack of due diligence considering their policy entertained the administration of a medical procedure. Under peremptory international norms, codified into California state law at Health and Safety Code § 24170 et seq., plaintiff is entitled to penalties between $1,000 and $25,000 plus actual damages. Even absent the “experimental” designation, plaintiff and other employees have an inalienable constitutional right to both information and autonomy privacy in their medical choices, including access to known information impacting their medical decisions, and the right to autonomy over the own bodies. Defendant’s Vaccine Mandate fails constitutional standards because no compelling state interest justifies the intrusion of the right to privacy, and the balance of the administrative interests are far outweighed by the privacy rights of the individuals. It would fail under even a lower substantive Due Process standard, as an overwhelming, ever-increasing body of medical evidence and qualified scientific opinion that should have been known to defendants demonstrating that: a. The premise of mass biologic injections to prevent or treat Covid disease is flawed; b. Clinical trial data demonstrated that the plan to treat Covid through the injections would fail to prevent infection, transmission or serious illness; c. Cytotoxic spike-protein generating injections pose an unacceptable risk of severe harm – including death – in the individuals who undergo the injection, as supported by extensive expert descriptions of the mechanism of injury; d. All-cause mortality and serious signals of morbidity by the fall of 2021 were frighteningly high in the populations which received injections, severe changes to the health of injected over the un-injected individuals across all age groups and demographics, demonstrating massive harms caused by the Covid vaccine mandates; e. Emergency Use Authorizations and the Mandatory Injection Program were secured through corruption, fraud and conflicts of interests. Because of this body of evidence, defendants lacked constitutional power to mandate that employees undergo the injections or to drive injection rates through its mass injection campaign. Defendants violated the rights of plaintiff by promoting and mandating injections while simultaneously failing to provide medical information necessary for the individuals to make informed decisions. “Informed consent” requires complete disclosure of information relevant to the medical decision. Defendants were admittedly a global conglomerate healthcare technology company with ready access to leading scientists, medical professionals and healthcare facilities by which to investigate medical facts associated with the mandated injections. By their Vaccine Mandate, defendants assumed the role of the state, the employer and the medical advisor, and it had a duty to disclose information it possessed on the lack of effectiveness and harms associated with the injections. In this case, defendants effectively represented themselves as agents facilitating clinical trials of the safety and efficacy of the Covid injections. However to be clear, they were not enrolling willing and fully informed subjects, they rather were enforcing participation by coercion; by threatening the loss of the employee’s job if they refused to participate and without knowledge of the risks the vaccines posed. Defendants failed to disclose, and ignored medical evidence indicating that their Vaccine Mandate violated the fundamental precept of informed consent; that the Covid injections remain experimental; that mass vaccination campaigns have been doomed to fail and often lead to worse health outcomes; that autopsies of individuals who have died after receiving Covid injections demonstrate that the injections were a significant cause of the deaths; and that individuals who receive the injections suffer statistically significant higher rates of heart and blood disorders (including myocarditis, pericarditis, pleural effusion and congestive heart failure), autoimmune diseases (including rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, encephalitis, neuropathy and demyelination), prion-like diseases (such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease) other neurological diseases (such as strokes, seizures, multiple sclerosis, neuritis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, meningitis), immune dysfunction and cancers (including IgG4- induced tolerance and presence of SV-40), and fertility, pregnancy and menstrual disorders (including spontaneous abortions, premature birth with neonatal death, fetal demises, abnormal uterine bleeding, vaginal hemorrhaging and post-menopausal bleeding, breast pain and swelling, genital pain and dysfunction, and low sperm counts and mobility). Application of the Vaccine Mandate to defendant’s employees, and adverse employment actions taken against those who opposed the Program, violate the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940(f) and (h). The California statute defines “unlawful employment practice” to include a medical inquiry made to an employee without a showing by the employer of job-relatedness and business necessity. Under express statutory and regulatory guidance, a medical inquiry cannot be made without a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of the job or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. The employer must show that a general program applicable to a class of employees is based on objective information consistent with business necessity, and that the program is generally justified with respect to the class affected. The employer must also show that the “business necessity” is vital to the business, that the inquiry genuinely serves the asserted “business necessity” and that the inquiry is tailored to be no broader or intrusive than necessary. In addition to medical inquiries, FEHA imposes these requirements on all requests that an employee submit to a medical examination, all inquiries into physical disability or medical condition of an employee, and all inquiries regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability or medical condition. FEHA makes it separately actionable as retaliation for an employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed practices forbidden under FEHA. In this case, the Vaccine Mandate itself is centered around an improper medical inquiry, that required each employee to disclose his or her medical status with respect to the Covid injections. Mandating the injection also necessarily required employees to undergo physical examinations, and to reveal information regarding real or perceived physical disabilities, genetic expression and/or medical conditions including vaccination status itself. Defendants did not genuinely believe, and there was no objective indication, that plaintiff or a similarly situated employee of defendants was unable to perform essential job functions on the basis of their Covid injection status. Nor did defendants have a genuine belief or reasonable basis to show that a program of class-wide requirement for mandatory injections was tailored to job-relatedness and business necessity. Plaintiff claims discoverable personal data, now in the possession or control of defendants, likely demonstrates that “injected” employees, compared to “non-injected” employees (those that received reasonable accommodations and were not fired), are far more likely to get sick, require medical leave and/or die suddenly. Application of a Vaccine Mandate to each employee thus constituted an unlawful employment practice, defendants lacked a genuine justification based on actual belief and reasonable basis, it was unable to show a vital business necessity for employees to be injected, and the Program was not shown to be tailored to be no broader in scope than necessary to meet business necessity. Defendants also engaged in unlawful retaliation under FEHA when it terminated employees including plaintiff or others for resisting or opposing application of defendant’s unlawful Program. Defendants ‘Philips’ are a group of subsidiary corporations and/or holding companies under the multinational conglomerate, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Royal Philips”) headquartered in the Netherlands. Philips does business in North America including the state of California primarily in developing and manufacturing medical products for the healthcare industry. Plaintiff was directly employed by a subsidiary of Philips RS North America, Respironics California LLC that was located in Carlsbad, California. Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully terminated by defendants when they falsely claimed he resigned from his job for personal reasons. Plaintiff alleges he was actually discharged under the pretext of not complying with a companywide vaccine mandate issued from Philips North America operations and, that defendant enforced their own mandate, without duress from any government policy at time of discharge, and not for reasons of safety as they claimed, but rather as a convenient opportunity, a pretext to avoid significant costs of severance benefits that plaintiff and other Philips employees in the same situation across America would have otherwise been eligible to receive under corporate policy in the event of a plant shutdown and/or mass layoffs. As a matter of fact, both a plant closure and mass layoff were announced by defendants just weeks after plaintiff was discharged. These plant closures and mass layoffs continued through 2022, into 2023 and are now expected to exceed 10,000 employees worldwide by 2025. Plaintiff alleges defendants used the pretext of a vaccine mandate and the false claim plaintiff resigned as a ‘first phase’ of a planned downsizing to avoid expenses of severance and unemployment costs from up to 20% of employees in North America that refused to ‘attest’ to their vaccine status and/or submit to a COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff further claims, in defense of his pending threat of termination, he sent defendants a notification letter to cease and desist which included reasons for a consideration of reasonable accommodations, and to address defendants vaccine mandate; a letter of which defendant summarily ignored and never responded to. Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief among other serious and justified objections to the vaccine mandate that were stated in the letter. Plaintiff alleges many of his personal rights, afforded by the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of California, particularly his right to privacy, were violated by defendants not responding to plaintiff’s letter. Plaintiff also alleges defendants violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by defendants’ fraudulently declaring and recording an untruthful reason and cause for his discharge. Plaintiff alleges these defendants’ actions created a stigma on plaintiff’s professional reputation and his lifelong, untarnished employment record that has disadvantaged and possibly permanently damaged his ability to gain new employment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, oral arguments were heard several weeks ago, and an order was filed just yesterday by Judge Curiel dismissing in part but granting leave to amend. Preparing a second amended complaint NOW. It's very difficult to engage an attorney against the vaccines. But that shouldn't stop anyone who has a will and a sense of liberty and lots of faith. Fight!
  • Posted: Mar. 7, 2024
    I had enrolled my son at Sacred Heart Elementary to enter first grade. He attended their summer program. I paid tuition in full. A week before school starts I receive a call from the nurse that I have to get him fully vaccinated within a week, school was starting, if he wanted to attend. At this point, I don’t have a second option. The other school I had applied for dropped my application and is now full. I am out of a school option. Apparently the Seattle Archdiocese is illegally disallowing religious exemptions to attend school. I’ve also come to find this happened to several people when it was initially instated in feb 2020. People who were already attending and entrenched in the community received a phone call they had to get vaccinated in a week or leave. They also then refused my sine’s polio tither results, which showed he was immune to types 1 and 3, because it didn’t include type 2, but type 2 has been eradicated since 1999 I believe is the year, so labs don’t test for it anymore.
  • Posted: Feb. 5, 2024
    I took my at the time 4 month old son for his checkup and vaccines. My husband and I had agreed we would be splitting vaccine as we thought babies receive too many vaccines at once these days. The doctor did not do a thorough exam. Had no time for my questions. Proceeded to argue with me about giving him his Pneumococcal shot and told me she just sent a child to the hospital because the parents didnt vaccinate for it. Please dont threaten me because I am trying to protect my child from all the junk that is in the vaccine that you wont tell me about. There is so much in the vaccines that doctors dont tell you about. For example considering how hepatitis is spread does my child who is not sexually active <1 year old child need that then or can he wait till his blood brain barrier is closed before he gets the vaccine. I dont object all vaccines but i do object to ones that arent necessary or have worse side effects then the actual disease
  • Posted: Dec. 27, 2023
    My daughter who is 2 months old was taken for her well child visit. The pediatrician said she was due for 4 vaccines. I asked for the reasoning behind each vaccine, and I was told she will end up in the hospital if not vaccinated. I also asked about the preservatives in the vaccines and the pediatrician said there are no preservatives in the vaccine. I asked for a list of vaccines that my daughter is to receive moving forward and I could not be provided with that either. I was then told that my daughter would be declined care if not vaccinated. I felt as though my voice was not heard and my questions were not important. This gave me a very uneasy feeling, as though the pediatrician was trying to pull a fast one on me. I then asked for the vaccines to be divided up and the pediatrician was very angry about that as well. I am really losing confidence in the health care system and now I am not sure who to believe and feel the vaccines are really not safe.

Vaccine Reporting Systems - You Have Options!

Learn about the different reporting options NVIC has created for you to post your personal experiences with vaccination and publicly share your concerns with others. Choose one or more options below to share your experience. If you have experienced a vaccine reaction, we encourage you to use the button below to report it to NVIC, and also encourage you to report your reaction to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to assist in identifying vaccine safety signals. Click to learn more about VAERS and how to search the VAERS database for reported vaccine reactions.
Opens in new tab, window
Opens an external site
Opens an external site in new tab, window