Dear [name],

I am in receipt of a letter from you, titled "New [employer name] Vaccination Policy", dated [date].

This letter states that it is the new "policy" of the [employer name] Group to require compulsory COVID-19 vaccinations for all workers

I am writing to you today because I do not wish to receive any COVID-19 vaccination, and I want to ensure the [employer name] Group is adequately informed on its legal obligations towards me regarding my legal right to decline this vaccination and not face any penalties, such as terminated employment, as a result.

Multiple medical ethics laws and international human rights' treaties make it abundantly clear that all medical processes must have the voluntary, informed consent of the human subject, and this consent must be offered freely and in the absence of any coercion. Clearly, predicating continued employment on vaccination status is acutely coercive, and, therefore, cannot be legally enforced, as is enshrined in law by UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which states at Article 6, section 1:

"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice." (1)

Underscoring my rights to decline vaccinations I do not wish to receive is the fact there is no clause in my contract stating that I must submit to medical processes in order to retain my employment. Therefore, this cannot legally be introduced as a clause of employment now.  Clearly, it would represent a gravely dangerous situation, both legally and ethically, were employers able to alter employee contracts at will to compel employees to receive certain medical processes as a condition of continuing their employment. An employer could use such a clause to compel employees to take medications against their will, to have medical devices implanted into their bodies, or even to be sterilised.

History dictates that none of this is beyond the realms of possibility, once involuntary medicalisation becomes socially accepted, and, in fact, it was precisely the existence of compelled, non-consensual medicine, and the inevitable atrocities this leads to, that led to the production of the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code, as you may be aware, was developed as a result of the Nuremberg trials, where Nazi war criminals, primarily doctors who conducted inhumane and unethical human medical experiments, were held accountable for their crimes.

The Nuremberg trials concluded in the development of the Nuremberg Code, which focused specifically on preventing unethical medical experimentation on human beings. The Nuremberg Code states:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion." (2)

Clearly, and as I have detailed earlier in this correspondence, preconditioning my continued employment on receipt of a vaccine is deeply coercive, and, therefore, it is in breach of the Nuremberg Code, which has been strictly observed all across the civilised world since the horrors of World War II were exposed and their perpetrators brought to justice.

It is critical for the [employer name] Group to recognise that the COVID-19 vaccines do constitute human medical experimentation, since the vaccines are still in clinical trials, which will not be complete until 2023 (3). This is why the injections are licensed for emergency purposes only, and do not have a general approval for use (4). As such, anybody who elects to receive a COVID-19 vaccination is partaking in a clinical trial, making this vaccination programme a widespread medical experiment, and therefore, if their consent to participate in this experiment is not offered completely freely, the Nuremberg Code has been breached, which may have a variety of very severe consequences. Individuals and institutions complicit in such a breach may at a later date be obliged to defend their actions in court.

In a personal capacity, I have taken legal advice and have been advised that the law fully protects my rights to decline this vaccination without facing any penalty as a result, and that employers attempting to force medical procedures on staff as a condition of employment is illegal under multiple domestic and international treaties on human rights. 

Although it is not legally incumbent on me to do so, I will add for your records a further explanation of why I do not wish to receive this vaccine. 

My first concern is the very accelerated nature of the development of the COVID-19 vaccines (so accelerated that the clinical trials are still ongoing, please see reference 3). Vaccine development usually takes years or decades. The COVID-19 vaccines have been produced in a matter of months. By definition, this means there is no data on long-term safety, and so we may discover in years to come - as has been the case with so many medical products initially deemed "safe", such as thalidomide - that the long-term effects are far more deleterious to health than any benefits the vaccines may provide.

The UK Government is certainly expecting the vaccines to cause severe impairments and disability in some individuals and has structured a compensation programme accordingly (5). Therefore, these vaccines represent a potentially very serious risk to my health, one that I am not prepared to take, given it is a possibility these vaccines could disable me to the extent I am no longer able to work. The one-off sum of £120,000 offered by the UK Government in such circumstances would not be sufficient to support myself and my family for the rest of my life. 

It is also important to note that harbouring concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines is not an "anti-vaccine" position, and many very eminent and entirely pro-vaccine authorities have issued warnings about these vaccines, in particular, their accelerated development.

Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has said: “I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with." (9)

Dr. Hotez worked on development of a vaccine for SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), the coronavirus behind a major 2003 outbreak, and found that some vaccinated animals developed more severe disease compared with unvaccinated animals when they were exposed to the virus.

In plain English, this means that the vaccine could enhance the effects of the disease, when vaccinated individuals come into contact with the wild virus - an effect we might not see until winter, when coronaviruses are generally circulating. Again, this is not a risk I am prepared to take. 

It is also of critical importance for the [employer name] Group to understand that the COVID-19 vaccinations do not prevent either the contraction or transmission of COVID-19 (7). All they purport to do is lessen symptoms. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that vaccinating care home staff would have any significant impact upon the rates of COVID-19 infection amongst care home residents.

In addition, the latest research findings have shown that, where it comes to “the new variant”, vaccinated people are just as infectious as unvaccinated people, and some “variants” are entirely vaccine-resistant (8). In short, there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating that the unvaccinated pose any more of a health risk to care home residents than the vaccinated, although the latter group do take an unknown, and potentially large, risk to themselves by participating in the mass medical experiment currently underway. To reiterate, the clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines will not be complete until 2023 (please see reference 3), and therefore constitute experimental medicine, which is why the protocols as underlined in the Nuremberg Code (please see reference 2) are of critical and urgent importance.

I hope that the information I have included here has enabled you to better understand my position, from a medical, legal, and ethical perspective.

I look forward to receiving your prompt written acknowledgement that there will be no further pressure exerted upon me to receive a COVID-19 vaccination in order to retain my employment, and that the [employer name] Group will adjust its policies on compelled medicine to ensure it is no longer in breach of medical ethics legislation or human rights law.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]

References:

1) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

2) https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

3) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2

4) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3115838/what-are-coronavirus-mrna-vaccines-and-how-do-they-work

5) https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/eligibility

6) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-vaccines-insight/as-pressure-for-coronavirus-vaccine-mounts-scientists-debate-risks-of-accelerated-testing-idUKKBN20Y1I1?edition-redirect 

7) https://www.ulh.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2020/12/PHE-vaccine-leaflet.pdf

8) https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-infections-among-vaccinated-likely-contagious-lambda-variant-shows-vaccine-2021-08-02/