Featured Image
Samantha WiseKARK-TV / Screenshot

CONWAY, Arkansas, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — An Arkansas mother of five, who says she frequently suffers adverse effects from some medications, was fired from her job at a drug dispensary after refusing to take the experimental jab against COVID-19.

Samantha Wise was employed by Harvest Cannabis Dispensary in Conway, Arkansas. State law only allows the prescription of medical marijuana, recreational use is yet prohibited. The company terminated her contract on March 3 on the grounds that she was uncomfortable receiving any of the COVID vaccines.

Currently, three COVID jabs are available exclusively under “emergency use authorization” (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a designation which renders the vaccines experimental. Johnson and Johnson had their one-shot vaccine put on temporary hold after evidence came to light showing the drug to cause dangerous blood clots. The ban has since been lifted, though data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) highlights blood clot dangers, and many other ailments beside, associated with all three COVID vaccine options.

Following her termination, a stunned Wise told KARK-TV that “[t]hey actually did it — they really fired me — I didn’t think it was really going to happen,” before explaining her history of bad reactions to a number of medicines. “I am always that one out of every 10 or so that has a bad reaction. I am that one — so I would just rather not” be injected with the experimental COVID serums.

Harvest executive director Robbin Rahman said the company had enacted a policy whereby “[a]ll employees, managers and owners must receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of continued employment.” They do, however, provide a caveat “for any employee that has provided notice of a medical or religious basis for not receiving the vaccine,” claiming to “accommodate” employees in this category “to the extent possible.”

Alongside a vaccination requirement, Harvest also has a strict regimen of mask mandates and physical distancing for both employees and customers “at all times while inside any part of the facility.”

Despite Wise’s concerning medical history, giving rise to her legitimate concerns over taking the vaccine, Harvest maintained a resolute position.

The drug dispenser doubled down on its decision in a statement provided to KARK, downplaying the importance of Wise’s refusal to vaccinate: “[T]he former employee that is the subject of KARK’s story was terminated based on a number of factors and no single factor was determinative, including whether he or she did or did not get a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“With respect to the COVID-19 vaccine,” Rahman continued, “Harvest takes very seriously its obligation to maintain a safe environment for its patients [recipients of medical marijuana] and also its employees. This obligation has never been more relevant than over the past year, during which every city — big and small — has been in the grips of a deadly pandemic.”

“Harvest is a medical facility and many of its patients suffer from serious medical conditions and are considered ‘high risk,’” Rahman added.

Wise, now out of work, expressed her wish that other employers “would let people make decisions for themselves instead of making the decision for them.”

Whether or not employers can legally require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 remains a contentious topic.

The FDA states that as products authorized only for emergency use, each vaccine is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and the agency requires that all “promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”

Federal law states that “to protect public health,” all manufacturers of products authorized for emergency use are required to provide “[a]ppropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Accordingly, some make the case that while the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are under investigation by the FDA, pending licensing, it may not be licit to be required to take the jab.

The FDA, in a 2017 document on guidance related to EUAs, stated that recipients of EUA products “have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and of any consequences of refusing administration of the product,” admitting that the president of the United States may waive this regulation for members of the armed forces “under certain circumstances.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in August also stated that COVID-19 vaccines “are not allowed to be mandatory.”

Furthermore, the Nuremberg Code of 1947, regarding medical experimentation, states that the “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” On account of this, attorney Anna Garner, who is currently representing corrections officer Isaac Legaretta in the country’s first legal challenge against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, said that “experimenting on humans” with COVID jabs is “a crime against humanity.”