Dear Colleagues,
As our Chief Medical Officer, Antonio Tataranni, recently announced, we are making progress in vaccinating the U.S. population against COVID-19. However, with the rise of the much more contagious Delta variant, it is now more critical than ever for all Americans to get the vaccine. To encourage as many of you as possible to get vaccinated, we will be running a sweepstakes and giving you a few chances to win $5,000.
Here’s what you need to know:
To be entered, you must get the COVID-19 vaccine and enter your vaccination status in the vaccine tracker*. Note you must be fully vaccinated, which means you have received two shots of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine or one shot of the J&J vaccine. Once you complete these steps, your name will be automatically entered into the drawing—there’s no other action needed. If you are already fully vaccinated and have entered your status in the vaccine tracker, you are all set.
There will be four separate drawings to give you time to make appointments and receive final shots.
Drawing dates are August 16, August 30, September 15 and September 30. We will randomly select three names per drawing for a total of 12 winners. You must have your vaccination status entered into the tracker by 11:59pm Eastern the day before the drawing to be eligible.
If your name is selected, you will be required to provide proof of your vaccinated status before receiving the $5,000.
The $5,000 will be paid through payroll and will be subject to appropriate taxes and withholdings. This amount will not be bonus-eligible or considered pensionable earnings.
Executives in Leadership Group 4 and above are not eligible to participate in the sweepstakes.
No matter where you are in the U.S., it’s never been easier to book a vaccine appointment. Simply visit our Castlight Vaccine Finder if you need help finding a vaccination site or want to learn more. If you still have questions on the vaccine, mask wearing at our sites, or anything else related to COVID-19, be sure to visit our COVID-19 Hub.
Please continue to take care of yourselves and thank you for all you do to keep each other safe.
Sergio Ezama Chief Talent Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer, Global Functions and Groups
Andrea Ferrara Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, PBNA
Patrick McLaughlin Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, PFNA
- For those who are unable to be vaccinated due to religious or medical reasons, please speak with your HR representative for more information about how you may participate.
Here’s your answer with how my company plans on figuring out our vaccination status. Ridiculous if you ask me.
“Professional Staff,
Following up on the corporate announcement below regarding the mask policy, we want to provide additional information on how [we] will approach this. While this may be viewed by many as an encouraging step forward, we still need to maintain the right focus and diligence to ensure we keep our employees and our workplace safe.
Consistent with the approach of [our] employees working on site who would like to be exempt from wearing a mask at work will be required to show their vaccination card to verify they are fully vaccinated. “Fully vaccinated” means the individual has received the final dose of a COVID vaccine and an additional 14 days have passed. At this time, the decision to be vaccinated is a personal one that you should make in consultation with your medical provider as needed. Sharing your vaccination status with the Company is also a voluntary decision. When sharing your vaccination status, the Company will not request any medical information from you – simply documentation that you are fully vaccinated. Employees who have not been fully vaccinated or who elect not to share their status with the Company will continue the current protocol of wearing a mask on site. Visitors and contractors will also be required to continue wearing a mask unless they show their vaccination card.
As of Monday, May 24, if you will be on site and you wish to be exempt from wearing a mask, you must bring your vaccination card (not a copy or a photo) and get visual confirmation by _______ Until you get confirmed approval from one of these individuals, you must continue to wear a mask while on site. Failure to do so will be considered a violation of PPE policy, as it is today. The Company will not keep a copy of your vaccination card. [Our company] reserves the right to go back to requiring masks if, for example, there is a significant change in the external environment with the virus. All other COVID protocols remain the same.
We will communicate more to you in the coming days, and we will communicate with our frontline teams this Friday. You are encouraged to speak to your manager, HR, or EHS with any questions or concerns. Thank you.”
Thanks HR.
Previously I posted an email showing that our corporate team wants all the employees to take a confidential, anonymous, and optional survey regarding vaccination status. I voted no in all emails because I refuse to be silent.
Today, I received an email from Corporate indicating the lifting of masks in the workplace for the Experimental Gene Therapy drug users while continuing to mandate masks for the uninitiated. My questions are how would they officially know someone is ‘unvaccinated’ and how are they “updating their systems to capture vaccination data in real time”?
“Dear Colleagues,
As you may know, the CDC announced new guidance saying people fully vaccinated for COVID-19 no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance indoors, except where required by federal, state or local laws or regulations, including local business and workplace guidance. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which guides our workplace policies in the U.S., has also indicated that it will endorse the CDC’s recommendation. Fully vaccinated means it has been 14 days since your last dose.
Starting Monday, May 24, _____ associates who have been fully vaccinated can now work in our plants, vehicles, facilities, and offices that have opened without wearing a face covering (unless a face covering is required for certain job purposes) as permitted by applicable law. We are now updating our systems to capture vaccination data in real time – enabling our fully vaccinated associates to work without a mask.
