Federal Employee Mandatory Vaccines

-Pjackso

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
770
Reaction score
312
Location
OKC
To keep the relevant information at the top of the page:
Reference prior posts and links:

To assist Federal civilians AND ALSO private civilians -
Here's a post for (13) request for Religious Exemption, each with varying situations.
All,
A HUUUGE thank you to @wolfkpr for this information.

(13) files have been uploaded to the members-only boiler room to help for getting religious exemption:

Federal employees or Private employees - this may help....
These have a lot of sources/references to support various exemption arguments.
If you're looking for info - hope it helps.


If the broiler room isn't visible, go here: [How to access Boiler Room]


To assist Federal Civilians at TAFB (or other Air Force agencies), here's a breakdown of the federal instructions and guidance.
For Federal employees (civilians) at TAFB, more information for Religious Exemption has been posted on the Boiler room thread.

The boiler room post discusses the Federal regulations and AF Instructions for the Religious Examption process, and what is (or isn't) allowed.


Providing you submit your Religious Exemption letter with the [REQUIRED] information - I don't think they can deny an exemption.
Also, if you get a (religious exemption) REJECTION - the regulations state you can APPEAL at every level of review.
FYI


If possible,
Please limit discussion to productive information regarding the Federal Mandate, and/or how to get a Religious Exemption.
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,556
Reaction score
495
Location
Twilight Zone
Religious Exemption requests are to be turned in to our direct supervisor via a memo stating our request for exemption. I didn't have any special text except I just articulated forcing a vaccination using an ineffective "vaccine" derived from aborted fetal cells is a violation of my religious beliefs.

The DOJ 100A form is used for Medical Exemption requests.
For the emergency approved shots in the USA, only the J&J shot has the actual aborted fetal DNA in the shot. The other two used it for testing the mRNA delivery and spike protein production, but do not contain it in the shots. Be prepared to be told that there are other shot options that are not "derived" from aborted fetal cells available, and therefore your request is denied.

Our side needs the facts before we object. I believe you do not have to invoke any specifics with a religious belief and only state that it is sincerely held and violates your conscience. They have already pointed out at some companies that Tylenol used aborted fetal cells in the original testing & development, however, nobody is forcing people to take it so that still is a crappy argument on behalf of the employers.

You need to just tell them it is against your religious beliefs, period. If forced to give a specific reason, the mark of the beast association (no income if no shot) would probably be more bullet proof than the aborted fetal connection EXCEPT if they wanted you to take the J&J shot.

Seek your own legal advice of course, this is just my opinion. ANY connection to abortion "should" be enough to exempt, but many people are unintentionally, but falsely claiming the shots all contain it and then being denied because they didn't have their facts straight and the employer & their legal representative do.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
25,319
Reaction score
13,349
Location
Tulsa
For the emergency approved shots in the USA, only the J&J shot has the actual aborted fetal DNA in the shot. The other two used it for testing the mRNA delivery and spike protein production, but do not contain it in the shots. Be prepared to be told that there are other shot options that are not "derived" from aborted fetal cells available, and therefore your request is denied.

From everything I've read the J&J shot was developed using fetal lines but does not contain any fetal DNA, can you qualify your statement and provide some proof?
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,556
Reaction score
495
Location
Twilight Zone
From everything I've read the J&J shot was developed using fetal lines but does not contain any fetal DNA, can you qualify your statement and provide some proof?
I've been down this road with you on MMR, hep-B, Chickenpox, etc in the past. Even when I have proved it before and you get mad at the messenger. The key is the "bait & switch", or play on words. Obviously you nor I are made up of the physically same cells as we were when we were in the womb. Cells divide and copy themselves. The technicality of that fact is way the media denies the fact is that the cells used in some vaccines are from specific abortions spanning from the 1960's through the 1980's. These harvested cells taken from these specific fetuses are then cloned and widely distributed for testing and drug development, etc. But a lung cell from a baby human that clones itself and years later isn't the same physical cell that was physically taken from the physical fetus is still a lung cell from that baby.

