My Formal Letter of Vindication for Refusing a Mandated Vaccine in 2021
The scientific, legal and ethical case now proved.
Why I Was Scientifically and Ethically Vindicated for Refusing the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
Author: Ivan Fraser
In 2021, I was dismissed from my position in the care sector for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine — a decision I made on scientific, legal, and ethical grounds. At the time, there was a single narrative enforced at every level of public discourse: that the vaccines were universally "safe and effective" and must be taken by all. This narrative was maintained despite the absence of long-term data, emerging adverse signals, and complete disregard for individual medical circumstances, including prior COVID-19 infection.
I now present, with the benefit of hindsight and published scientific evidence, the full rationale for my decision and why I have been thoroughly vindicated.
1. I Had Natural Immunity I contracted and recovered from COVID-19 in April 2020, long before vaccines were available. At the time of the mandate, there was already strong scientific evidence that natural infection conferred durable, broad-based immunity — often superior to vaccine-induced immunity.
Multiple peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Cell, Nature, Lancet) demonstrated that recovered individuals maintained memory B and T cell responses, and were at significantly lower risk of reinfection or severe illness. No risk-benefit analysis justified vaccinating already immune individuals.
Yet the mandate made no exemptions for prior infection — a blanket policy that was both unscientific and unethical.
2. No Informed Consent Was Possible Informed consent requires disclosure of:
Known and potential risks
Mechanism of action
Duration of effects
Alternative options
The right to refuse without coercion
Care home workers were given none of this. Information about the biodistribution of spike protein, potential for myocarditis and pericarditis, menstrual disruption, immune imprinting, and the novel nature of the mRNA and LNP platforms was withheld or unknown at the time. There was no possibility of informed consent — only imposed compliance.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK), Human Rights Act 1998, Nuremberg Code, and General Medical Council (GMC) guidance, this constituted a clear violation of medical ethics and personal autonomy.
Specifically:
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects the right to private and family life, including bodily autonomy.
The Nuremberg Code requires voluntary consent of the human subject, free of coercion.
The Mental Capacity Act mandates that individuals must be provided with all necessary information in a way they understand, and retain the legal right to refuse treatment.
Mandated vaccination under threat of job loss is coercion.
Legal Frameworks Prohibiting Mandatory Vaccination
Furthermore:
1. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
This Act explicitly prohibits compulsory medical treatment, including vaccination. Section 45E states:
“Regulations under this Part may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.”
Here, "medical treatment" encompasses vaccination and other prophylactic measures. Wikipedia+2BMA Law+2Ogletree+2Ogletree2. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
This Act mandates employers to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of employees. Enforcing vaccination without comprehensive risk assessments and informed consent may breach this duty.HSE+3Legislation.gov.uk+3Acorn Occupational Health+3Wikipedia+2Acorn Occupational Health+2Ogletree+2
3. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002
Under COSHH, employers must:HSE+3Matrix Law+3CPD Online College+3
Conduct thorough risk assessments for exposure to hazardous substances, including biological agents like SARS-CoV-2.
Implement appropriate control measures.HSE
Provide employees with information about potential risks and protective measures. Mandating vaccination without adhering to these requirements could contravene COSHH provisions.
4. Human Rights Act 1998
Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, encompassing bodily autonomy. Compulsory vaccination policies may infringe upon this right unless justified and proportionate. news.liverpool.ac.uk+1Pinsent Masons+1
5. Mental Capacity Act 2005
This Act stipulates that individuals must have the capacity to consent to medical treatment, and any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests. Mandating vaccination without assessing individual capacity and obtaining informed consent may violate this Act.
6. Nuremberg Code
While not codified into UK law, the Nuremberg Code establishes ethical principles for medical interventions, emphasizing voluntary consent. Mandatory vaccination policies may conflict with these principles.
Additionally, the enforcement of the mandate also violated the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code of Conduct, in particular:
Prioritise people (1.1): You must treat people as individuals and uphold their dignity.
Practise effectively (6.1): You must always practice in line with the best available evidence.
Preserve safety (8.1): You must assess and respond to the needs and risks of each individual.
Promote professionalism and trust (20.2): You must act with honesty and integrity at all times.
By being forced to choose between violating my conscience and best professional judgment or losing my position, I was placed in an impossible position — one that contradicted the very framework of the profession I was trained to uphold.
3. I Understood the Unique Risks of the LNP Platform Unlike most objectors who focused solely on the spike protein, or other ethical or religious objections, I uniquely recognized and articulated that the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery platform was independently hazardous. My 2005 article on Silicon-Induced Contracture Syndrome (SICS) predicted that silicon- and lipid-based particulates used in medical products could:
Accumulate in sensitive organs (heart, brain, reproductive system)
Trigger chronic inflammation and oxidative stress
Cause fibrotic tissue remodelling and immune disruption
This is precisely what is now observed with the LNP-based mRNA vaccines. Peer-reviewed studies (e.g., iScience, Toxicology Letters, Frontiers in Immunology) have confirmed that LNPs alone can induce:
Myocarditis
Pericarditis
Cardiac fibrosis
Systemic inflammation
These effects occur even without the spike protein, proving my original insight correct. I was among the very few — possibly the first — to reject these vaccines not only on ethical or precautionary grounds, but due to a deep understanding of delivery system toxicity.
4. I Warned My Employer in Advance In or around September 2020, my employer circulated a questionnaire asking staff whether they would accept the emerging vaccines, and to state why. I responded clearly that I would not. Not long after that, and still before the concept of a government mandate had even been formally introduced, I explicitly told my manager:
“If they make the vaccines compulsory, I would rather lose my nursing career than take one of those vaccines.”
At the time, I believe the idea of a mandate had not even been officially proposed. Nevertheless, I took a firm stand well in advance, based on my informed analysis and ethical commitment.
When the mandate was later introduced, I stood by that statement and refused to comply.
5. My Employing Company Did Not Support the Mandate Although they believed they had no choice but to enforce the government policy, my employers did not personally agree with the mandate. In fact, they offered to try and help me continue employment by transferring me to a different non-care-based role at head office 100 miles away.
I was grateful for this gesture, but I declined the offer, as it would have meant uprooting my family from my home — something I was unwilling to do.
Throughout the entire process, my manager gave me full support and remained on my side. For this, I am deeply thankful and wish to formally acknowledge their compassion, integrity, and humanity at a time when so many others simply followed orders.
As soon as the announcement was made that the mandate would be lifted, my manager immediately offered me my job back — and I accepted.
6. The Mandate Was Unlawful and Scientifically Baseless
It did not allow for natural immunity
It violated informed consent
It applied a one-size-fits-all policy with no medical discretion
It used a novel, insufficiently tested platform
It was enforced in violation of human rights and employment law
It contravened professional regulatory codes including the NMC Code of Conduct
There was no scientific rationale to vaccinate recovered individuals like myself with a platform carrying known and unknown risks. The decision to coerce such action was therefore not only illegal, but negligent.
Conclusion: I Was Right to Refuse I was not hesitant. I was certain. I was not misinformed. I was ahead of the curve. I was not rebellious. I was responsible.
Every element of my reasoning — natural immunity, informed consent, legal protections, platform toxicity — has since been proven accurate by independent science and retrospective data.
I acted lawfully, ethically, and intelligently. Those who mandated these injections, dismissed dissenters, or enforced compliance without informed consent were either mistaken, misled, or complicit in wrongdoing.
I was vindicated. And I will continue to stand by the principle that truth, consent, and scientific integrity are not optional — they are the foundation of all just medical practice.