Recently Delta Airlines in the US announced they were making vaccines mandatory for new employees.
So, I thought it timely to put a very broad template letter together which might be handy for existing staff reluctant to try what is an experimental ‘vaccine’.
I’ve had issues with a previous employer and being pressured over workplace stress issues and it’s not pleasant. But a similar style template worked well for me, having all the facts set out in writing and when presented with it, my employer completely backed off.
Much of what I wrote in my template corrected inaccurate perceptions of the issues by my employer and suggested alternatives to their rather short-sighted approach. But I find it’s important to always maintain a constructive, polite but firm dialogue.
This is more from a pre-legal, early- stage perspective, to be prepared if your employer goes down the line of coercion and possible mandating.
The current position, at least in the UK, is that the law has not really been tested on Covid ‘vaccines’ but some law firms have commented on the likely factors which would be considered in a more formal employment hearing or legal setting. Here are a couple of links to articles by law firms with their views.
In the UK some of the considerations will likely be discrimination and disability laws, religion or beliefs, but it seems an anti-vaccination belief would unlikely fall under this. However, a strong case might be made for constructive dismissal in certain circumstances, if the employer has not followed the correct processes.
Some of this guidance states that if the vaccination has not been mandated for all citizens by the government, as is the case so far, then mandating could be problematic for the employer. The employer would also be compelled to consider valid objections to the vaccination, carry out an assessment and act proportionately before going down the path of dismissal.
In addition, the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ may well offer up interesting legal opportunities.
Coercing employees might go against the spirit of ‘Informed Consent’ and possibly the Nuremberg Code.
But at this stage, I think this is the way I would approach an employer if they started early-stage coercion towards taking the ‘vaccine’ against my wishes. If you are a member of a workplace union or there is an employee advice network, you can consult before submitting something along these lines, which might be helpful.
However, in my situation I didn’t find unions or advice networks helpful or knowledgeable on something as common as workplace stress. So, I suspect with the overall fear-driven closed minds to the real Covid facts and the science, you may run up against a similar mentality. But this is the way I might go about it, which can be changed about according to the individual circumstances and jurisdiction.
Further to our discussion about encouraging me to take the Covid-19 vaccine, I wish to inform you I’m not presently planning to take this vaccination and reserve my position on my future decision. But I would like to draw your attention to the following information, questions and reassurances I seek in the event I subsequently decide to go ahead.
Firstly, I would just like to refer you to this scientific paper which was an analysis of risk versus benefit of taking the vaccine. There are many other papers in circulation which you can review. As you can see, the paper concludes that the vaccine is unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe. (NB – it’s probably best to try to link to the original paper when it appears on their site so as not to draw attention to the fact the paper was censored on some social media!)
I draw your attention to some of the main points which are further elaborated upon underneath these”.
COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy And Safety
Doctors for Covid Ethics
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.
In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
- Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
- Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
- Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
“Having read this and many other publications, my view is that the overall risks, ineffectiveness, and necessity concerns are larger than any negligible benefits, which I don’t feel would apply to my low-risk age-group in any event.
At best, at this stage we simply do not know if the vaccine is safe, especially when considering the widespread side-affects presented to date so far, and when coupled with having no knowledge of medium to long-term side-affects.
So, I would be grateful for your comments and specifically to the following questions I have if I am to consider your advice to take the vaccine.
- Please comment on the above points made in the paper and if you have evidence to refute any of these, I would be grateful if you could provide this. This will enable me to review my position if appropriate.
- If you think my position is unreasonable in terms of risk to other employees, please also provide the evidence which suggests getting vaccinated, with the above points in mind, is a proportionate exercise.
- If your position is inclined towards mandatory vaccination, please let me know what reassurances you can provide that it is safe and I will be fully compensated for losses arising from injury and related to employment.
- It seems you may have based your decision to advise me to take the vaccination on the premise that the UK Government’s scientific advice and information on the vaccine is correct. Perhaps in usual circumstances this default position might not be unreasonable for an employer to take. However, considering the government’s narrative being proven wrong on so many aspects of the Covid Pandemic so far, would it be prudent to seek independent adjudication on how best to proceed?
As the paper above completely contradicts the official position and various legal actions are ongoing throughout the world, over many aspects of the handling of the Pandemic, I think this would be a reasonable way forward and would protect both parties from unnecessary harm and liability. I hope you find this information helpful and constructive, perhaps helping us all to navigate through this difficult period together”.
The benefit of this kind of approach as I found in my experience was that it’s a good way to set out and document the facts, have them handy when needed and perhaps above all, puts the onus firmly back on your employer if and when these conversations happen.
In my experience, employers often back off when they are presented with strong evidence which is onerous and costly to refute.
Also, making constructive suggestions in the interests of fairness and addressing the concerns of both parties shows goodwill and reasonable behavior.
Of course, the above questions and suggestions can be changed, added to according to your circumstances or any other ideas you may have. This is just a suggested framework to work with.
Finally, it may be a good idea to print off other studies and papers to head off any attempts by the employer to deflect to generic, unscientific official health guidance.