The UK government says that anyone who has had a ‘significant’ allergic reaction in their lives should not receive a COVID19 Vaccine due to the risks involved. This has profound implications for the entire COVID19 situation on all levels.
Note: The 'official narrative' is that Pfizer carried out 'extensive' safety testing and we should assume they can be trusted, despite the actual safety studies being rushed, small in scope and originating from what is arguably one of the top 20 most criminal corporations in the world. Pfizer has been fined billions of dollars, multiple times, for deliberately making false claims with regard to the science of their products and has also been charged with bribery on a large scale. I do not suggest anyone blindly trusts them or trusts anyone who says that we should blindly trust them!
Logic is your friend when survival is on the line.
The dictionary definition for ‘significant’ is essentially: ‘meaningful’.
What is a ‘meaningful allergy' is subjective since we all create our own meanings in life. However, having had various allergies when younger (prior to understanding how to heal them myself), I think that an allergy is meaningful if it’s symptoms interfere with a person's life and causes suffering.
The statistics shown below highlight the prevalence of allergies in the UK and globally. We can see that ‘allergic disorders’ effect at least 20% of people in the UK. As I understand the meaning of the phrase ‘allergic disorder’, these describe situations where a person experiences significant and meaningful problematic effects from the allergy as opposed to simply having been tested positive for an allergy but never having experienced problematic symptoms.
It is reasonable to conclude, then, that at least 20% of the UK population cannot receive the COVID vaccine due to allergies. This figure could be as high as 40% or even 50% if we consider the other data and statistics presented here:
The World Allergy Organisation (WAO) estimate of allergy prevalence of the whole population by country ranges between 10 - 40% (Pawankar R, et al, 2013)
The UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder. (M. L. Levy, 2004)
A staggering 44% of British adults now suffer from at least one allergy and the number of sufferers is on the rise, growing by around 2 million between 2008 and 2009 alone. Almost half (48%) of sufferers have more than one allergy (Mintel, 2010)
In the 20 years to 2012 there was a 615% increase in the rate of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis in the UK (Turner, Paul J., et al, 2015)
Source: Allergy UK
The vaccine connection to allergies has been known a long time.
I won't even get deeply into the issue of vaccinations actually CAUSING allergies and likely being causal behind the ever increasing level of allergies in the population.
In 2018, Britain saw around 840,000 pregnancies. The UK government guidelines for COVID19 vaccination say that pregnant women should not receive a vaccine since there is no safety data for pregnant vaccine recipients. Therefore, this represents another significant percentage of the population who cannot receive a COVID19 vaccination in any given year.
How Many People Are Unable To Receive the COVID19 Vaccine For Health Reasons?
Let's use what may be a conservative estimate of 30% of people in Britain being unable to take the COVID19 vaccine due to allergies. In truth, the rate of prevalence of allergies is continually increasing. A further 600,000 women annually are unable to take the vaccine due to pregnancy (840,000 minus 30% who would already be included in the figures for allergies), this means that from a population of 68 millions people in Britain, at least 21 million (30.88%) would not be able to receive the vaccination for COVID19 even if they wanted to. No doubt there are other situations where vaccination cannot be performed too.
The arguments for mass vaccination often involve shifting goalposts. For years, I listened to mainstream vaccine proponents saying that we needed to have mass vaccination in order to achieve herd immunity to protect those who are unable to be vaccinated. In essence, the idea is that if enough people become immune to something, the spread of that 'thing' becomes limited to the point where those who are not immune are mostly safe anyway. In the wake of COVID19 suddenly I was hearing the opposite from alleged ‘voices of authority’! Numerous government spokespeople claimed that now we needed to have totally unprecedented lockdowns and removal of human rights because herd immunity either doesn’t exist or is insufficient to protect the vulnerable!
Their logic was that allowing a virus to spread through a population, exactly as they have always done for all of human history, was too dangerous and we shouldn't be aiming to achieve a natural immunity because 'herd immunity' isn't viable or even proven. Setting aside this apparently manipulative strategy with questionable commercial intentions behind it (vaccines are big business), let's look further into the claims made by those who say that herd immunity IS a good idea when vaccines are involved.
In a recent paper published in the prestigious medical journal 'The Lancet', we see an estimate of around 60-72% vaccination coverage being needed to create 'herd immunity'. When the (less than 100%) claimed effectiveness of the COVID19 vaccine is taken into consideration, the number increases to between 75 and 90% vaccine coverage being required in order to achieve ‘herd immunity’.
We can clearly see, then, that considering that over 50% of the population have stated they do not want to receive a vaccine (according to some polls), there is zero chance of achieving herd immunity using the data presented by ‘authoritative sources’. Additionally, The number of people excluded from receiving the vaccine for medical reasons alone makes herd immunity unlikely or impossible.
A percentage of people choose to not receive the vaccination for their own reasons – perhaps due to being aware of the risk of vaccine injury/death and also choosing instead to rely on naturally strengthening their own immunity – so we realise that even if herd immunity IS real and CAN be realised through vaccination, it is not going to occur under current conditions. Attempting to force people to be vaccinated is totally unethical and disrespectful - it may also lead to more tragedy than it can ever prevent.
Emotional/psychological instability and lack of integrity are informing a surprising number of people to try to over-ride and control others in order to literally force them to be vaccinated, the reality is that this approach risks lowering the health of the population anyway. When we are over-ridden as individuals, there is a toll due to stress and other factors, on our health in all possible ways. The only way to have full health is to build a society that holds VOLUNTARY interaction sacred and that does not over-ride the free will of self or others. Nothing beneficial comes through overpowering others and denial of free will.
The Science Does NOT Support Control of Other People, Lockdowns or Forced Anything
The rational conclusion to all of this information (which is only the tip of the iceberg of what could be addressed on this subject) is that placing restrictions on travel, movement, commerce and access to services based on whether a person has been vaccinated or not – in order to try to force ‘herd immunity’ into place via vaccinations is totally unwarranted and illogical. The harm that such actions will do to society in health, social, economic and other ways is immeasurable but is likely far higher than the harm that would be done by simply doing nothing at all and allowing the virus to take it’s course.
Yes, people die from viruses and yes that is tragic and we need to do what makes sense in order to prevent that, but – no – a punitive and controlling course of action is not what is needed. The number of deaths caused by increased poverty alone (More on this at The Guardian, here) is likely to dwarf the numbers of deaths possible from COVID19, let alone the harm done to mental health and the limitations placed on children due to restricted learning and personal development.
Since we know that herd immunity is currently very unlikely to be achievable, even with massive spending on vaccinations - it is now time to accept that we need a more rational approach that considers the needs of ALL people.
CONTROL DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS. TYPICALLY, CONTROL CREATES PROBLEMS AND ONLY DENIAL HAS PEOPLE THINKING OTHERWISE.
Important Data on COVID19
For a deeper look at the statistics regarding COVID19, lockdowns, seasonality of the virus, the many studies which prove lockdowns are ineffective at reducing deaths caused by COVID19 and many related topics, I highly recommend the work of Ivor Cummins:
Wishing you well,