Equal Employment Opportunity is a Facade

Employment policies that require submission to accepting a dangerous injectable as a condition of employment haven't disappeared. They won't, until court cases award damages to the injured

Here’s an email I’m about to send today. Please adapt this to your own situations.

Obviously, my daughter will be excluded from potential employment at T-Mobile’s new local call center, given that “being conscientiously well-informed” is not a qualifying characteristic for “equal employment opportunity” these days.

Blind compliance, however, is. The modern “wokeocracy” is toxic.

---

Dear T-Mobile,

Yesterday, my daughter and I dropped by the T-Mobile job fair booth in the Kingsburg Park by the High School. We were greeted by a small team of enthusiastic young people, and one young lady staffing the booth went into her pitch. We learned about the number and types of jobs that the new facility, recently constructed in our small rural town, will bring; we heard all about the wonderful amenities and supportive and positive work environment for 1,000 new workers.

Gyms, cafeterias, basketball hoops, green screens and video-editing machines for young people doing their YouTube and TikTok thing on break, etc.

Sounded enticing. Heck, even I would want to work there! I’ve always wanted a green screen room. What a welcome addition to the town!

The young lady made a point of emphasizing all of the "inclusivity" features of the new facility, making a special point to tell us that there are even rooms in the new building that support religious worship on breaks; although curiously, the only example she provided to us was Islam.

That paused me for a brief moment, and one eyebrow twitched imperceptibly upward. I found that a kind of an interesting example, given that Kingsburg has more churches per square mile than most small towns in the US, and the majority of those are Christian...but I digress.

I support allowing workers freedom to exercise their religious practices at work, whatever their faiths. Our Constitution is founded on such principles. This is a good thing—so I overlooked the oddity of the particular talking point example that she had been given by her management.

Overall, the job openings and work environment sounded like a wonderful opportunity for my daughter. Until ... the young lady who was explaining it all got to the end.

"To qualify, though, you have to have the COVID shots. That doesn't mean agreeing to get them after being hired”, she dutifully explained. “You have to have proof of having had them before even going into the facility.”

She paused, seeing my brow furrow. “For liability reasons, you know."

That's when the wheels fell off, and the "inclusivity" facade came tumbling down.

I gently pointed out to the young lady that given all that we now know about the injections and the concomitant injuries and breakthrough viral infections that are occurring worldwide—as a direct, irrefutable, and provable result of the shots—the liability argument is actually now the other way around.

Requiring shots…is the actual liability.

I just recently connected a case in Italy involving 2,000 people—elites who paid someone to falsify their shot records to avoid injury—to a similar data trend that was found back in February in the U.S. The evidence was discovered by one of the most brilliant minds in the data analytics space today. People — likely, the elite— did that here in the U.S., too. Who in Italy would risk $20,000 dollars and jail time to avoid a shot? Smart people, evidently. But people who are now treated as criminals.

I didn’t get into this with the young lady at the booth. She was a young and naive staffer, and I didn’t press the point other than forcing her into an awkward pause while she thought about what I just said about liability being flipped the other way.

If only she knew the background of the person she was talking to. I once built supercomputers that helped to sequence the Human Genome in 1999. But in that moment, I’m just a nobody trying to help his daughter find out about a local job.

I say all of this to you now in this email, hoping that it will find its way to the very top of T-Mobile’s organization. It’s actually a duty of whomever receives this to see that it does; upper management needs to see this message and reflect deeply about what it means for a small-town nobody in rural Kingsburg to have to write this in the first place.

I say all of this to you now, having had a vaccine-injured person in my own family—my father, a stroke victim—and also count among my small circle of acquaintances two co-workers who have had strokes or who have died as a consequence of the shots.

I say this also as someone who is connected to some of the brightest minds in the world—physicians, immunologists, computational biologists, mathematicians, data-scientists and researchers—who have been focused on the subject of the pandemic and the follow-on effects of the masking, lockdowns and injectables policies.

No, not the official narrative-repeating “experts”. The dissident ones.

The ones who know the actual facts; the ones whose careers are either in jeopardy for speaking out, or ones whose careers are thankfully detached from the pressure to bury the truth.

Truth tends to be spoken by those at risk—not by those whose careers are protected by carefully avoiding speaking it. By those employing Nelsonian Knowledge.

Globally, the array of misguided COVID intervention policies have clearly, unambiguously, and egregiously failed on all fronts: in terms of health outcomes, mental health effects, increased all cause-mortality and cancer diagnoses, and economic damage among the many negatively affected factors.

