An evidence-based campaign
This campaign recognises that vaccination protected many people from serious illness. It also recognises that a smaller number of people report serious medical conditions following vaccination and that some claims have been accepted under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.
A report made after vaccination does not by itself prove that vaccination caused the condition. Individual causation must be assessed using medical evidence.
The campaign is not opposed to vaccination or healthcare workers. It calls for informed consent, proper investigation, fair compensation and accountability where responsibility is established.
People Deserve Answers, Recognition and Justice
The pandemic required difficult decisions, but an emergency must never place governments, employers or corporations beyond scrutiny.
Vaccine injury
Some people have experienced serious illness, disability or bereavement following COVID-19 vaccination and believe that existing support is inadequate.
Those whose injuries are shown on the balance of probabilities to have been caused by vaccination should receive compensation based on their actual losses and needs.
Employment losses
Some workers were dismissed, redeployed, suspended or pressured after declining vaccination.
Cases should be reviewed individually to determine whether employers acted lawfully, fairly and proportionately and whether alternatives were properly considered.
Public accountability
Ministers, officials, regulators, employers and manufacturers should disclose the evidence, advice, contracts and risk assessments behind major decisions.
Where wrongdoing or negligence is proven, responsibility should not automatically be transferred to ordinary taxpayers.
A Right to Medical Choice Must Have Real Meaning
Consent cannot be genuinely voluntary where a person faces disproportionate threats, misinformation or avoidable loss of employment for refusing treatment.
Employers also had legitimate legal duties to protect staff, residents, patients and customers. The answer is therefore not to assume that every vaccination policy was unlawful.
The correct approach is to examine whether each policy was:
- lawful;
- necessary;
- based on current evidence;
- proportionate to the risk;
- subject to exemptions;
- supported by consultation;
- and accompanied by reasonable alternatives.
No emergency should remove the right to ask questions, obtain independent medical advice or seek justice where serious harm has occurred.Right First Time UK
The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
The UK already acknowledges through legislation that severe vaccine injury can occur and may justify a state payment.
A tax-free payment may be available where a person is severely disabled and the statutory tests are met.
View the official schemeWhy reform is needed
The Government describes the Vaccine Damage Payment as a one-off payment rather than a full compensation scheme.
A fixed sum may not reflect:
- lifetime loss of earnings;
- lost pension contributions;
- professional care costs;
- home adaptations;
- specialist equipment;
- pain and suffering;
- family caring responsibilities;
- or the financial effects of bereavement.
The National Audit Office reported that approximately £20 million had been paid by 15 March 2024 to claimants where a COVID-19 vaccine had caused severe disablement.
Read the NAO reportA Proper COVID-19 Injury and Redress Scheme
The scheme should provide meaningful redress rather than forcing seriously affected people through years of expensive litigation.
Independent assessment
Claims should be decided by an independent multidisciplinary panel with expertise in medicine, pharmacovigilance, disability, employment and compensation law.
Individual compensation
Awards should reflect the seriousness of injury, care needs, loss of earnings, pension losses, treatment costs and effects on family life.
Bereaved families
Families should have access to funded independent medical review, bereavement support and compensation where causation is established.
No arbitrary cliff edge
The scheme should not deny every payment simply because a person falls just below a single severe-disablement threshold.
Faster decisions
Clear service standards should apply, with regular updates, access to evidence and written reasons for every decision.
Independent appeals
Applicants should have a genuinely independent appeal with access to specialist legal and medical assistance.
Interim support
Seriously disabled applicants should be able to receive interim financial and practical assistance while complex causation assessments are completed.
Case publication
Anonymised decisions, evidence standards, approval rates, waiting times and reasons for refusal should be published.
What Does the Law Say About Consent?
Consent to treatment
NHS guidance states that consent to treatment must be voluntary and informed and that a person with capacity may refuse treatment.
Voluntary means the decision should not be the result of inappropriate pressure from medical staff, friends or family.
NHS consent guidanceMental Capacity Act
In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 begins from the principle that an adult should be presumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise.
A person is not to be treated as unable to decide merely because they make a decision others consider unwise.
Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 1Human rights principles
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects private life, including aspects of personal autonomy and physical integrity.
