Connect with us

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published

7 months ago

5 minute read

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 38 mins ago

Tamara Lich and Chris Barber trial update: The Longest Mischief Trial of All Time continues..

Energy / 2 hours ago

Straits of Mackinac Tunnel for Line 5 Pipeline to get “accelerated review”: US Army Corps of Engineers

John Stossel / 3 hours ago

Climate Change Myths Part 1: Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, and Food Shortages

COVID-19

Tamara Lich and Chris Barber trial update: The Longest Mischief Trial of All Time continues..

Published on April 17, 2025

By

Here are the last two posts on Tamara Lich’s Substack posted April 16 and April 17:

April 17: 

We weren’t able to secure a date yesterday for the sentencing hearing and instead another ‘speak to’ was set for April 28. In addition to time needed to enter numerous impact statements (coincidentally and conveniently comprised of individuals suing us for $300,000,000.00), the Crown has added a forfeiture order to seize Big Red which will add significant time to argue. Therefore I suspect all parties will need to find 4-5 days in their schedules for the sentencing hearing.

The Crown is also seeking two years in federal prison for each of us.

Three days were tentatively set aside at the end of May for a Stay of Proceedings application put forth yesterday by Ms. Magus on Chris’ behalf.

And so The Longest Mischief Trial of All Time continues to plod along, still no end in sight.

 

April 16:

In our trial, the longest mischief trial of all time, we set hearing dates to set hearing dates.

There will be a ‘speak to’ this afternoon to set a date for the sentencing hearing which we think will take 3-4 days. Following that hearing, Chris and I will return to Ottawa again for the actual sentence.

The Crown is seeking 2 years in a federal penitentiary for both of us, plus they have decided to file an application to confiscate Big Red. Funny, there hasn’t been a single other convoy case in which the Crown demanded that persons property or vehicle, yet they seem to want Big Red. You need to ask yourself why.

Chris raised his children in that truck, changed their diapers in that truck, had his old dog, Buddy, put to sleep in the passenger seat when his time came because that was Buddy’s favourite place in the world.

This is not about the rule of law.

It’s about crushing a Canadian symbol of Hope, Pride & Unity

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canadian student denied religious exemption for COVID jab takes tech school to court

Published on April 16, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is helping Philip Anisimov fight Ontario Tech University, which this week has to defend in court its decision to deregister the student.

An Ontario university student who was kicked out of school after his religious-based COVID vaccine exemption request was rejected is in court to argue his civil rights were violated.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) is helping Philip Anisimov fight Ontario Tech University, which this week has to defend in court its decision to deregister the student for choosing not to receive the experimental, abortion-tainted COVID shots on religious grounds.

According to a press release from the JCCF, yesterday, April 15, and today, April 16, Anisimov’s legal team will be making arguments in an Ontario court that the university “violated his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of his religion.”

“The University tried to characterize Mr. Anisimov’s belief as a personal preference by arguing that vaccination is not truly contrary to his faith,” noted constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir.

“Decision-makers are not permitted to engage in speculation and theological debates about which dogma is correct. So long as a belief is religious in nature and sincerely held, it must be accommodated,” Kheir explained, outlining how the Human Rights Code of the province has to be interpreted according to the law.

Anisimov’s case goes back to August 30, 2021, when Ontario, under the direction of its Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. Kieran Moore, mandated that all students in the province show proof of vaccination unless they have an exemption or agree to attend a COVID jab education session boasting about the shots.

However, the third option was not available at Ontario Tech University, as the government mandate allowed schools to chose whether or not they would offer such a program to students.

As a result, Anisimov, who had requested accommodation for religious reasons but was denied, was deregistered from all his courses.

He was then forced to spend an entire extra year to complete his studies. According to his lawyers, Ontario Tech University’s decision to not approve his COVID jab exemption request “not only disrupted his career plans but also violated his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code.”

“Mr. Anisimov has a sincere religious objection to the COVID vaccines and could have been accommodated without difficulty,” he added.

COVID vaccine mandates, as well as lockdowns, which came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the vaccines on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X