We have had many requests from workers in health care facilities and from others who work in laboratories connected to pharmaceutical industries or the medical profession who are faced with vaccine mandates and told to take the vaccine or lose their job. We have coached many people into how to utilize the medical liability angle since your employer will not likely relish the idea of a court case involving forced medical experimentation in order to keep one's job. The letter below was successful for a man who was denied an exemption for the first go around and then took the time to write up the following letter and succeeded in obtaining a waiver from his employer. Note how he ends his letter.
Person you are contacting
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to decline the Tdap vaccine due to strong moral and ethical convictions, which are supported by medical research, my religious beliefs, and legal precedent.
Medical Research and Ethical Convictions
I choose to boost my body’s natural defenses by following a strict Nutritarian diet style (http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/are-you-a-nutritarian.aspx), exercising regularly, and receiving adequate amounts of sleep. I strongly believe in allowing my body to maintain and heal itself naturally, and feel strongly against injecting foreign substances (active or inactive) and other additives into my body. The Tdap vaccine, Adacel, contains Aluminum and Formaldehyde, both of which are toxic to the body. Formaldehyde is a known cancer-causing agent. Aluminum, even in small amounts, is deposited in the brain. Aluminum toxicity has been associated with Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, as well as colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and aching muscles. Reported adverse events caused by Adacel include pain at the injection site, swelling, fever, headache, body aches/muscle weakness, fatigue, chills, sore and swollen joints, nausea, lymph node swelling, severe injection site swelling, bruising, sterile abscess, facial palsy, convulsion, syncope (fainting), parasthesia, Guillain-Barre syndrome, myelitis, anaphylactic reaction, hypersensitivity reaction (angioedema, rash, hypotension), urticaria, muscle spasm, and myocarditis (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/Whooping-Cough.aspx). In addition, no studies have been performed with Adacel vaccine to evaluate carcinogenicity, mutagenic potential, or impairment of fertility (see Adacel Package Insert, attached). Not only is vaccination an invasive medical procedure that has the ability to sometimes cause injury or death in even a healthy person, very little is known about the long-term health effects of receiving many vaccines. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the vaccine will protect a person from contracting the disease or won’t infect them with something else.
Furthermore, the findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody responses and protection against pertussis disease (MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, pg. 4 - attached). It has also been noted that unknown numbers of children and adults, who have gotten all government recommended pertussis shots, can and do develop whooping cough or are carriers without symptoms. Because pertussis vaccine immunity is only temporary and does not last, health officials are now telling teenagers and adults to get more booster shots. But that is not going to matter if scientific evidence that B. pertussis organisms have mutated and become vaccine-resistant turns out to be correct (http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2010/Whooping-Cough-Outbreaks-Vaccine-Failures.aspx - attached and http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2010/12/13/whooping-cough-epidemic-california/ - attached). It is also very disconcerting that whooping cough manufacturers fund expert groups on vaccine policy (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/07/traditional-media-now-questioning-whooping-cough-vaccine.aspx - attached). Public officials around the world rely heavily on two groups of pertussis experts when setting vaccine policy relating to the disease. Both groups, and many of their members, receive money from the two leading manufacturers of pertussis vaccine (http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2010/12/14/blurred-lines-of-influence/ - attached).
While I understand, and respect the fact, that the goal of Employer’s mandatory pertussis vaccination is to maintain the safety of patients, employees, and our families, I would appeal to the Nuremberg Code which defined the ethical principle of informed consent – making it clear that the rights of the individual cannot, ethically, be sacrificed to the needs of society. According to the CDC, no vaccine is 100% safe or 100% effective. As such, Employer’s mandatory pertussis vaccination policy is a form of medical experimentation. International agreements forbid medical experimentation on human subjects without informed consent (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html - attached). I am completely in favor of maintaining a safe and healthy environment for patients, employees, and our families; I just don’t believe that mandatory vaccinations are the solution.
As a practicing Catholic Christian, I believe that my body is a gift from God and a temple of the Holy Spirit (see I Corinthians 6:19,20), and that it must not be polluted (see 2 Corinthians 7:1). The ingredients in Adacel are certainly pollutants to my body. As such, I find it to be contrary to my conscience to knowingly have these toxic chemicals injected into my body. My religious beliefs as a Catholic Christian oblige me to follow the judgment of my conscience. Please see the following excerpts from “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”:
Reference pages 438-441
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.
Therefore, requiring me to receive this vaccine is requiring me to act in direct opposition to my conscience, and thereby contrary to my religious beliefs.
Laws that require one
to be a member of an organized religion with tenets in opposition to
immunizations in order to qualify for a religious exemption have been
ruled unconstitutional in state and federal courts. Applicable law
has been interpreted to mean that a religious belief is subject to
protection even though no religious group espouses such beliefs or
the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes
to belong may not advocate or require such belief. Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended Nov. 1, 1980; Part
1605.1-Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion. My
legal rights are guaranteed by the free exercise clause of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Recent court decisions have
upheld the rights of individuals seeking exemptions from
immunizations based upon personal and religious reasons. On the U.S.
Supreme Court level in Frazee V. Illinois Dept. of Security, 489 U.S.
829, it was found that a state may not deny an exemption simply
because a person is not a member of a formal religious
The Lord Jesus Christ and Our Creator are the only source of protection of my body that I can accept. I affirm that vaccination & injections of any foreign substances and proteins conflict with my religious beliefs as stated above. Therefore, I would request that you accommodate my religious beliefs and practices by exempting me from any vaccinations, injections and testing of any kind. Rest assured that I do practice a form of immunization that keeps my immune system strong and is in keeping with Biblical principles.
Employer's Policy states, "Employer will allow an exemption of vaccination on the basis of a strong moral or ethical conviction, similar to a religious belief. This exemption must be approved." I have extremely strong moral and ethical convictions against receiving this immunization. It has been indicated to me that certain refusal requests that were based on things other than a medical reason or association with a religious establishment that forbids vaccinations have been approved, but that my initial request for refusal was denied. It has also been indicated to me that while approval/denial of requests is fairly consistent, there is no established criteria used for approval or denial of requests. Given all of the information I have provided detailing my very legitimate moral and ethical convictions, and given the fact that certain refusal requests that were based on things other than a medical reason or association with a religious establishment that forbids vaccinations have been approved, I would view a denial of this refusal request as a clearly discriminatory act. If this refusal request is denied, I request a written statement outlining the reasons for denial, as I will be receiving further appropriate legal counsel. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Click here to download this Document (TDAP-refusal.doc) in MSDOC format