Was a care home assistant who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 a case of unfair dismisal? No, held the Employment Tribunal in Alette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Limited.

The claimant was a care home assistant, employed by a family-run business that operated a nursing home providing residential care for people with dementia. In December 2020, the home experienced an outbreak of COVID-19, which resulted in 33 staff and 22 residents contracting the virus within 10 days. This also resulted in several deaths of residents and the claimant also contracted the virus.

In January 2021, the claimant was informed by the respondent that it was mandatory for her to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order for her employment to continue. (It should be noted this was before legislation was brought into force requiring care home workers in England to have the vaccine by law).

The claimant did not wish to be vaccinated and as a result, the respondent commenced disciplinary proceedings and the claimant was suspended from work.

The tribunal held the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct

The disciplinary allegation was that the claimant had refused to follow a reasonable management instruction to have the COVID-19 vaccination. During the disciplinary hearing the claimant referred to her Rastafarianism  as the reason for her refusal.

The respondent maintained its position that the claimant was required to have the vaccine and they would be unable to secure public liability insurance if any unvaccinated staff were found to have infected a resident or visitor.

The claimant was summarily dismissed on 1 February 2021 for gross misconduct. The tribunal held the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct and the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses. Therefore, the dismissal was fair.

The tribunal was also asked to consider whether the claimant’s right to a private life, as set out in article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, had been infringed. Even though the tribunal found the right had been engaged – by the respondent’s instruction that the claimant must be vaccinated – the tribunal decided that any interference with that right was justified in the circumstances.

Although this is a disappointing judgment for claimants, as it is a first instance decision, the tribunal was very clear to point out that it should not be taken as a general indication that dismissal for refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is fair. Each case will turn on its own individual facts.

My comment: Ignorant tribunal. Ignorant of data that was not presented within the mainstream media during this propaganda toward the idolisation of these saviour ‘vaccines’.

To anyone who has been at the result of unfair dismisal for ‘vaccine’ refusal, you are well within your rights to protect your bodily autonomy because it is attempted murder, and misfeasance in your employer’s case because they have failed to carry out the correct procedure to ensure your safety, and have even put your life at risk. Yes, they have been swayed by the false belief told by the mainstream media and Governments and propaganda NHS adverts that these vaccines actually do something like stop transmission and hospitalisations, when they have never done such a thing, but to plead ignorance is lazy.

Even though the manufacturerers of these poisons (I like to call them), the mainstream media, Governments worldwide, NHS and even employers want to believe that these COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission and severe illness resulting in hospitalisation, it is a false claim to state that they do. So what is the bloody need for these vaccines? It is trickery. It is deception.

This next section is taken from Day 4 of the Grand Jury of the Court of Public Opinion. Very important information by Deanne McLeod. If you have been at the result of unfair dismissal for vaccine refusal, and it was through one of these employment tribunals, appeal it using this essential information. I will put up the entire Grand Jury Day 4 once it’s transcribed.

Deanna McLeod 1:08:19
Right now. Okay, fantastic. So is the screen sharing capabilities activated? There we go. Let me just get to this. So my name is Deanna McLeod and I am the principal and the founder of a medical research firm called Kaleidoscope Strategic. I have a background in immunology and psychology from McMaster University, which is the home of evidence based medicine here in Canada. My particular perspective is unique in that I worked in the industry for 10 years in many roles and medical marketing and sales. And I became concerned at the end of about 1999 by a trend that I saw in pharmaceuticals, where benefits were emphasised and risk minimised, both in how they conducted their trials, both in how they conducted their marketing, and also their business practices. So in 2000, I launched and founded an independent medical research firm that was designed to help clinicians prepare objective clinical guidelines. So we provide research, medical research, writing, administrative support to help that. So what we’re doing is we’ve worked with hundreds of doctors in Canada to prepare guidelines in oncology and we spend a lot of time looking at clinical trials and clinical trial design. And one of the unique perspectives that we have is we’ve acquired over the years an ability to see how pharmaceutical companies manipulate data. And so when I’m presenting what I’m doing is I’m bringing our firms’ many years of experience in preparing these guidelines to look at, specifically, the Pfizer phase three trial, and particularly the six month publication, or the six month follow up data for that particular trial. And I’d like to highlight a number of things that would make me question whether the purported reported benefits and risks are actually accurate.