Please keep the following in mind:
While the CDC and OSHA provide guidance, we will still need to follow state and local regulations for mask-wearing in our facilities, vehicles, and offices.
Partially and unvaccinated associates must continue to wear masks at this time, per the latest CDC guidance.
Social distancing guidelines will be maintained for partially and unvaccinated associates, except where state and local regulations state differently.
Some key customers have relaxed mask policies as a result of the CDC guidance. If you are fully vaccinated, you will not need to wear a mask in customer locations where these new policies are in place.
Where customers continue to request their associates wear a face covering, you should follow suit.
We trust all associates to respect our _____ behavior when determining whether you can work without a face covering. If you are not vaccinated and not wearing a mask, you will be violating our Code of Conduct and putting yourself and others at risk.
If you are able to get vaccinated, make a plan to do so if you have not already. Use the ______ Vaccine Hub to find out about vaccination, including the ____ series where leading medical experts answer your vaccination questions. Use the ____ vaccine finder to see where you can get a vaccine.
We all have a role to play in helping the country reach its vaccination targets. We continue to encourage everyone to get vaccinated and hope this latest announcement is another great reason to do so.
Thank you for all you are doing to protect each other and our company, and please continue to take care of yourselves”
Come May 24th, I will still wear a mask which will indicate that I’m ‘unvaccinated’. Hopefully, that will stir more conversation but may also be controversial but I couldn’t care less. I already have a memo prepared incase I get heat about being ‘unvaccinated’ to send out. What are your thoughts? Am I approaching this the right way? I can’t just sit idly not saying anything.
Taken from an email by my HR Manager today:
“Team,
We are excited to say that we are exploring the possibility of partnering with the Army National Guard to offer COVID vaccinations on site. If there is sufficient interest and we’re able to move forward, we would schedule one day where ____ employees and their family members could come to the site and receive a vaccination. At this point, indications are that the Army National Guard would have all three brands of the vaccine available. We also anticipate that the Army National Guard will have 2nd doses available for individuals who have already received a 1st dose elsewhere.
Please take a moment to use the voting buttons to indicate if you and/or your family members would likely be interested. Please respond by close of business on Monday, May 17. We will also be speaking with the ____ frontline and ____ distribution center this week to gauge their interest.
Again, at this point we don’t know for sure if this will happen, but we are hopeful, and it will be important to gauge interest level. So your response with the voting buttons would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Human Resources Manager”
Nice try HR. No corporate jab for me.
This is part 3 of exposing the vaccine efficacy lie that is being perpetuated by Big Pharma companies. In my previous two posts, I showed how Pfizer’s and Moderna claimed ~95% vaccine efficacy is a lie and explained how their actual absolute risk reduction is approximately 1.00%. This time, I’ll explain how J&J also manipulates data to convince you that their vaccine is safe using the same methodology. Link is below:
https://www.fda.gov/media/146338/download
On page 25 of the attached FDA briefing document on the J&J COVID-19 Vaccine on Feb. 4th 2021, you will find a a table titled “Table 10. Vaccine Efficacy Against Centrally Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 With Onset at Least 14 and at Least 28 Days After Vaccination, Per-Protocol Set, Study 3001”
In this table, you will see a vaccinated and control group that consisted of 19,514 participants and 19,554 participants, respectively.
Out of all the participants in this part of the study only 116 people in the vaccinated group and 348 people in the control group were considered to have symptomatic COVID-19 cases onset at least 14 days. Here’s how you get absolute risk reduction from their data:
348/19,554 cases in the control group comes out to be 1.779%. This is the percentage people in the control who caught symptomatic Covid-19.
116/19,514 cases in the vaccinated group equals 0.0594%. Similarly, this is the percentage of people in the vaccinated group who caught symptomatic Covid-19.
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the percentage of cases in both the control and the vaccinated group. In other words, this is the reduction of your chances of catching Covid-19 from becoming vaccinated. That risk reduction number being 1.779%-0.0594%=1.7196
This is the scientifically, biologically and mathematically meaningful efficacy rate. In other words, J&J’s vaccine actually has a little greater than a 1% chance of efficacy of protecting you against COVID-19.
So how are we told their vaccine is 66% effective?
You take the 116 cases in the vaccinated group and the 348 cases in the control group and subtract them. Now the difference between the control and vaccinated group comes out to be 348-116=232 cases. J&J’s relative risk reduction is the difference of cases from the control and vaccinated group over the total number of cases in only the control group.
So 232/348=66.6%. Take into confidence interval and you’ll end up with 66.9% like their paper claims.
Where’d the total number of participants of ~19,000 in each group go within their methodologies? Answer: They are being ignored to mislead people. Any statistician worth their salts will never ignore sample size like how the big pharma companies are ignoring them.
