Much of the UK is rejoicing over the approval of the Pfizer vaccine announced yesterday. The country is the first in the world to have a vaccine approved by medical regulators, a fact which has provoked joy in the hearts of many people who see this as the beginning of the end of the dreadful collective ordeal that has been the struggle against COVID-19. There are many though who are not so optimistic over the coming of this new vaccine, viewing it as the latest (and greatest) threat to public wellbeing. Many take this stance as a result of the schizophrenic sub-culture which exists within the growing recesses of social-media platforms- this much is undeniable. Others however, base their concern from reasoned analysis and a substantial weight of evidence that indicates our current vaccine-related trajectory is not only unnecessary, but has the potential to have devastating ramifications on both physical and political wellbeing. Here’s why:
As tragic as any premature death is, the truth is the fatality rate for COVID-19 is so low <1% (Studies on Covid-19 Lethality — Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org) and the cohort severely affected by it so small, that any notion of a vaccine being a ‘necessity’ is far from the truth for most people. Contrary to media fear-mongering, the vast majority of infected persons overcome the virus having suffered little more than mild symptoms and, once infected, are immune for many years- despite the media’s assertion that reinfection is a distinct possibility. This notion ex-Pfizer vice president and well accredited scientist Michael Yeadon recently discredited saying “that’s not how immunology works”.
With the absence of a significant fatality rate and the fact that the majority of cases result in only mild symptoms, how can governments justify any discussion of a vaccine mandate? Whether explicitly through governmental legislation, or implicitly through the lack of regulation on private sector industries -who are already proceeding with discriminatory ‘no vaccine no entry’ policies- medical coercion is not the appropriate course of action in response to the actual threat (or lack thereof) of the pathogen.
“There may one day, Mr speaker, be a virus which threatens our very way of life; but this isn’t it!”- Sir Desmond Swayne (MP)
In addition to this, we have the threat presented by the vaccine itself ; the lack of long-term safety and efficacy testing. “We don’t yet know enough of the long term safety [of the vaccine], that’s not controversial, it’s just not been in people very long”((76) Dr Mike Yeadon: ‘Stong evidence’ of Covid herd immunity in the UK — YouTube). Despite the consistent claims by vaccine manufacturers and governments that these inoculations are absolutely safe, the truth is no one can assure their long term safety as they are still yet to stand the test of time. Who knows what adverse effects may arise in the months and years after the vaccine is administered ?
The short term consequences of these shots are also in question as Bill Gates begrudgingly had to admit on CBS not so long ago, a staggering >80% of participants in the Moderna trial experienced negative side effects. Although this is not the vaccine we are scheduled to roll out in the UK, perhaps it can give some insight into what potential rate of adverse reactions may arise as a result of our Pfizer inoculations? Furthermore, the governments decision to grant legal immunity to pharma companies over any vaccine-related cases brought against them appears to leave the public with no means to seek retribution if and when an adverse reaction is experienced- no matter the severity.
Detriment to civil liberties:
For those who are in the high-risk cohorts the roll out of the vaccine may seem like it could never come too soon and rightly so. Most of us healthy people under the age of 65 though, have an extremely low percentage chance of experiencing anything other than mild symptoms-let alone death-so the question must be asked as to why we are undergoing such a frantic vaccine-oriented frenzy right now? Even if this pathogen had a truly high death rate, the prospect of making a vaccine mandatory or coercing the public into its admission, as is being discussed now, would still be cause for concern and deserve rigorous scrutiny and debate. To what extent is the state legitimately able to enforce a citizen into inputting anything into their own body? Is one’s body not sacrosanct? Have we abandoned our positions as sovereigns of our own person?
On the prospect of a vaccine being a ‘passport’ to the retention of ones civil liberties, Sir Desmond Swayne protested this in an astonishing parliamentary speech; “that would be absolutely disproportionate to a virus with a fatality rate of verging on 1% and would set a terrible precedent for future medications”.
In actuality, states will most probably not mandate this vaccine. They will however, not prevent the private sector from discriminating against those of us who do not choose to take it, thereby refusing sceptics their ability to participate in society (going into shops, flying on aeroplanes, going to concerts etc…). What sort of a precedent of discrimination is this setting? And isn’t it antithetical to all of the progressive tenets we are supposed to champion here in 2020? A firm could rightly not deny services to someone on racial or sexual grounds, nor due to disability, so what permits them to do so here?
If we allow this to go ahead, as it appears it will, we are willingly blurring the once sacred boundary between individuals lives and the state and corporations ability to interfere within them .
Mistrust of pharma:
Alongside the aforementioned factors, mistrust in the pharmaceutical industry ranks high in the reasons for scepticism over this vaccine. Long has it been clear that these companies place profit before the wellbeing of the people they are supposed to be healing. Grossly high prices on essential medications, the opiate crisis, faulty drugs with dangerous side effects, all of these factors and many more have bred a real disdain for this industry in the hearts of many people who will, no doubt, be more than reluctant to accept a vaccination which has not even been subject to adequate testing.
To finish, I will post a segment from Article 8 of The Human Rights Act where it states; ‘If an individual consents to treatment but has not been given sufficient information to make a fully informed decision that consent will not be valid.’ (The Human Rights Act 1998 | Department of Health (health-ni.gov.uk). ‘Sufficient information’ includes potential harmful effects as well as any alternative treatments or approaches effective in tackling the ailment. To date, have we been provided with the full truth about this vaccine which has been proposed to be administered to the entire global population? Have we once, from any mainstream sources, heard of the preventive measures we can ourselves take with no need of a Big Pharma vaccine (vitamin supplementation, exercise, proper nutrition)? I believe for these reasons, a possible opposition to the treatment could be mounted over breach of the H.R.A 1998.