So moving on to that, one of the reasons why I’m choosing to look at the phase three clinical trial for the Pfizer data is that here in Canada, Pfizer is the backbone of all mRNA vaccines. And although there is also use for Moderna, it’s much more limited. And Pfizer is the vaccine that’s being promoted for children. And what I wanted to do because this particular trial is the backbone trial, meaning that all the other trials are built on this trial, I wanted to make sure that in scrutinising this data that it was that the benefits and risks are actually fairly reported. And so that’s what we’re going to get into. And then in Canada here, one of the other things too is that there’s a lot of discussion, you know, after this phase three trial was completed at two months, with two months follow up, and they began the mass vaccination rollout. They then shifted to observational studies, and observational studies being real world analysis of data that basically said, you know, this vaccination rate is this high, and our numbers were this, and we looked at COVID-19 cases, etc. But that type of data is actually freight with bias, it is very difficult to interpret correctly, and so our firm basically sought to look at exactly the level one data because that is the only way that you can actually create a causal link. So if you don’t, if you have an observational trial, you can say it’s associated and there may be a benefit. But the only way to actually prove something in clinical trials is in the context of a phase three trial. And so proving efficacy or proving safety. And that’s what we’re going to look at today.

So I know that my colleague Vanessa mentioned some of the the strengths and limitations of this particular trial. But one of the things that I want to highlight is the fact that it was conducted in healthy individuals, which is not uncommon whenever you’re thinking about a vaccine trial, because what you want to do is you want to treat the healthy in order to minimise transmission to the more vulnerable people in the society who might not be able to mount an appropriate immune response. However, if the vaccine or the purported vaccine, I’ll call it an inoculation, is unable to stop transmission then it actually isn’t a vaccine and should be studied in [the] actual population that it is meant to benefit. And in this case, the benefit of the population at risk with specifically elderly people in Canada in long term care facilities, specifically, with multiple comorbidities. And in addition, one of the things that we found when we did a Royal Commission report in Canada was that these patients also had, the majority of them had, I guess, documentation that said that they would have no medical intervention. So it’s a wildfire where you have a disease that transmits through community spread. You have elderly patients who have no strong immune systems, we have under resourced facilities, and we have a virus. And then we have people who basically have mandates that say no medical intervention. So you can imagine that in Canada, the death rates were very, very high. In fact, 81 percent of the death rates were in people who were in long term care facilities. So studying a treatment, which we’ll call an inoculation, because I don’t really think it qualifies as a vaccine, in a population of healthy people does not help us with the problem that is specific to long term care facility transmission in elderly people who are health?? compromised.

Again, I believe my other colleagues mentioned this, but the vaccine the inoculation should have been compared to the standard of care if we wanted to prove something, and the standard of care was natural immunity and treatment. It was not placebo in the sense of non treat or non, or somebody without any natural immunity. So we should have basically compared those two things, rather than comparing it to a placebo. And based on the trial design, we cannot say anything about whether the inoculation is better or worse than natural immunity because they weren’t compared. In terms of the testing, it’s also been mentioned previously that it was selective testing, they did not systematically test for they did not do systematic testing in the sense that they waited for somebody to be symptomatic. And then they were able to, they left it at the discretion of the investigator to actually test or not to test and what that actually did was it created an investigator bias. And I think my colleague also mentioned the fact that they were taking treatments to lower temperatures that might have minimised symptoms, there might have been infection without symptom which might have been compromised the efficacy endpoint in that regard. But they also weren’t able to detect asymptomatic infections. And also, they didn’t use the standard virological tests. So for instance, when we’re looking at clinical trials we want to make sure that whatever tests they’re using to determine the efficacy endpoint is validated. And the standard for testing viruses is a virological assay, and that was not used. So when we look at a trial like this, we immediately begin to say, you know, is this a manipulated endpoint? And that’s what we begin to question.