The bait & switch is they call them "cell lines". Then, the liberal media "fact checkers" can publish a story and say that there are no aborted fetus cells used in vaccines. It's a lie. The cell lines are just human cells that have been cloned over and over as "slave cells" used to grow human viruses within them, for testing, and ultimately for inclusion in some vaccines. Regeneron also contains one of these "cell lines", specifically the PERC.C6 or HEK-293 lines if I recall. It's lab grown meat...they have to take the meat and then they use the same cell line to replicate itself over and over just like your own body does.

I have undoubtedly provided links and proof over and over...search my threads as I don't have as much time as necessary to begin with square-1 again, but if you look, you should be convinced. The key JD, is that they say a "cell line" isn't a cell from an aborted baby and that's just a lie for the public.

Here is where a liberal media outlet actually pulls the bait & switch I'm describing in one of their "fact checks" and admits the J&J shot contains "cell lines"...not "derived from", it contains it:


There is even division inside the Catholic church between the marxists and the moderates over the J&J shot specifically. Neither side has an issue with the Moderna or Pfizer having used the cell lines for only testing but not in the manufacture of the vaccine itself. All the hoopla is over the J&J shot specifically because it CONTAINS the replicated DNA of an aborted baby. A real person who never got a chance to live; he would be about 36yrs old now....imagine that.




"While Pfizer and Moderna used these cells during preliminary laboratory testing months ago, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine uses the cells as part of its existing manufacturing process -- raising especial "moral concerns...."

When you grow viruses on human cells, it is impossible to remove all the DNA fragments and genetic material from those human cells when you extract the viruses to put into the vaccine. If you are injected with one of these vaccines using this technology (MMR, Chickenpox, J&J, etc.), you ARE being injected with DNA that if cloned would be a human being who was aborted in the 1960's, 70's or 80's respectively depending on the shot.

I told already you all this in 2015 JD LOL.
 
Last edited:

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,556
Reaction score
495
Location
Twilight Zone
News sources can't be trusted, everyone knows that.
Yeah but I often quote liberal news sources because even conservatives won't believe it unless a "mainstream" outlet reports it. If I have quoted some pro-life news site, it would be immediately dismissed (of course). As for the claim in general, I've posted ad nauseum the links to the CDC and FDA that verify the claim and the ingredients. It literally says human "cells" in the ingredients the childhood vaxes I mentioned. There are some zealot law makers that want to change the law where they do not even have to post this information like they often complain about the VAERS data being public. Just ask yourself, why would they want to hide factual data concerning medicine ingredients from the public. Maybe the drugstore will have rows of bottles that just say "headache pills" by the time they are finished LOL.

As for the specific claims on the J&J, the news is reporting what the Catholic church said. You can verify this was raised as a concern in Louisiana unless you just think hundreds of independent news stories are entirely made up and the bishop who raised the concern doesn't even exist. But then you get into bigfoot did 911 territory.

See this post as I'm not willing to keep re-posting the same info. I just hope this info helps someone related to your original reasons for starting THIS thread. Thanks

 
Last edited:

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
25,319
Reaction score
13,349
Location
Tulsa
I've been down this road with you on MMR, hep-B, Chickenpox, etc in the past. Even when I have proved it before and you get mad at the messenger. The key is the "bait & switch", or play on words. Obviously you nor I are made up of the physically same cells as we were when we were in the womb. Cells divide and copy themselves. The technicality of that fact is way the media denies the fact is that the cells used in some vaccines are from specific abortions spanning from the 1960's through the 1980's. These harvested cells taken from these specific fetuses are then cloned and widely distributed for testing and drug development, etc. But a lung cell from a baby human that clones itself and years later isn't the same physical cell that was physically taken from the physical fetus is still a lung cell from that baby.

