Mandated Workplace vaccines

What do you do if your boss tells you that unless you get the covid vaccine you will be dismissed?  What are your options?  I offer some suggestions below; they are for educational purposes only.  They should not be considered legal advice. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Firstly, we have a dilemma because governments in different countries have subverted due process, judiciary, and parliamentary-legislative scrutiny by invoking Emergency Laws. In the USA this is known as PREP Act (The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act provides immunity from liability to certain individuals and entities, including manufacturers, distributors, program planners and those who prescribe, administer, and dispense medical countermeasures that constitute a qualified pandemic or epidemic product during a Public Health Emergency (“Covered Countermeasures”), including FDA-authorized vaccines. This immunity is granted against all claims for any type of loss, including death, physical or mental injury, fear of injury, and property damage, excluding claims involving “wilful misconduct.”[1]  So, although you might not gain immunity, (in fact you might be paralysed or die) they have (legal) immunity. 

National constitutions and international human rights treaties often contain clauses that allow governments to temporarily suspend their obligations in a time of crisis. They can invoke special powers that would normally be considered infringements on liberty.[2]

So, every country has its own version of ……you must do as you are told because it is an emergency.    In other words, they are telling you that you have no rights not even over your own body.  They can do whatever they like because collective safety is under threat.   This is very clever but that means they must offer independent scientific proof to a court of law that we are in a pandemic.  We cannot live under “emergency” laws indefinitely.  At some point they must legally and scientifically justify their emergency provisions.  The situation is dynamic and now that more data is available former hasty decisions should be re-evaluated.    However, the WHO has changed the definition of pandemic and changed the definition of herd immunity.  Governments have also moved the goalposts (two weeks to flatten the curve) and the public has faced an onslaught of propaganda and “behavioral science”.  There is therefore ample evidence of wilful misconduct which invalidates legal immunity because it constitutes criminal behavior.  They are not acting in good faith. The law cannot be used as a cloak to cover malign misdeeds perpetrated by corporations and governments.    Then there is the question of the origin and timing of the virus at the very point when the world faced economic collapse (signified by inter-bank lending; REPO).   There is enough prima facie evidence to raise suspicions and for any reasonable individual to question the use of emergency laws that justify force (mandatory vaccines), loss of liberty (lockdown) and proscribed quasi-medical (social) interventions (masks and distancing).  There are numerous court challenges underway in different jurisdictions, but they are fighting an uphill battle against a global judicial system that has been corrupted and captured.

Health and Safety laws

It is difficult to make sweeping assertions because every country is different but Western “democracies” have similar legal frameworks so here follows some general observations. For example, if an employer asks you to operate a machine or engage in a process, they must do a Risk Assessment and a Cost Benefit Analysis.  Just because we are under “emergency laws” an employer cannot ask you to operate a machine without safety guards that he knows will kill you. Neither can they terminate you for refusing to engage in something that will harm you. The health and safety laws provide offenses for engaging in discriminatory conduct for prohibited reasons.  In some countries discriminatory conduct can lead to civil proceedings being brought by the persons affected for compensation (or injunctive relief).

Moreover, the employer must provide a Risk Assessment.  You have a right to ask to see the Risk Assessment. It must include all the relevant information such as side effects and morbidity including long term effects (which are at this time unknown).[3] However, that is a complex issue, and your employer is unlikely to be able to provide you with an unbiased, transparent evaluation of the risks. Even the EU is struggling to define the risks:

“Evaluating benefits and risks is however, a complex exercise. It involves the integration of data and information from different sources, typically associated with different levels of uncertainty. In addition, measuring the benefit-risk balance is to a certain extent subjective as it involves value judgements for gaining certain benefits versus avoiding certain risks”.[4]

The Risk Assessment must examine the cost benefits of all options.  For example, what sort of safety guards are available on the cutting machine and how efficient are they?   Can we automate the process completely to avoid injury?  If we apply this to vaccines that means that we must examine the merits of each vaccine and we must also examine the benefits of alternative treatments.  In India they are having success with Ivermectin and large doses of Vitamin D and C with zinc and antibiotics.  Cheap and effective. There are also other cheap and less dangerous treatments. Why are these not mandatory?  The vaccines do not provide guaranteed protection from catching covid or even from spreading the disease.  So, what benefit do these emergency vaccines provide?  It seems that the costs outweigh the benefits. Moreover, the risks are not uniform as underlying medical conditions or pregnancy can amplify risk.  Even the WHO admits the need to balance vaccine efficacy and vaccine safety by conducting risk/benefit assessments and to consider contextual issues (economics, availability of alternative vaccines, sociopolitical and cultural factors). But note that although they mention “alternative vaccines” they do not mention alternative treatments.[5]

Strategy

A legal statement/contract needs to be drafted that allows that vaccination will be considered if certain conditions are forthcoming.

1. A full Risk Analysis and Cost Benefit is done by your employer. All the data backing up the risk analysis (including pharmaceutical trials) must be transparent and fully available, and you have the right to have the data evaluated by independent professionals.
2. The employer must sign a statement accepting liability for adverse events and acknowledging that manslaughter charges could be forthcoming when the temporary Emergency Laws are revoked or repealed. A liability scheme does not excuse the government or a private/public enterprise/employer/institute from criminal charges if wilful misconduct is involved nor does it exclude or limit further tort of negligence, nor will it prevent civil suits against individuals administering said interventions.
3. It is the onus of the employer (not the victim) to establish that any adverse reactions are not the result of medical intervention. They must provide the burden of proof that their intervention did not cause harm. There is no time limit on claiming liability for long term damages (for example sterility or cancers) if causal links are established with the vaccination.  Once again, the onus is on the employer (not the victim) to prove that they did no harm.

Conclusion

Consult a lawyer or solicitor in your country to draw up a legal document and make sure that your employer knows that they have skin in the game.  The document needs to be acknowledged, witnessed and signed. If you have a Union get them involved and your Health and Safety Executive. Remind them that they could be personally sued or charged if something goes wrong. The Nuremberg defense will not stand. If anyone can come up with a good document drafted by a legal professional let me know (DM on twitter).  If you allow the Government/employer to dictate medical intervention, then you will have established a precedent. This will be the first of many such vaccines. You will have lost sovereignty over your body. Your body your choice but the choice should not be between your health or your job.

[1] Overview of Legal and Practical Considerations for Employers Concerning COVID-19 Vaccination Policies

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad663a10-e124-4706-afd3-bcc32f8c0958

[2] State of emergency: how different countries are invoking extra powers to stop the coronavirus https://theconversation.com/state-of-emergency-how-different-countries-are-invoking-extra-powers-to-stop-the-coronavirus-134495

[3] Sterility and cancers. Not only acute effects, but vaccination (as any intervention) can shorten long-term life expectancy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40264-020-00984-7  One potential adverse event is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a type of immune reaction where vaccination makes subsequent exposure to the virus more dangerous. The condition – which has been observed with vaccines for measles, respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus, as well as in animal models for the original Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) virus – occurs when the body, primed by a vaccine, generates antibodies that don’t sufficiently neutralise the virus when later exposed to it and instead encourage the virus into cells to replicate, exacerbating the disease.

[4] Accelerated Development of Vaccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe.

https://vac4eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ADVANCE_D4.3appraisal_benefit_risk-methods.pdf

[5] WHO Vaccine Safety Basics e-learning course

https://vaccine-safety-training.org/risk-benefit-assessment.html