Further to that, let me just keep going here. The endpoints for the trial, and again I’m going to focus in on the primary endpoints because the primary endpoints are such that this study is actually designed to detect statistically significance in those particular endpoints. One of the endpoints was, of course, COVID-19 symptoms plus a positive PCR test seven days after the second dose. And the second one was safety data. So the safety data, there were different forms of safety data collected, one was solicited, and that was the reactogenicity data. And they only did a subset of patients. They only tested that the reactogenicity in a subgroup of patients, not the whole trial, and they only did it for seven days. And then they had unsolicited safety. So that means that a patient could say, you know, I’m not feeling well, and they would report it in an open diary, and then they would mention it and if it was a severe, any type of adverse event unsolicited adverse event that it would basically be recorded for one month only. And if it was a severe or serious outcome, it would be reported for six months. So you can imagine that if you’re reporting the endpoint, continuously monitoring the endpoint, but only measuring or monitoring the safety data for seven days or one to six months, then what you’ll miss is a lot of the safety data. And so there was minimal, there was inappropriate safety monitoring for this particular trial, especially when you’re considering that you’re using a genetic therapy in a population of Healthy People. They also focused on the clinical rather than subclinical endpoints. And when I’m talking about subclinical endpoints, that means that they didn’t look at biomarkers and different factors. So they could have been looking at D dimer levels, for instance, if they were suspicious that thrombosis might be an issue. And the other thing too is that the secondary endpoint was severe COVID-19 symptoms. So although we’re claiming that it reduces both COVID-19 cases, and severe COVID 19 cases, the other one was a secondary endpoint, and the numbers and events were insufficient to actually establish causality.

Finally, I’d like to talk about the fact that really what we want to be looking at is all cause morbidity and all cause mortality. All cause morbidity means looking at, you know, the sickness from the the disease COVID-19 as well as a sickness from the actual vaccine, both looking at the symptoms and the symptomic burden for that, and also for the deaths related to that. And of course, the particular trial reported de-emphasise that and emphasise something that really isn’t clinically significant, which is symptomatic positive PCR tests. And the reason for that is that the majority of those symptomatic cases were mild and really not of a concern. What we really needed to know was whether it was going to stop COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths in elderly people, and whether the all cause morbidity and mortality was higher in the inoculation group versus the placebo group. So and I guess the other final thing is, and we mentioned this earlier, is if it’s going to be presented as a vaccine, then it would have to be, we would have to be able to prove that it stops transmission and this was never part of the clinical trial design. And so therefore, anybody who’s claiming that it stops transmission would be making false claims. Anybody that claims that it reduces severe COVID-19 disease based on this trial would be, again making false claims because the number of events weren’t sufficiently high. And anybody who’s making claims regarding lowering deaths, again would not be supported by this particular trial. So I just want to emphasise the fact that after two months, we had a crossover so there was an unblinding of the two groups. And when they were unblinded people in the placebo group were offered the opportunity to cross over into the inoculation group, and about more than 80 percent of the people, I believe it was close to 89 percent of the people, actually crossed over And what that means is that as of two months, we no longer have efficacy and safety data from a controlled trial.

So all the safety data that we’re going to be looking at, and that’s the angle that I want to be looking at specifically, is really obfuscated by the fact that now most of the placebo group have actually been on occulated. And so when we present the data, we’ll be looking at the unblinded phase, which was really only two months of the trial. And we don’t actually get the full benefit of a randomised clinical trial to the point of six months, which is this data because of this crossover. And I don’t want to ascribe intent. However, there is a great benefit if you’re interested in minimising safety, to have your placebo group crossover at a very early stage. Therefore, you will never be able to have a causal link to long term safety issues.

When it comes to efficacy, one of the things that we noticed in this particular trial report is something called combined efficacy endpoints. So one of the things in this particular trial, as they noted in the discussion was that the immunity was waning at about four to six months in the adult population. And this is a publication that presents six month follow up data. And in this particular publication what they did, instead of reporting adult outcomes, as they should have as a follow up to the original two month report, what they did is they combined the reporting of the efficacy outcomes of adults and adolescents. And the adult outcomes, of course, had six months of follow up, but the adolescents had two months of follow up. And by combining these two together, what they did was they boosted the the numbers overall so that they could continue to report a 90 percentish efficacy rate. And that was likely due to the boosting of the younger adolescent group, which was basically only followed up for two months. So we actually, at this point, do not know what the efficacy at six months was for the inoculation in adults. That data was not provided in the particular report.

