Dr. Simone Gold Explains Their Preliminary Injunction Against Kaiser Permanente


 

Press release regarding the lawsuit:

Attorney John Howard, along with Attorney George Wentz of the Davillier Law Group, with the support of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a Preliminary Injunction (PI) to prevent Kaiser Permanente from implementing its mandatory vaccine mandate for all employees. The filing follows on the heels of the October 7, 2021 Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The PI argues that the mandate is not supportable on a number of legal and medically factual grounds. To make the case, world-class experts attested to the scientific facts that the vaccines are not remotely a public health measure. They are a personal treatment option only, and as such the Court must enjoin the mandate. The science is overwhelming that inoculations are a personal choice only. In addition, Kaiser Permanente heavily coordinated with the Federal and State governments in order to illegally create a condition of industrywide unemployability.

AFLDS has been leading the charge with science-based arguments. Per the CDC, the Delta strain is the only strain of COVID-19 spreading in the United States, and also per the CDC and all experts, the shots do not stop the spread of the Delta variant. Those who are vaccinated acquire and transmit the virus easily to both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This is happening even in health care settings, such as in Kaiser medical facilities, as vaccinated healthcare workers are spreading the virus to both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff and patients.

Adding to the reasons for the Complaint and the PI, persons who have recovered from COVID-19 have the most long-lasting, most complete immunity possible, with strong evidence that this will be lifelong immunity. And persons who are COVID-19 recovered gain zero benefits from the shots, while they are at increased risk compared to the unvaccinated from adverse reactions to the shots.

While being vaccinated may provide a personal benefit of reduced illness severity to some (the evidence is mixed), under no circumstances does it stop infection or transmission. In fact, the opposite is true. A very large study from the Harvard School of Public Health found: “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.”

Perhaps most telling and concerning, those who are vaccinated are putting the unvaccinated at risk, perhaps because the vaccinated are now carrying a significantly higher viral load – 251x-1000x higher than during last year’s outbreak.

Drawing on these facts, likely to be disputed by Kaiser, and potentially laying the groundwork for the need for a trial, the legal arguments of the lawsuit allege that the COVID-19 mandate violates numerous provisions of both the U.S. Constitution and the California State Constitution. Further, the Complaint and PI assert that the mandates violate substantive due process and equal protection along with violations of citizens’ constitutionally protected right to decline unwanted medical treatments.

George Wentz, JD, lead litigator said: “Although there are certain circumstances under which public health policy supports mandating vaccines, those circumstances are not present here. And the law is crystal clear that it is absolutely illegal to mandate an employee’s personal medical treatments. No scientist can credibly argue that the vaccines stop transmission, infection, or reinfection. In fact, the science shows the opposite is true and even the CDC has stated that the injections only treat symptoms, making an infection less severe. The injections are therefore medical treatments, not a public health measure. We have brought this case to prevent employers from illegally mandating medical treatment choices for their workers. We are defending the plaintiffs’ right to decide for themselves what medical treatments they choose. Our plaintiffs are humans, not livestock. We are defending their fundamental human right of self-determination.”

The Complaint has not yet been heard on the merits, with November 7, 2021 as the deadline for Kaiser Permanente to file their response to the suit. The PI is seeking immediate protection for all of the Kaiser employees who have not complied with the vaccine mandate due to a myriad of valid concerns. These employees have been placed on unpaid leave as of September 30, 2021, and are facing termination as of December 1, 2021. The placement into an unpaid leave status means that these employees are already incurring harm from Kaiser’s actions, and it is these immediate and ongoing harms that the PI seeks to stop.

AFLDS expects a positive ruling to enforce the PI as a necessary measure to prevent further harm to vital health care workers. If the PI is denied for any reason, however, the initial Complaint filed to protect the medical freedom and fundamental constitutional rights of Kaiser Permanente employees, and to hold Kaiser Permanente accountable for their coercive actions, where COVID-19 vaccine policies are concerned, will continue its way through the court process, to be fully considered on the merits and given a complete ruling.

Dr. Richard Amerling, Associate Medical Director with AFLDS said, “It’s time we stop health care companies and employers who misuse and abuse their power on the basis of bad science. This lawsuit answers all the scientific questions necessary to oppose a mandate: the shots do not prevent viral transmission. Therefore, taking the shot is personal treatment choice only.”

The petition for a Preliminary Injunction with a very large slate of experts, makes clear that the science and the law are both on the side of people making their own personal medical treatment choices and the proper application of public health measures.