by Steve Cook
A mere day after the COVID19 vax was inflicted on the UK public, two NHS workers reported serious allergic reactions to it.
This has come as something of an embarrassment to a government already under fire for lapses of judgement and morals, which has just announced with some fanfare the advent of its new untested weapon in the war against a flu bug that has proved relatively mild or harmless to the vast majority of people.
The incident immediately raised concerns that if two relatively healthy people can experience virtually immediate adverse reactions how many other people are going to be harmed in the short, medium and long terms by the new vaccines?
Unleashing on the public vaccines for which the usual health and safety trials and animal tests were skipped in the rush to start injecting people, was always going to be a gamble akin to playing Russian Roulette with public health.
It raises many ethical issues, not least that of using NHS workers and the general public as unpaid guinea pigs for an improperly testsed vaccine.
Clearly, however, the government has felt from the outset that it had the right to gamble with the well being of its citizens and is now, according to some sources, hoping that it will get away with it.
Whether it will or not remains to be seen but the reporting of two adverse reactions from the very outset does not bode well for the government nor (more importantly) does it bode well for the health prospects of people persuaded to submit to the vaccine.
Why the government has been in such a hurry to inject people with the new unproven and untried vaccines remains a mystery. It makes no sense in the context of a virus now known to be life threatening for only a tiny minority of people and its spread much less virulent than previously feared when the tendency of the PCR test to return thousands of false positives was being kept quiet.
Even more embarrassing for the government: contrary to what the Health Secretary has been claiming, it has now emerged that the new vaccines do not in fact prevent one becoming infected or infecting others but merely suppress some of the milder symptoms.
This was not explained to the public when the “high effectiveness” of the vaccines was announced. Most people assumed it meant it was higly effective in preventing them from becoming infected. It has since been revealed that this is not the case and it is feared that millions of people may be duped into submitting to the vaccine on a carefully nurtured false asumption.
As the row explodes over the misrepresentation of what the new vaccines can acutally do, a new scandal is now brewing over concerns for its safety.
After the unexpected allergic reactions, the authorities were quick to warn the public that anyone with a history of allergies should not take the vaccine as it is too dangerous.
This of course has prompted many to ask, as one observer put it:
“How come we only find out about this danger AFTER people have been injected? Surely if the vaccine had been properly and thoroughly tested for safety, this issue would have been known beforehand!”
This article is from WebWideNews.
Visit WebWideNews for more great articles
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.