So one of the other things that I’m going to do here is I want to compare, what we did was we pull the data from the supplements, and we compared it to how they were presenting the data for efficacy, and we use the same treatments using relative risk reductions and absolute risk reductions, as Vanessa had noted previously, and we put them in one table so that you can compare the efficacy versus the risks of this particular vaccine by looking at it in one particular table. So here you’ll see for symptomatic cases, which is again, our primary endpoint, there was a net reduction in the number of symptomatic cases from the inoculation group to the placebo group. And there’s our beautiful 91 percent efficacy, remember that this is both adults and adolescents combined, it’s not adults alone. And what that does is it provides about a 4 percent absolute risk change, which is over here, minus 4 percent. So there is a purported benefit. But if you’re inoculating 20,000 people a 4 percent benefit is not that great, it’s not dramatic. Here, it looks much better whenever you’re looking at relative risk change, and that’s why they tend to emphasise that because that looks much more impressive than the 4 percent benefit that you’re getting when you’re looking at an absolute risk change, which is the number of people who are actually benefiting from the inoculation.

And what I’m going to do is I’m going to just jump right here to the other primary endpoint. And these are all primary endpoints. So treatment related adverse events, severe adverse effects, and serious adverse effects are all primary endpoints of this trial, which have not been mentioned to the same degree as the efficacy. And one of the things you’ll note here, is that in the inoculation group the investigators ascribed adverse effects, which when you looked at the (inaudible) data are actually COVID like symptoms to 5241 people who participated, and in the placebo arm only 1311 for a 300 percent increase. And if you consider the absolute risk increase was minus 4 percent, that’s the benefit there, the risk is plus 18 percent here, so there’s more people at risk with this particular inoculation than you have people benefiting from the inoculation overall. When we look at severe cases here you can see that there’s a net difference of 22. This number of events is clearly not clinically meaningful. 22 differences not, but if you put it in a relative risk change setting then it looks like 96 percent. However, there’s only a .1 percent benefit overall to reducing severe symptomatic COVID cases.

So again, an overemphasis by looking at the relative risk reduction and a very modest or minor benefit overall. However, when we look at severe adverse effects associated with the vaccine, we see that in this group you have 262 versus 150. So that’s a difference of 100 cases, severe adverse effect cases here, and an increase in 75 percent, and it’s an absolute risk increase of .5 percent. So again, what we’re seeing here again when it comes to severe cases and severe adverse effects, that you have more risk than you do benefit for this particular inoculation. When we look at serious adverse events, which are very concerning to me, because we’re treating very healthy people, and serious adverse event as defined in this particular study is an event that requires inpatient hospitalisation, is life threatening, results in death or persistent disability. And you can see once again, that you have more severe adverse events 127 versus 116 in the inoculation group, which is an increase of 10 percent. And the incidence of these is about the same as the risk of many people in getting COVID-19 overall. I mean, it’s minimal it’s small, but significant when you’re considering how severe those adverse events are.

So that is as close as we got to looking at all cause morbidity versus benefit. And here when we’re looking at deaths, again we went to the supplements table and we pulled the deaths, and these deaths are basically from the unblinded phase only, which means it’s the first two months of the actual trial or the first two months of follow up from that actual trial. Because they crossed over then it’s more difficult to find out. But in this unblinded phase, the deaths were comparable 15 to 14 inoculation to placebo. However, we have to remember that this is a very healthy population with their diseases that were controlled with control disease. So to see this number of deaths in the placebo arm where they actually caught COVID-19 might be reasonable within the two month time frame in 40,000 people. But to see this many deaths when people are purportedly not getting COVID-19, but are getting inoculated is concerning to us. When we looked at the deaths after unblinding, you can see here that there were five deaths in the unblinded phase, oops, sorry, excuse me, I’m missing a number there. There were five deaths in this case, and zero deaths in the placebo arm for a total of 20 in the inoculation arm and 14 in the placebo arm. So again, just to be clear, after the patients during the placebo arm crossed over and receive their inoculation, there were an additional five deaths, for a total of 20 deaths in people who were inoculated in this study, and 14 in the placebo.