I write this having just read a recently published example that came from Thailand, which showed that all attempts at intervention—in a place that had 95% or higher mask compliance and very high injectable compliance—had absolutely zero effect on stopping a massive outbreak, and arguably made it much worse than it might otherwise have been, had natural immunity instead been allowed to function.

The science is clear: interventionist policies not only failed, not only failed egregiously—but they also made outcomes worse. The likelihood of infection from the most recent “variants” correlates positively with the number of courses of injectables coercively applied to an un-informed public. Injectables-efficacy is negative. You read that right.

This should not be happening. Ever. But it is, and the data is undeniable now.

It’s worth saying again; the liability risk is actually now against those business and governments who encourage—much less mandate—taking any sort of an injection as a requirement or condition for employment. Where does this sort of thinking end, by the way? Taking a stance like that gives a corporation control over my life outside of work; am I therefore to be paid 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, since I’m required to arrange my life outside of the office to suit the demands of my employer while at work?

I asked the young booth worker whether there was a program for conscientious or religious exemption to the injectables policy, as there ought to be—there is such, at my daughter’s University—and I was met with a blank stare and stutter. Apparently, people don’t ask her that question often, or her talking points don’t have a readily supplied answer.

I'm not your ordinary parent when it comes to this topic; in fact, so well-versed am I in the subject that I would be happy to conduct a seminar for the upper management of T-Mobile, to expose them to the vast array of recent analytic data and new scientific understanding that serves to counteract the mis- and dis-information that currently takes the place of actual knowledge which dribbles forth from “official narrative” sources.

For example, the data out of the NHS in England, just last week, puts to rest any question there may have been about the safety and efficacy of the injectables programs. Negative efficacy in many age groups is an alarming result that cannot be swept under the rug anymore.

Ironically, a company like T-Mobile that is trying to portray itself as an "equal opportunity" employer has a policy that specifically excludes bright, hardworking, and conscientious young people who have carefully studied and reviewed the growing body of scientific evidence of damage and inverted risk/reward from the injectables, and conscientiously decided that their health decisions are best left to themselves.

They are thus being excluded from an employment opportunity on the basis of IQ. Interesting.

These types of conscientious, thoughtful and bright minds are actually the kind you would want to hire, as many as you could lay hands on; and yet your policies specifically exclude them. These young people should be applauded and embraced for their intelligence, courage and knowledge; but instead, they are shunned and told "you can't work here. Only people who submit to our corporate-directed ideas of bodily autonomy and health practices may apply."

Equal Employment Opportunity, indeed. Certain people must sit at the back of the bus (or be denied a seat at all) and those with the wrong “characteristics” may not sit at the lunch counter with the rest of the “anointed.” Sounds familiar…

It is distressing that T-Mobile still has such policies, given the growing evidence of harm, particularly among the young, who are seeing a statistically aberrant rise in cardiological emergencies--for example, a 25% increase in cardiovascular emergency calls in the young-adult population. This from a paper just published in Nature from Israeli researchers. A reputable publication, easily available to find.

If I were T-Mobile, I would want to be very aware of this new data and would be reviewing my policies daily in this current environment to ensure the (actual) safety of my workforce.

So, to sum up: there is now a growing legal liability on the part of those who push injectables requirements (have you noticed that I don’t use a particular word here, starting with the letter “V”? There is good reason for this, insofar as the pandemic-inspired injectables are concerned.)

It is a growing liability that will spill into criminal liability in the not-too-distant future. It really is that serious, given the undeniable and expanding body of evidence of directly attributable harm stemming from an injectable for which there never was “informed consent”. One which was administered by coercion during what amounted to the most massive drug testing trial in the sordid history of the profitable pharmaceutical industry. Firms whose coffers swelled mightily by the billions last year, as they profited from the un-informed consent of the masses.

Now, I know the young lady we were talking to was doing her best— just trying to staff a jobs-opening booth in a small-town park, and doing her best to explain the positive benefits of working for T-Mobile in its new facility.

I applaud her efforts. She almost got me interested in going to work there! I'm sure she's naively unaware of the reality of the shots and is simply parroting what she's given to talk about by her managers.

But here's the thing: if she's repeating these talking points, it is evidence that they are originating from the upper management at T-Mobile, and this is worrisome.

I'm hoping that this email will result in us hearing back that there is now a conscientious/religious exemption program for those wishing to work at T-Mobile —for those few who are aware of the actual risks of the shots. Otherwise, any ideas you may have about 'inclusivity' and equal employment opportunity are clearly a false projection.

—A concerned citizen of rural America, and a parent of prospective applicant to T-Mobile

P.S. Don’t worry. I know she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of working there now. But someone has to have the courage to speak up.