Reporter Allison Williams is leaving ESPN over COVID-19 vaccine mandate, says “I am so morally and ethically not aligned with this.” Recently, a Senior Australian Police Sergeant quit her job after refusing to enforce Orwellian COVID rules. Wearing her dark-blue uniform in a bombshell interview she revealed that she had been “troubled” by how police resources have been applied during the pandemic by state authorities.
Disney, ESPN’s parent company, has implemented a coronavirus mandate for all employees that will go into effect Thursday.
Williams said last month that she was unvaccinated and planned to remain that way while she and her husband were trying to have a second child.
Williams said in a video that she was denied a “request for accommodation” from ESPN, and that she will be “separated” from the company next week.
“Belief is a word I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, because in addition to the medical apprehensions regarding my desire to have another child in regards to receiving this injection, I am also so morally and ethically not aligned with this,” Williams said.
“And I’ve had to really dig deep and analyze my values and my morals, and ultimately I need to put them first.”
“And the irony in all this is that a lot of those same values and principals I hold dear are what made me a really good employee and probably helped with the success that I’ve been able to have in my career.”
Williams joined ESPN in March 2011, and has been part of both college football and basketball coverage.
She said in September that she would not be part of any college football game coverage this season because she was unvaccinated, and she and her husband were trying to have a second child.
“This was a deeply difficult decision to make and it’s not something I take lightly,” she said in September, in part.
“I understand vaccines have been essential in the effort to end this pandemic, however taking the vaccine at this time is not in my best interest. After a lot of prayer and deliberation, I have decided I must put my family and personal health first.”
Williams said she isn’t sure what’s next for her career, but that she’s hopeful to get back to a sideline again soon.
“I’m trying to wrap my head around the thought that the largest game I worked in my career, the national championship game, might be the last college football game I work,” she said.
“But I’m going to focus on what I have to be thankful for. I’m going to hold onto my faith. I’m going to pray that things get better, and that I can see you on the television set in some capacity, in some stadium, covering some game soon.”
The CDC has said that pregnant women can safely receive any of the three coronavirus vaccines available to Americans.
However, six months after the coronavirus vaccines were widely distributed in the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has called for a $1.67 million study on how the COVID-19 vaccines affect women’s menstrual cycles.
As per reports women are experiencing irregular menstruation after getting vaccinated against COVID with more heavier and painful periods.
According to March data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 34 cases reported where pregnant women suffered from spontaneous miscarriages or stillbirths post COVID-19 vaccination.
Recently, according to VAERS data a breastfeeding baby died of blood clots and inflamed arteries weeks after his mother was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
The case is the second known account of a breastfeeding baby dying of blood clots from vaccine.
According to Intermountain Healthcare doctors women who were recently vaccinated for COVID-19 may show symptoms of Breast Cancer as a side-effect of the vaccine.
An American doctor from Wisconsin, Dr Sara Beltrán Ponce had a miscarriage just days after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
Meanwhile, researcher at the University of Miami have recommended men to have a fertility evaluation before receiving the COVID vaccine and to consider to freeze their sperm before vaccination in order to protect their fertility.
Recently, a Senior Australian Police Sergeant quit her job after refusing to enforce Orwellian COVID rules. Wearing her dark-blue uniform in a bombshell interview she revealed that she had been “troubled” by how police resources have been applied during the pandemic by state authorities.
Meanwhile, a small but significant victory was achieved Wednesday when the French Senate rejacted a socialist senator’s proposal to make the COVID experimental vaccine mandatory for all citizens living in France.
Non-compliance would trigger a fine of 135 euro (about $150 USD), and 1,500 euro for re-offenders.
Support GreatGameIndia
Suppose you went to a horse race and you had a choice of horses to bet on, but the two you most liked were called Pfizer and Covid, so you checked the percentages to see which one would be the one to bet your money on, to win and you saw that Pfizer was 0.84% and Covid had a 99.16% of winning, if you were me, you would bet on Covid every time, because Pfizer was a non starter at best – and that is what you are betting your life on when you have a Pfizer vaccination, or one of the other vaccines on offer now, see below:
Former Pfizer VP: 0.84% ‘Clear evidence of fraud’ in Pfizer study claiming 95% efficacy
posted by Mordechai Sones September 30, 2021 10:58 am
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Chief Science Officer Dr. Michael Yeadon yesterday said there is “clear evidence of fraud” in the Pfizer study that purports to claim 95% efficacy in their COVID-19 “vaccine”.
Yeadon was commenting on an article appearing in The Lancet and critiquing a documentary that scrutinized a Pfizer efficacy study, calling the distinction raised therein between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction “accurate”.
The Lancet article, entitled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, says that although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
The article continues: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
“However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
“Pfizer reported that its vaccine showed a 95% efficacy,” explained the documentary, entitled COVID Shot or Not? “That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time. But that’s not actually what that number means.
“That 95% refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).
“In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low, at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%.
“So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer vaccine in 0.84%
“That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between the 0.88% and 0.04%. That’s what they call ‘95% relative risk reduction’. And relative risk reduction is well-known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines, had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?”
In response, Dr. Yeadon said: “It’s worse, actually. In the Pfizer study from which the 95% claim comes, there’s clear evidence of fraud.
“Why do I say that? Well, a study which is properly blinded means neither the subject, the study director, nor any other actor knows what each patient has received.
