by Steve Cook

A mere day after the COVID19 vax was inflicted on the UK public, 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!"