This is a qualified right. Interference may sometimes be lawful where it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary and proportionate.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8Professional standards
Healthcare professionals must provide appropriate information, answer questions and obtain valid consent in accordance with professional standards.
Patients should be told about material risks and reasonable alternatives relevant to their decision.
GMC decision-making and consent guidanceConsent law and employment law are different
A competent adult could normally refuse vaccination. That does not automatically mean an employer was legally required to permit that person to perform every role without restrictions.
Employment policies must be assessed separately under contract, dismissal, equality, health and safety, data-protection and human-rights principles.
“No Jab, No Job” Policies Must Be Properly Reviewed
Not every worker who declined vaccination was legally protected from dismissal, but employers were not given unlimited freedom to discriminate or abandon fair procedures.
Questions every review should examine
- Was the requirement imposed by legislation or solely by the employer?
- Was the policy based on evidence applicable to the role?
- Was the employee consulted and warned fairly?
- Was the employee given an opportunity to explain?
- Were medical exemptions properly considered?
- Did the policy disadvantage a protected group?
- Could testing, protective equipment, home working, redeployment or altered duties have reduced the risk?
- Was dismissal genuinely a last resort?
- Did the employer follow a fair disciplinary or dismissal process?
- Was personal health information processed lawfully?
When Could a Vaccination Policy Be Discriminatory?
Vaccination status itself was not added as a separate protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
A person unable to receive a vaccine because of a disability could potentially have protection from discrimination and may have been entitled to reasonable adjustments.
Decisions must not unlawfully disadvantage a worker because of pregnancy, maternity or related circumstances.
A genuinely held religious or philosophical belief may qualify for protection where it meets the applicable legal tests. A simple objection to one vaccine does not automatically qualify.
A policy applying to everyone could still amount to indirect discrimination if it placed people sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage and could not be objectively justified.
A provision, criterion or practice affecting everyone may be unlawful where it particularly disadvantages a protected group unless it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Workers must not be punished because they made or supported a good-faith complaint under equality law.
A Review Scheme for Workers Who Lost Their Livelihoods
The review should cover people who were:
- dismissed;
- forced to resign;
- suspended without appropriate justification;
- denied work or shifts;
- removed from professional training;
- refused redeployment;
- or subjected to unlawful discriminatory treatment.
Available remedies should include:
- reinstatement where appropriate;
- restoration of continuous service;
- lost wages;
- lost pension contributions;
- compensation for unlawful discrimination;
- correction of employment records;
- and funded retraining where careers were damaged.
Compensation should follow an independent finding that the worker was treated unlawfully, unfairly or disproportionately. It should not assume that every restriction or dismissal was automatically illegal.
The Public Should Not Automatically Carry Every Cost
Where legal responsibility lies with a manufacturer, employer, contractor, public authority or individual decision-maker, that responsibility should not automatically be transferred to ordinary taxpayers.
Government publications confirm that contractual indemnities were provided to vaccine manufacturers as part of emergency purchasing arrangements.
The National Audit Office reported that the taxpayer could face additional costs because vaccine contracts contained forms of indemnity protection for pharmaceutical companies in relation to liabilities or legal action arising from adverse effects.
How Compensation Should Be Funded
Manufacturer contribution
Establish a statutory levy on relevant COVID-19 vaccine revenues or future UK public-health contracts to contribute towards an independently administered compensation fund.
Recovery where liability is established
Permit public bodies to recover compensation costs from a manufacturer, contractor or employer where fraud, breach of contract, negligence or other legal liability is established.
Review emergency indemnities
Publish and independently review the scope, value and operation of contractual indemnities, subject only to strictly necessary commercial redactions.
Insurance and reserve requirements
Future emergency medical-product contracts should require appropriate insurance, manufacturer reserves or industry-funded compensation arrangements.
Personal consequences where misconduct is proven
Ministers and officials should face the consequences available under existing law and standards where deliberate misconduct, corruption, dishonesty or unlawful decision-making is established.
No unsupported personal-liability claims
Ministers should not be declared personally liable merely because they held office. Personal financial or criminal consequences require evidence, due process and a lawful finding by the appropriate court or authority.