“Patients in clinical trials are obligated to follow ‘the protocol’, which specifies must-dos & prohibitions.
“If it’s blind to the end, how could one group end up with five times as many subjects having their data pulled prior to statistical analysis in the test group compared with the control group?”
Yeadon expanded: “The story of how a large state within India solved its COVID-19 crisis is no surprise to those of us who’ve known since spring 2020 that our governments, media, and tech titans have been acting against our interests, both health as well as democratic.
“We’ve known, for example, that highly qualified physicians and scientists are well able to treat and save most people infected by SARS-CoV-2.
“The methodology is simple: Attack the virus and the inflammatory and ultimately thrombotic disease phases rationally by administering targeted, multi drug treatments.
“These include Vitamin C and Vitamin D but in particular, Ivermectin, zinc and a zinc ionophore such as one of several old antibiotics like azithromycin.
“Used in sequence depending on the presentation, in excess of 80% of patients avoid hospitalization anddeath, including in cohorts we regard as at high risk.
“Peter McCullough and colleagues have put themselves in harm’s way professionally in pressing home these simple messages.
“Two remarkable meta-analyses (the highest level of medical evidence, a review of randomized, controlled clinical trials), authored by Tess Laurie and Pierre Kory, show conclusively that if you could choose only one medical treatment, it would be ivermectin. It’s safe, we’ll-tolerated, off patent and cheap to make, yet HIGHLY effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Reviews by Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory are in the most read papers this year.
“Yet not one major media channel has bothered to tell us this. Instead, they’ve lied about ‘horse deworming’ drugs and made false claims about safety.
“This is what Uttar Pradesh used in a few short weeks to crush soaring COVID-19 deaths in this large Indian state. They didn’t do much vaccination.
“Vaccination has, separately, been shown by Steve Kirsch’s team, to have resulted in a median estimate of 150,000 deaths shortly after vaccination in the U.S.A. alone.
“They made these calculations solely based on the publicly accessible database which collects adverse event reports, VAERS.
“Additionally, they used mechanistically plausible assessments of the most common, serious adverse events, finding for example that pulmonary embolism occurs at over 400 TIMES the rate observed after any other vaccine types since the database began operations a few decades ago.
“These novel technology gene-based agents cause our bodies to manufacture coronavirus spike proteins, and these alone are responsible for a substantial proportion of the adverse effects of being infected by the virus.
“What have our governments, media, and technology titans been doing in the meantime?
“Rubbishing the experts, attacking the publications, suppressing information everywhere, and banning accounts that persist in telling the truth.”
Echoing remarks by Zelenko Protocol discoverer Dr. Vladimir Ze’ev Zelenko, Yeadon continued: “Having done this for well over a year, I’m confident that their actions comprise deliberate mass murder. Their objective appears to be to keep people as fearful as possible and receptive to vaccination. All of these claims are supported by plentiful public sources.
“But the scandal of depriving people of effective treatments while coercing them into submission to dangerous vaccination is the worst thing that’s happened in the world for decades, arguably forever.”
Dr. Yeadon concluded, urging people to “see the true scale of the lie before injecting their children.”
The Lancet Study
Doctors for COVID Ethics
On The accompanying chart:
Pfizer/BioNtech RRR 95.03% ARR From Jab 0.84%
Moderna (NIH) RRR 94.08% ARR 1.24% From Jab
Janssen RRR 66.62% ARR 1.19% From Jab
Astrazeneca/ Oxford RRR 66.84% ARR 1.28% From Jab
The Lancet
Thank God for those people who use their head and open their eyes.
@Richard Noakes, You’re Killin’ It, Sir !!
It’s all a great big fat LIE.
There is no MANDATE or regulation…just made up Sheet.
Disney, ESPN’s parent company, has implemented a coronavirus mandate for all employees that will go into effect Thursday.
Workplace Vaccination Program
Updated Mar. 25, 2021
Determine When Your Employees Can Be VaccinatedCDC makes recommendations for who should get vaccinated first, then each state makes its own plan. Check state, city, and/or county health department websites for the latest information on phased implementation
Best Practices
Whether vaccination is at the workplace or in the community, employers should:
Offer flexible, non-punitive sick leave options (e.g., paid sick leave) for employees with signs and symptoms after vaccination.Allow time for vaccine confidence to grow. Workers who are hesitant at first may become more confident after seeing coworkers get vaccinated. Employers with an onsite clinic should offer more than one opportunity for vaccination. Mobile clinics can return to a worksite multiple times on a rotating schedule. Employers using community locations can provide supportive policies (e.g., paid leave, transportation support) for an extended period of time.Ask organizations and individuals who are respected in employee communities to help you build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.
Vaccine Mandates & ExemptionsCOVID-19 vaccines are not mandated under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not mandate vaccination. However, whether a state, local government, or employer, for example, may require or mandate COVID-19 vaccination is a matter of state or other applicable law.
Employer Vaccine Mandates and Proof of Vaccination
Whether an employer may require or mandate COVID-19 vaccination is a matter of state or other applicable law. If an employer requires employees
https: // www. cdc. gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/essentialworker/workplace-vaccination-program .html
Ask to see the ” law” in your State ….requirement does NOT apply to legislation or regulatory policies…these are not valid vaccines under medical scientific data analysis but junk science made in a lab and sold to world governments for bank loans and eternal tax payers funneling of money into an AI system of complete control of the mases.
Do NOT CONSENT DO NOT COMPLY.