Again, we have to consider that at least in this particular case, for the second half, there were more patients who had gotten inoculated than the placebo group. But still, this is concerning, this is not the the trend that we would like to be seeing. And finally, if we actually look at COVID-19 related deaths, there was really only a difference of one death between the inoculation arm and the placebo arm. However, when we looked at cardiovascular deaths, we saw that there were nine cardiovascular deaths in the inoculation arm, and five in the placebo arm. So again, what we’re seeing is if our desire was to see morbidity and mortality decrease in the target population, which was elderly people, what we’re seeing in this particular study is an increase in morbidity in the sense of risk and mortality in a healthy population. And so, we are very much familiar with cancer research. And if we ever saw something like this in cancer research, we would not even proceed with administering this to people who were in the end of their life. So these results are extremely concerning.

And I’m just going to touch base very briefly on the companion trials that were conducted for children. And so one of the things that they do is they create a phase three trial and then they basically do these companion trials, where they, in this particular case, are called immuno bridging trials. And these immuno bridging trials, basically were just focusing at neutralising antibody titer production and what they did rather than doing a clinical trial, you know, if we were to be thinking about the people who are at greatest risk, it would be children. They’re at no risk of severe disease. Therefore, what we would have liked to see is the safety being much higher, much more rigorous, larger numbers of people enrolled. Very strong endpoints like clinical, you know, subclinical safety, clinical safety, long term safety, morbidity, mortality, we would have liked to see all of that. However, the trial that was designed or the endpoint that was used to approve these vaccines, or these inoculations, was non inferiority of the neutralising antibody titers, which what that means is that they compare antibody titers in people who are 12 to 15 years and they compared them to antibody titers in 16 to 25 year olds. So this study wasn’t even designed to make any claims regarding clinical efficacy or safety. And anybody who makes clinical efficacy or safety claims based on this study is basically misreporting or making false claims.

Again, they did the same thing with 5 to 11 year olds, again a slightly smaller dose, and they compared them to the neutralising antibodies of 16 to 25 year olds. And if you could note here that the number of patients or people enrolled in each of those two cohorts is very small. And so this is the basis by which we’re moving forward with the vaccination of children. Now they did, you know, enrol a thousand people in the clinical side of things, and in the placebo side of things about a thousand in each arm. And these particular endpoints, unlike the main trial are descriptive endpoints. So they’re not meant to actually claim anything, but they do give us some sort of a window into the benefits and risks of the inoculation in this particular group. And I’m just going to very quickly move to this side, because this is the absolute risk change, and this is the one that we really need to keep an eye on when we’re looking at absolute clinical or clinically meaningful benefit. For symptomatic cases, it was minus 2 percent. So there was a reduction based on this. And if you can note here, that it’s really only a difference of 15 cases. And we also have to note that symptomatic cases in children are really not clinically concerning. So I would probably move to say that this is a clinically meaningless endpoint. Again, they’re at no risk of severe disease, and of course there was no differences in severe disease. So that’s not a benefit for them. And however, if we look at treatment related adverse events, what we see is this concerning trend, again, where we have more risks or more adverse events in the inoculation arm than the placebo arm. And I’m just going to emphasise this very carefully. The types of adverse events that were reported in the placebo arm and the inoculation are very similar, and their clinical symptoms, their COVID like symptoms, for the most part, at when they were reported at least based on the reactogenicity data, just see more COVID like symptoms in the people being inoculated versus the people who are actually getting COVID 19, according to this particular data is very curious. And again, that’s a 1 percent increase in adverse events here.

But when we look at severe adverse events, remember there’s no benefit here, and suddenly there’s an increased number, although small, of serious adverse events in the inoculation arm for a .4 percent increase. And again, when we look at the serious adverse events, and remember that this means inpatient hospitalisation, life threatening results in death, or permanent disability, we have four of those in the inoculation arm versus one in the placebo arm. And how many patients or how many children that you know, where you take a thousand children and you treat them, that you would allow four of them to have inpatient hospitalisation, a life threatening event [that] results in death or permanent disability if they’re at no risk of severe disease? So again, because this is descriptive statistics, we can’t ascribe cause to the inoculation and say that it is causing harm. However, it certainly looks like the trend is in a similar direction at two months, as the data was for the adults at six months.

I’m just going to move very quickly to our wee ones, the 5 to 11 year olds who are being inoculated, again, no risk of severe disease, no episodes of severe disease, slight differences in the number of actual positive symptomatic COVID positive events or cases here. But we can see again here that in terms of any adverse event, it’s 46 versus 16. So they’re actually getting COVID like symptoms more in the inoculation group than we are in the placebo group. And just on that, know what we would say if we started to see something like this, where the symptoms were similar in both groups, and you’re getting more in the inoculation group than you would in the placebo group, we would begin to say how rigorous or how reliable is the actual test that you’re using to ascribe efficacy. I’m just going to whisk past this. This is the whistleblower report from the BMJ that basically questioned the integrity of the data that was going into this. Our firm is basically questioning the reporting of the data and the emphasis to the data. We definitely noticed some tricks in terms of trying to boost efficacy and minimise safety by under reporting. And also by using, you know, considering one was relative risk reduction, and then what they did with safety was they buried it in the supplements and they considered it as percentages.

And the other thing too that we look at when we see this type of reporting is we immediately go to say, what are the conflicts of interest? Who conducted the trial, and who wrote up the report. Because the conclusions for this particular report were that the inoculation was both safe and effective, when we took a closer look and with no concerns related safety, no new safety concerns, I believe, is how they actually phrased it in the six month trial. And we would not agree with that conclusion whatsoever based on our analysis. And therefore, we go to look at conflicts of interest. And it is notable that there were conflicts of interest, significant conflicts of interest in the majority of people who were involved in this trial, notably employment and stock for the corresponding author, the last author, and notably the two BioNTech founders who basically have earned $9 billion at the time when we made, you know, I think this was made early in the fall of last year, so again, have made incredible amounts of money based on this particular report. So we’re trusting these people with these incredible conflicts of interest. And again, even the the senior author, the lead author, SJ Thomas, has had conflicts of interest. They do have, they experienced grant or consultancy or clinical trial development. And notably also, and I just discovered this recently, is after the publication of this particular trial result, which basically boosted the Pfizer stock prices, the CEO of Pfizer divested of his stocks. And again, this is pure speculation, but if I were an insider, and I knew the safety data, and I knew the underpinnings of the safety data and what had gone on behind the scenes, then I would probably be concerned about people eventually finding out about this safety issues, and might very well be prone to divest of my stocks as well.

So my position is such that this trial should have never been passed. That there were issues of, again it’s hard to ascribe causality, but definitely there were tendencies towards over emphasising benefits, and minimising risk, both in the manner in which that it was unblinded and crossed over the short duration of trial, the short monitoring periods for the safety results, the questionable test used for efficacy. And again, the emphasis on clinical benefit, without really taking a very close look at the safety and I would have loved to see all of the unsolicited adverse events to see what kind of adverse events that were reported. But again, all that they allowed us to see was COVID like symptoms in both groups. And so again, I would say that that’s an obfuscation of safety data, and that that’s minimising the representation. So it would be difficult for me to understand how, based on the reporting of this particular trial, anybody could possibly say that they had informed consent when they agreed to the inoculation. Thank you very much.

My comment: Also, check out the vaccine adverse reactions, which I have been collating since March 2021. It’s absolutely criminal that these ‘vaccines’ are continuing even now. Everyone is right to refuse these poisons, so fight back if you have been unfairly dismissed for vaccine refusal. Use the vaccine data that is out now to prove that they are not necessary because the vaccines cannot stop transmission of COVID, nor can they stop severe COVID-19 disease, so anyone who states otherwise is making a false claim. Hold these ignorant employers accountable. If all they care about is money and following the rules, perhaps they have conflicts of interest in the vaccines too.