Relative risk reduction is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t take into account the entire sample size in both the control and vaccinated groups. And besides, no one would take a vaccine with a 1% efficacy rate so they lie to us saying something mathematically accurate (232/348 is indeed approx. 66%) but medically meaningless. Read their papers critically because their methodologies are missing. Here we are then left to figure out how they are calculating efficacy on our own when they should give us methodologies in the first place.
Who would’ve thought digital health passes were coming to a city near you? You did. Because you can critically think.
“The IBM Digital Health Pass is built on IBM Blockchain and is described as a way for "organizations to verify health credentials for employees, customers, and visitors entering their site based on criteria specified by the organization."”
How great that a digital health pass based on blockchain technology is being developed just as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC’s) are being developed. How convenient would it be to have your finances and your health information secure on the blockchain? How about tied together? How about incorporating a social credit score on top of that? As you can see, we are doing the totalitarian tip toe into a form of digital slavery. Similar to what’s been happening in China. No more entering a location without disclosing health information. No more quasi-anonymous purchases with cash. As you can see, we probably won’t get forced to do incorporate these things directly into our lifestyle but a pseudo-forcing indirectly. We won’t be able to do the things before Covid without certain criteria met. Don’t be compliant like the people around us. Be the change you want to see in the world.
This is part 2 of exposing the vaccine efficacy lie that is being perpetuated by Big Pharma companies. In my previous post, I showed how Pfizer’s claim 95% vaccine efficacy is a lie and explained how their actual absolute risk reduction is approximately 0.84%. This time, I’ll explain how Moderna also manipulates data to convince you that their vaccine is safe using the same methodology. Link is below:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
In Moderna’s research summary titled “Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine “ on Dec. 30th 2020, you will find a a table indicating the number of cases of symptomatic and severe COVID cases in both the vaccinated and placebo group.
In this table, you will see that the vaccinated and control group consisted of 14,550 participants and 14,598 participants, respectively.
Out of all the participants in this part of the study only 11 people in the vaccinated group and 185 people in the control group were considered to have symptomatic COVID-19 cases. Here’s how you get absolute risk reduction from their data:
185/14,598 cases in the control group comes out to be 1.267%. 11/14,550 cases in the vaccinated group equals 0.0756%.
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the percentage of cases in both the control and the vaccinated group. That number being 1.267%-0.0756%=1.191%
This is the scientifically, biologically and mathematically meaningful efficacy rate. In other words, Moderna’s vaccine actually has a little greater than a 1% chance of efficacy of protecting you against COVID-19.
So how are we told their vaccine is 94% effective?
You take the 11 cases in the vaccinated group and the 185 cases in the control group and add them together. Now you have a total of 196 cases with 185 being from the control group. Relative risk reduction is the number of cases from the control over the total number of cases in both groups.
So 185/196≈94.4%.
Relative risk reduction is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t take into account the entire sample size in both the control and vaccinated groups. And besides, no one would take a vaccine with a 1% efficacy rate so they lie to us saying something mathematically accurate (185/196 is indeed approx. 94%) but medically meaningless.
The conspiracy is that companies such as Pfizer and BioNTech manipulate data to convince you that their products are safe. Below is how you get approximately 95% efficacy from their data.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
On page 24 of the attached FDA briefing document on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on Dec. 10th 2020, you will find a a table titled “Table 6. Final Analysis of Efficacy of BNT162b2 Against Confirmed COVID-19 From 7 Days After Dose 2 in Participants Without Evidence of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Evaluable Efficacy Population”
In this table, you will see that the vaccinated and control group consisted of 18198 participants and 18325 participants, respectively.
Out of all the participants in this part of the study only 8/18,198 people in the vaccinated group and 162/18,325 people in the control group were considered COVID-19 cases.
162/18,325 cases in the control group comes out to be 0.884%. 8/18,198 cases in the vaccinated group equals 0.044%.
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the control and the vaccinated group. That number being 0.884%-0.044%=0.84%. This is the scientifically, biologically and mathematically meaningful efficacy rate. In other words, this vaccine actually has less than a 1% chance of efficacy of protecting you against COVID-19.
So how are we told the vaccines are 95% effective?
You take the 8 cases in the vaccinated group and the 162 cases in the control group and add them together. Now you have a total of 170 cases with 162 being from the control group and thus 162/170≈95.3%. Now do this for every other row where they show you an efficacy rate and you will find that they calculate relative risk reduction which gives the impression the vaccine is much more effective than it actually is.
Relative risk reduction is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t take into account the entire sample size in both the control and vaccinated groups. And besides, no one would take a vaccine with less than 1% efficacy rate so they lie to us saying something mathematically accurate (162/170 is indeed approx. 95%) but medically meaningless.
Now how do they measure the percentage of adverse events starting on page 33? They take the total amount of adverse events and divide that by the number of participants. Interesting how they correctly show us the amount of adverse reactions while twisting the data for the actual efficacy rate.