The bait & switch is they call them "cell lines". Then, the liberal media "fact checkers" can publish a story and say that there are no aborted fetus cells used in vaccines. It's a lie. The cell lines are just human cells that have been cloned over and over as "slave cells" used to grow human viruses within them, for testing, and ultimately for inclusion in some vaccines. Regeneron also contains one of these "cell lines", specifically the PERC.C6 or HEK-293 lines if I recall. It's lab grown meat...they have to take the meat and then they use the same cell line to replicate itself over and over just like your own body does.

I have undoubtedly provided links and proof over and over...search my threads as I don't have as much time as necessary to begin with square-1 again, but if you look, you should be convinced. The key JD, is that they say a "cell line" isn't a cell from an aborted baby and that's just a lie for the public.

Here is where a liberal media outlet actually pulls the bait & switch I'm describing in one of their "fact checks" and admits the J&J shot contains "cell lines"...not "derived from", it contains it:


There is even division inside the Catholic church between the marxists and the moderates over the J&J shot specifically. Neither side has an issue with the Moderna or Pfizer having used the cell lines for only testing but not in the manufacture of the vaccine itself. All the hoopla is over the J&J shot specifically because it CONTAINS the replicated DNA of an aborted baby. A real person who never got a chance to live; he would be about 36yrs old now....imagine that.




"While Pfizer and Moderna used these cells during preliminary laboratory testing months ago, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine uses the cells as part of its existing manufacturing process -- raising especial "moral concerns...."

When you grow viruses on human cells, it is impossible to remove all the DNA fragments and genetic material from those human cells when you extract the viruses to put into the vaccine. If you are injected with one of these vaccines using this technology (MMR, Chickenpox, J&J, etc.), you ARE being injected with DNA that if cloned would be a human being who was aborted in the 1960's, 70's or 80's respectively depending on the shot.

I told already you all this in 2015 JD LOL.

Right so you and I have discussed this several times, not sure which thread you're referring to but if it's the one where you tried to convince everyone that vaccines cause autism then you still fall short.

It's interesting that you quote what you say is a liberal media outlet, then proceed to.... quote a liberal media outlet several times?

The distinction between fetal cell lines is an important one, as they are thousands of generations removed from the original cell tissue and those cells were previously isolated and are only involved in the growth of the virus. The virus is then inoculated or in some cases fragmented, and that is what is in the vaccine. I don't see how replicated DNA from a baby will make it's way into a virus? IF you could describe that I'd appreciate it though. If what you said was true, then I'm not sure how they could reproduce the virus?
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
4,607
Reaction score
3,319
Location
Yukon
Can’t really take any modern medicine if you won’t take a COVID vax due to fetal cells..
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
2,556
Reaction score
495
Location
Twilight Zone
Right so you and I have discussed this several times, not sure which thread you're referring to but if it's the one where you tried to convince everyone that vaccines cause autism then you still fall short.

It's interesting that you quote what you say is a liberal media outlet, then proceed to.... quote a liberal media outlet several times?

The distinction between fetal cell lines is an important one, as they are thousands of generations removed from the original cell tissue and those cells were previously isolated and are only involved in the growth of the virus. The virus is then inoculated or in some cases fragmented, and that is what is in the vaccine. I don't see how replicated DNA from a baby will make it's way into a virus? IF you could describe that I'd appreciate it though. If what you said was true, then I'm not sure how they could reproduce the virus?
I'll answer point by point here:

1.) If I recall, I don't think I ever said that they cause autism; I don't push that claim because I think it discredits legitimate debate. But it is a fact that all medications can cause side effects. Some more than others; I think you'd agree. My main contribution to that thread was to tell people way back then about the abortion connection and I may have mentioned some other specific ingredients that peer reviewed studies prove can cause harm to humans (formaldehyde, mercury, etc.)

