Vaccines and Employment Law:
Vaccines for covid have been in the news.
In this piece, I will go through the issues linking to relevant sources to show how my conclusions have been arrived at.
What is covid?
Here is the list of HCID and covid is not amongst the list
How is Covid Tested?
WHO decided that in determining whether anyone has Covid the PCR test should be used. Most countries have adopted the use of PCR tests to detect covid.
The problem is that PCR tests set at 45 cycles as in the UK and other places do not detect infection.
If you want a quick summary here it is. In essence the PCR test finds viral matter from many viruses which are no longer infectious.
So there are huge question marks over the use of PCR tests to detect infectiousness.
The vaccine trials:
All the main pharmaceutical companies trialing the vaccine use a PCR test to determine which people go in the non-placebo arm of the trial. Here’s Pfizer’s trial protocol. Going on non-placebo arm requires one other symptom to be present such as a cough or cold.
There is also the issue before we get to any need for a vaccine as to whether there are any effective therapeutics available. Here there has been many studies showing HCQ and Zinc is effective. Use of HCQ and zinc has been banned by some countries.
The legal framework:
After World War Two international conventions were put in place that govern individual rights.
Relevant Articles in the Convention:
Article 4 — Professional standards. Any intervention in the health field, including research, must be carried out in accordance with relevant professional obligations and standards
Professor Dorsten’s paper on which the whole PCR testing regime has been based has been described as fraudulent and it is my very firm view that Dorsten’s paper will be withdrawn and any withdrawal will be because the academic paper departed a very long way from accepted academic standards. Sue me if you wish Professor Dorsten.
An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks.
The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time
It is arguable that Article 5 prevents the following without informed consent:
1. Lockdowns to “squeeze the disease.”
2. Face coverings to protect others.
3. Making access to health services conditional on a negative PCR test.
4. Mandating a vaccine.
Protection of persons not able to consent
1 Subject to Articles 17 and 20 below, an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit.
2 Where, according to law, a minor does not have the capacity to consent to an intervention, the intervention may only be carried out with the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person or body provided for by law. The opinion of the minor shall be taken into consideration as an increasingly determining factor in proportion to his or her age and degree of maturity.
3 Where, according to law, an adult does not have the capacity to consent to an intervention because of a mental disability, a disease or for similar reasons, the intervention may only be carried out with the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person
The relevant articles are Articles 5 and 6:
The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected. For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests
.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.
2.Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute.
UK law recognizes that vaccination and medical treatment should be voluntary and not mandated.
Here’s the relevant law:
The Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 sec 45E Medical treatment which makes explicitly clear that the power to make such regulations does not include mandatory treatment or vaccination.
“(1)Regulations under section 45B or 45C may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.
(2)“ Medical treatment ” includes vaccination and other prophylactic treatment. ]”.
And that powers to make regulations in England and Wales (by the government) are made under and subject to the restrictions in the 1984 Act
It is my firm view that any employer, business or government who mandates a covid vaccine as a condition of access to employment, or public or private goods and services will be acting in breach of international law and well established Human Rights in the area of informed and free consent.
It is up to an individual to decide what medical intervention they want to have and insisting on a vaccine inhibits the ability of an individual to give “free” consent.
Any employer who mandates a vaccine as a condition of employment or continued employment will, in my view, be in breach of international law and universally accepted Human Rights.
Similarly, anyone in a regulated profession needs to ensure that they are acting in compliance with their professional rules and regulations.