~ The first publication of these forms were written by Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs for The Solari Report; the July publication was revised for subsequent events by the Solari team. ~

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections

This puts employers in a box. This is a form every employee who is faced with this needs to submit to the authorized officer of their company. It is 100% legally accurate, forces them to respond to your questions (already on the form for you), provide you with all requirements by the FDA, makes them review all of the ways they are breaking the law, and holds them 100% financially responsible, requiring a signature.

Link to the form

Read the complete disclosure here

Form for Students Attending Colleges or Universities Requiring Covid-19 Injections

This puts colleges in a box. This is a form every student who is faced with this needs to submit to the authorized officer of their school. It is 100% legally accurate, forces them to respond to your questions (already on the form for you), provide you with all requirements by the FDA, makes them review all of the ways they are breaking the law, and holds them 100% financially responsible, requiring a signature.

Link to the form

Read the complete disclosure here.

Please share both the Student and Employee forms with friends, family, co-workers, fellow students, and across social media—far and wide.

Related reading:

IMPORTANT: DOWNLOAD COVID VACCINE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION DOCUMENTS

Advice on Vaccines for Employees or Potential Employees against Mandates by Government or Employers

College Students Reject COVID Vaccine Mandates — By Voting With Their Dollars

Letters from Children’s Health Defense: Notice for Employers, Universities and Other Institutions Mandating COVID-19 Vaccines

Letter from Frontline Doctors: Covid-19 Experimental Vaccine Candidates

NOTICE FOR EMPLOYERS, UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS MANDATING COVID-19 TESTS

NOTICE FOR EMPLOYERS, UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS MANDATING COVID-19 MASKS

NOTICE FOR EMPLOYERS, UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONSMANDATING COVID-19 VACCINES

27 Comments

  1. I am following up my comment of June 10th, regarding Penn State university incentivizing students to take the Covid vaccine, and punishing students who don’t. Penn State had made statements that the Covid Vaccine is proven effective, in emails to parents and students, but has yet to be able to cite the source of their claims for “proven effective”. Today, Penn State sent out a an email message regarding their reward/punishment Covid vaccine program, with a few revisions as follows:

    “There is no better way to protect yourself and others from the virus. And our return to in-person experiences and a sense of normalcy this fall depends, in part, on our collective and individual willingness to be vaccinated if we can be.

    To encourage your cooperation, the University is offering various incentives, including a weekly chance to win $1000. Any student who is vaccinated, shares their vaccination status with the University, and chooses to participate in the weekly drawings will be eligible. The odds of winning are relatively high.

    From June 7 through August 23, students who have uploaded their vaccination record form will be eligible for prizes drawn each week. These prizes include:

    $1,000 payment
    $100 gift card for Barnes & Noble (four each week)
    a football signed by Penn State football coach James Franklin”

    I sent an email response asking Penn State for the facts and citations behind their statement “the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself from Covid”. I don’t expect a response from Penn State.

    Years ago I was a clinical drug trials coordinator. I know that incentive and punishment cannot be used where experimental drugs are concerned (or this is how it used to be). I cannot recall the specific US code which prohibits the use of incentive and punishment on human beings and an experimental drug. Can anyone cite the specific code regarding incentive and punishment, and pass this along to me? I once knew how to find this but have forgotten, its been so long. I’d like to send this code or rule or law along to Penn State University. It may be in the Code of Federal Regulations, maybe the Nuremberg code… There was a time when no one would dare incentivize or punish the use/ refusal of an experimental drug. I’m not sure how schools like Penn State are able to get away with it, but they can’t get away with it if parents and students won’t let them. I need a reminder of the specific code, if anyone here has that info. Thanks!

    1. To some degree I’m able to answer my own question. The relevant term in the Code of Federal Regulations is “coercion or undue influence”. The tactic that Penn State University uses is that students who don’t supply evidence of having taken the experimental Covid vaccination, evidence to the school, will be required to wear masks and to socially distance, indoors and out, on Penn State grounds.
      The relevant CFR is §50.20 General requirements for informed consent. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d7c4f711c2f72f8f9e876c15b8613e96&mc=true&node=se21.1.50_120&rgn=div8.