2.) I have posted recently in at least one of the many threads on here the letter from the FDA basically stating that when using human derived cells to grow viruses for vaccine production, that it is impossible to remove all of the genetic material from the fetal-derived cells. This is a fact and the FDA also has admitted it on other occasions. (here is a mainstream liberal news article saying it; perhaps they are lying and never even interviewed the FDA???):


"The FDA told USA TODAY that residual DNA is "not used as an active ingredient in vaccines but can be present as a consequence of the methods used to produce some vaccines." It has strict guidelines for what qualifies cell substrates to be used in vaccines." (unfortunately, as you'll see below, the FDA statement above is contradicting the CDC by saying it isn't an ingredient in vaccines, but they do admit the genetic material can be in them anyway which is the more important point here)

3.) I already explained why I post links to mainstream news. Because someone with an agenda like yourself would question the information if it was from some pro-life or vaccine freedom website you've never heard of. But now I can see that you will question it EITHER WAY, so that speaks for itself. You won't accept it because you don't want it to be true? What source do you accept? You already said you yourself have read that there is no human DNA in the J&J shot which is false, so I'm betting you yourself read that on a liberal media outlet..probably buzzfeed or something to the left of USA today maybe?

So here is something from the FDA on regulation of "cell substrates" (I know they are also liberals so maybe you can discount them too):


I received so many private messages on that old vax thread that me and TenBears against like 50 people still won the argument. I recall you indicating you were not a person of faith, so I'm not surprised at your agenda, but when I revealed the WI-38 and MRC-5 cells that were actually listed as an INGREDIENT in common vaccines, it really shook things up and changed some minds. People were just too scared to chime in and say it so they PM'd me.

In the final link below, you can still see those two cell lines that ARE HUMAN cells that were replicated from aborted babies are still proudly listed as ingredients in some of the shots. They even temporarily removed the WI-38 ingedient from that document during the measles "outbreak" a few years ago without actually reformulating the shot because people were discovering this and seeking the truth. Now, that has passed, so because it is the LAW, they had to add it back in to be transparent and you and everyone else can see it is listed and an INGREDIENT.

Join me JD...we all want good medical technology, but I don't want someone else's mutated DNA being injected into me, especially without informed consent, unless I was unsconsious and had to receive an emergency blood transfusion...and if I did, I don't want it to come from cloned aborted baby cells; that violates my conscience.

I'm done, I'm checking out of this debate...I say it and provide the info over and over and you and others still come back with left-wing talking points that a cell line isn't actually a cell. Your lung cells are not the same exact ones as you were born with either...cells divide...these are clones but are cells from a specific aborted fetus none the less...there is not way to sugar coat it. These are from real people who were never born and their genes are injected into you if you receive one of the vax that lists their cells as an ingredient.


I've done all I care to do...make a casserole out of it if you want too and try and convince the world it isn't wrong...I'll still say it is cannibalism, even if the cells were cloned from the originals. Your own body is cloned from your original cells...nobody is made of the SAME cells as when they were in the womb.

The FDA states vaccines using human cells means that DNA is in the vaccines, as expected and similar to the measles scandal mentioned above, you are correct that J&J shot ingredients do not list the cells as an ingredient. Many other vaccines have been found to be "contaminated" with various other viruses and genetic materials (rotavirus vax to name one), which speaks to the point they can't remove or know all the genetic material present in every batch. BUT, I will concede to you that despite the aborted cell line DNA being in the shot as a matter of impossibility to remove it all, it is not listed as an ingredient (which should not be a surprise to anyone).

I don't like it either...now let's have a truce. Either way, I'm done beating this horse. You and others can search until you find whatever it is you are seeking; hopefully the truth.

Can’t really take any modern medicine if you won’t take a COVID vax due to fetal cells..

I already pointed that out ad naseum in other posts...and even in this thread I did, and warned people that argument will be used by some employers. But using the cells in original testing is not the same thing as being in the finished product. Tylenol doesn't actually contain aborted fetal cells or DNA like the MMR, chickenpox, Hep-B, and J&J shots do. Your argument is apples & oranges.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom