top of page

Mandatory Jabs 1933-2021

MOST care home workers have now received letters informing them that unless they are double-jabbed by November 10, their employment will be terminated. There are some exemptions: prior allergic reaction to another mRNA vaccine, pregnancy (though you will still need to be vaccinated after giving birth), immunosuppression, being actively unwell or having Covid, history of heparin-induced thrombosis or a clotting episode following the first shot of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. Below is an extract from one such letter, forwarded by someone who works in a care home and who has since resigned. ‘The government has now decided to introduce a legal requirement that all providers who operate registered care homes in England must have evidence that anyone who enters the care home for work has been fully vaccinated unless they are fully exempt. The new regulations take effect on November 11 2021. ‘The requirement to be vaccinated including any subsequent supplementary vaccinations and boosters related to Covid-19 to ensure your vaccination remains effective as advised by the government or any public health authority will apply to all workers aged 18 or over who attend work in a care home. ‘If you cannot provide evidence that you have been completely vaccinated by November 10 2021, you will not be able to attend a care home which is likely to mean your employment would have to terminate.’ Surely ensuring ‘your vaccination remains effective’ is the responsibility of those making colossal profits from the vaccines. But no. Pfizer et al are not only selling a product which neither prevents transmission nor infection, they are also doubling down on boosters which are not needed. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of the risks of the vaccines, or of alternative treatments such as those used in the US since early 2020, nor have the care home workers been given the opportunity to avoid the jab if they have naturally acquired immunity. ‘Jab or no job’ is coercion which falls outside the parameters of informed consent and is therefore not a lawful mandate. Another care home worker from the same residence has her jab booked for later this week, but having already had Covid (she has an NHS letter proving she has Mother Nature-produced antibodies as opposed to the man-made antibodies of the recently MHRA-approved Ronapreve) is concerned that if she doesn’t take the jab she will lose her job and if she does, any subsequent adverse events will be compounded due to her having prior immunity. She is right to be cautious. According to King’s College Zoe App, 12.2 per cent of those vaccinated with the Pfizer jab (from a pool of 700,000 Zoe subscribers) experienced adverse events, a number which tripled to 35.7 per cent for those with prior immunity. Adverse events from the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab were already high at 31.9 per cent but increased to 52.7 per cent for people with natural acquired immunity. According to a recent government report, over 94 per cent of people in England have Covid-19 antibodies. Based on ONS data of deaths by location, those working in care homes have an extremely high chance of exposure to the virus (in this particular care home 27 per cent of resident deaths were attributed to Covid, and care home workers visited multiple residents daily throughout the pandemic) and therefore a greater likelihood of having developed immunity. As the government is now handing out antibody tests, there is no argument that can possibly support mandatory vaccination. With about 41,500 care jobs advertised online the care sector is already understaffed, and a paltry £10-12 per hour (increased by 50p during the height of the pandemic in recognition of the increased dangers) for a job that leaves many care home workers ‘broken‘ is unlikely to generate a queue around the block.

Mandatory vaccination is a heinous concept, yet one which only 30 Conservative MPs voted against. After a September 2020 public consultation on changes to the Human Medicines Regulations to support the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines found that 57 per cent did not back mandatory vaccination, the government responded that the proposals they consulted on did not create powers to make receiving a Covid-19 vaccine mandatory for the UK population, did not create powers to rush through development of a vaccine and did not create powers to rollout an untested vaccine to the UK population. What the government did not rule out was the use of statutory instruments.

The impact of regulation 174A (temporary authorisation) in support of the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines The Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 ( is earmarked to be reviewed ‘a year after any first use’. Theoretically, then, by December 2 2021 the Secretary of State must review whether there have been any adverse consequences in regard to patient safety as a consequence of the operation of this regulation (that would have to be a ‘yes’). He needs to set out the conclusions of the review in a report before publishing said report.

All of which will come too late for care home workers who will by then be jabbed or out of a job. For any care home workers considering mounting a legal challenge, there is a US precedent at least. Law Professor Todd Zywicki won his case against employer George Mason University by proving that a mandatory Covid jab would be medically unnecessary (and therefore unethical) as he already has naturally acquired immunity. Details of his successful legal challenge can be viewed here.

A petition against the mandatory vaccinating of health and social care workers can be signed here. A group of lawyers called Laworfiction are raising money to mount a legal case.


bottom of page