      “An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.”

      Penn State is requiring that students submit proof of their vaccination status (collecting data on the use of an experimental/investigational drug). Exactly how Penn State is using and reporting this data is unclear. Penn State states “Vaccine status is only available to University personnel directly involved in the COVID-19 response and mitigation efforts and to public health officials.” Raises the question as to whether the CFR rules on coercion and undue influence applies to Penn State here.

      The most recent FDA guidance on the payment of research subjects is here: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/payment-and-reimbursement-research-subjects. In practice, what I have seen is research subjects reimbursed time and travel expenses incurred as participants, and anything more is considered undue coercion and influence and was not done by any reputable researcher.

      1. It may also be that forcing students to wear masks (for those students who do not take the vaccine and/or do not report their vaccination status to Penn State), indoors and out, represents undue coercion. There is no evidence that mask wearing prevents Covid transmission. Additionally, masks seem to cause harm for some. In my own case, wearing a mask in a crowded, poorly ventilated restaurant caused symptoms which mimicked a myocardial infarction (heart attack) requiring an ambulance and the expenses of an ambulance. I’m not the only one. Punishing students who don’t vaccinate with mask mandates represents undue coercion to ingest an experimental drug.

  2. this is what our Frontline workers here in Missouri have needed as they have all in the St. Louis area have mandated that we have to receive the COVID-19 shot or we will loose our jobs. You just made our job easier. Thank you so much!!

  3. Hi
    I am from Canada and I would like to know if you have a form for employees in Canada ?
    or is that for will do the work ?

  5. Thanks so much Catherine! So wonderful to have all these resources at our fingertips thanks to your vigilant scanning of the landscape and making available to us all that you find that is helpful. We really appreciate it. I printed many of these out and will meet with the head of school for our private high school (which along with all the public high schools in Marin County), is requiring 100 percent of staff and 100 percent of students be injected with this EUA. Makes no sense medically as everyone can get sick and pass this virus on, injected or not.

  6. I have some suggestions for those considering legal challenges in consideration of violations of the Nuremberg Code (and the Code of Federal Regulations). Those who actually administered the experimental vaccine, and their employers who provided the means to do so (such as pharmacy chains, large health systems, schools and universities..), and well as the licensed providers (nurses, physicians, pharmacists) may be directly in violation of the Nuremberg Code and breaking the law. The Code requires informed consent, which is a process involving review and approval by an institutional review board, requires advisement of the right to say no without fear of reprisal, as well as the institution and the person administering the experimental drug being responsible to assure freedom from coercion (where incentives may be considered coercion, as well as threat of job loss, threat of social isolation from schools may be considered coercion). Those licensed persons administering the drug are responsible to the Nuremberg Code requirements, as may be the large health systems and pharmacy chains providing the practitioners with the means to do so. As the Nuremberg trials taught us, ignorance of the law is no excuse, not is any excuse to say that someone in authority told you to do it.

    Another legal consideration may be the emergency use authorization status. The emergency use authorization was based in part in a retrospective study published in Lancet some months ago. The Lancet study was used to invalidate alternative treatments, thus justifying emergency use. The Lancet study was later retracted, however emergency use was already in place. it may be possible to invalidate the emergency use justification for violations of Nuremberg based upon the retraction of the Lancet study, depending upon how great was the weight of the retracted Lancet studty in justification of emergency use

  7. I want to shout this from the rooftops until it sinks in somewhere that matters. Those who administer the experimental drugs are responsible to assure freedom from coercion. They are responsible to assure that no coercion exists. They are responsible to assure no potential for reprisal upon refusal. They are responsible for formal informed consent. Those administering the vaccines are responsible for the protection of the patient. No matter what they are ordered to do. They are liable. Those who refuse vaccine but are mandated testing have been coerced into being the experimental control group, and have the same Nuremberg protections as the group who received the experimental drug

Comments are closed.