COVID-19 Justice in 12 Actions
Replace the existing payment scheme
Create a comprehensive, tiered compensation scheme reflecting actual injury, disability, care needs and financial loss.
Review rejected claims
Offer an independent review of rejected COVID-19 vaccine claims under clearer and more transparent evidence standards.
Support bereaved families
Provide independent investigation, legal assistance and fair compensation where causation is established.
Review employment losses
Establish an independent review for workers dismissed or disadvantaged after declining vaccination.
Restore careers where injustice occurred
Provide reinstatement, corrected records, back pay, pension restoration or retraining where unlawful treatment is found.
Publish contracts
Release vaccine contracts, indemnities and amendments with only genuinely necessary and time-limited redactions.
Publish ministerial advice
Disclose the scientific, legal, equality and employment advice used when mandates and restrictions were considered.
Independent safety-data access
Give approved independent researchers secure access to relevant anonymised safety and health records.
Strengthen adverse-event investigation
Ensure serious reports are clinically investigated rather than merely counted or automatically attributed to unrelated causes.
Industry-funded contribution
Require manufacturers benefiting from public contracts to contribute fairly to the redress system.
Accountability where wrongdoing is proven
Apply contractual, civil, regulatory, parliamentary or criminal consequences according to the evidence and law.
Protect consent in future emergencies
Require parliamentary approval, equality assessment, sunset clauses and independent review before medical-status employment restrictions are imposed.
Report Suspected Side Effects Properly
Medical records and official reports may be important to any future claim or investigation.
Speak to a healthcare professional
Anyone experiencing concerning symptoms should seek appropriate medical advice. Emergency symptoms require urgent medical help.
NHS COVID-19 informationUse the Yellow Card Scheme
Patients and healthcare professionals can report suspected adverse reactions to medicines and vaccines through the MHRA Yellow Card system.
A Yellow Card report records suspicion. It does not by itself prove that a vaccine caused the reported condition.
Submit or view Yellow Card informationKeep relevant documents
Keep vaccination records, medical notes, test results, appointment letters, employment correspondence, payslips and evidence of financial losses.
Ask Parliament for Justice and Accountability
Dear [MP's name],
Re: COVID-19 vaccine injury, employment redress and accountability
I am writing to ask you to support the creation of a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine injury and employment redress scheme.
The existing Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme provides a fixed one-off payment only where strict statutory criteria are met. It does not calculate compensation according to a person's lifetime care costs, loss of earnings, pension losses or full individual circumstances.
I also ask Parliament to establish an independent review process for workers who were dismissed, suspended, redeployed or otherwise disadvantaged after declining COVID-19 vaccination. Awards should be made where treatment is found to have been unlawful, discriminatory, procedurally unfair or disproportionate.
The Government should publish vaccine contracts, indemnity arrangements, relevant ministerial advice, safety assessments and equality impact assessments, subject only to genuinely necessary redactions.
Compensation should be funded through a fair combination of manufacturer contributions and recovery from any organisation found legally responsible, rather than automatically placing every cost on ordinary taxpayers.
Ministers, officials, employers and manufacturers must be accountable where negligence, misconduct, contractual breach or unlawful conduct is established through due process.
Please confirm whether you will support:
- replacement of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme with a comprehensive compensation system;
- an independent review of COVID-19-related employment losses;
- publication and review of vaccine indemnity arrangements;
- an industry-funded contribution to compensation;
- and stronger legal safeguards for informed consent during future public-health emergencies.
I look forward to receiving your detailed response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your postcode]
Official Laws, Reports and Guidance
Use original sources when sharing information about the campaign.
Justice Requires More Than Sympathy
People who have suffered serious medically established vaccine injury deserve recognition, practical support and compensation based on their real losses.
Workers who were treated unlawfully or disproportionately deserve an effective route to redress.
Manufacturers, employers, public bodies, ministers and officials must be accountable wherever responsibility is established through evidence and due process.
Informed consent. Fair compensation. Employment justice. Full accountability.
This page provides campaign information and is not medical or legal advice. Suspected side effects should be discussed with an appropriate healthcare professional. Employment and compensation cases depend on their individual facts, applicable dates and legal time limits.