-May 28, 2021
AS Kathy said in yesterday’s TCW, we have been amazed and delighted at the number and quality of the entries for our competition for the best way to deal with the question ‘Have you had the jab yet?’ or the follow-up, ‘You ought to.’ It is true to say that every single entry was worth publishing but with considerable difficulty we have pared them down to a representative selection. There will be further choices tomorrow and Sunday, with the runners-up and champagne winner being announced on Bank Holiday Monday.
If you’ve already had the vaccine and you’re protected, why does my vaccine status matter to you? Unfortunately, we know the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. But here’s the good news: the data shows that 99.8 per cent of the small but vulnerable group who are infected with Sars-CoV-2, survive. Contrary to exaggerated assumptions based on inaccurate PCR tests, official data shows that Sars-CoV-2 and its variants are similar to other seasonal viruses. They follow a classic ‘Bell Curve’ graph, infecting people via the upper respiratory tract, as common cold variants do. When herd immunity is reached, the virus peaks and becomes endemic, regardless of vaccination or not.
Since I have no ‘co-morbidities’, I’m not obese, I’m a physically active 64-year-old and I supplement my diet with vitamin D, vitamin C and zinc, I have sound reasons to believe I’ll survive without being vaccinated.
Is it ’selfish’ to be cautious, or to say it’s ‘my body, my choice’?
Why should I expose myself to the risk of life-threatening adverse reactions from an experimental messenger RNA injection, which won’t complete its medium-term safety trial ’til 2023? No, I’d rather let my wonderfully designed immune system do its job than potentially cause permanent damage to it by introducing a foreign spike protein into my body, the long-term effects of which are unknown.
Why is it ‘my public duty’ to be vaccinated when we don’t hold others to account in the same way? Do bus drivers have a public duty to resign forthwith because diesel particulates cause cancer?
The Nuremberg code states: ‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential’. A policy of mandatory vaccination would violate that principle. We should think very carefully before surrendering personal autonomy over our own bodies. In today’s media-driven climate of fear, the fundamental question is this: will we be allowed to live as morally responsible, autonomous individuals or are we simply slaves whose bodies belong to the state?
My usual response to conversations heading towards ‘ought’, with apologies to those subjected to the onslaught.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology ought to have taken proper care modifying bat viruses. USA ought not to have continued to fund WIV. NHS ought to have coped with C-19 without destroying the UK economy and the lives of children and the vulnerable. HMG ought to have resisted panic and CCP manipulation. HMG ought to have admitted its early mistakes rather than maintaining power by incarcerating the well. Sage ought not to have manipulated and scared people. We all ought to have been braver. Churches ought to have resisted closure. People ought not to have died for lack of medical care or basic human contact.
NHS ought not to be pressing me to take experimental therapies contrary to the Nuremberg Code. You ought to have read the NHS leaflet that explains that the C-19 vaccines have not been proved to reduce infection or transmission. You ought to know that the vaccines were only required to show symptom reduction to be granted emergency use authorisation. You ought to consider whether symptom reduction increases transmission.
You ought to get out in the sun and get some exercise. You ought to read Conservative Woman.
If you try to bully my grandchildren there will be trouble.
Dr Sarah Myhill
I overheard a couple of guinea pigs having a chat. The first said, ‘Are you going to have the CV 19 vaccine?’
‘Not on your life I’m not,’ said the second. ‘Well, not until the human trials have been completed.’
‘Harry – great to see you. It’s been a long time . . . Very well, thanks. And you? . . . No, I haven’t had my first, actually . . . Yes, I got the call – calls. Six phone calls, two letters. Turned it down . . . Nah – I’m slim, fit, healthy as far as I know. Vaccine side effects worry me more than Covid . . . Yes, but I might be one of the unlucky few. Anyway, those are the short-term effects. No one knows how it’ll work out long term, because they’ve only tested it for a few months . . . You trust what this government tells you? Really? If it’s that safe, why have the drug companies got immunity from prosecution, and why are they only going to give vaccine compensation to people with more than 60 per cent disability? And then only £120,000? Think about that. Imagine being permanently disabled, too ill to earn your living, and that beggarly amount is all you have to last you the rest of your life. It’s insulting. Especially after this dumb government has been blowing hundreds of billions of our money on stupid things like Test and Trace! If they don’t have faith in the vaccines, I don’t see why I should . . . I wasn’t shouting. And I’m not being selfish. You’ve had your vaccine and you’ve got your magic mask. I’m not a danger to you, I’m a problem, because at the back of your mind you’re afraid I might be right, and you want everyone to be in this together just in case it all goes pear-shaped. You can’t face the possibility that people like me who were too smart to be brainwashed into taking an untested experimental vaccine will be wandering around while you lot are dying like flies . . . Sorry you feel that way. I’ll see you around. Give my love to Helen.’
One cannot prove a negative so the premise is inappropriate. When challenged, never engage directly: simply ask ‘Why did YOU get vaccinated?’ There is a limited number of responses to this question: always remember – they are idiots.
1) ‘Social responsibilty – saving lives’. Sample response: if you study the information leaflet when you get vaccinated it specifically states that the vaccine neither confers immunity nor stops the spread – it just mitigates symptoms. So not social responsibility, mere self-interest!
2) ‘Government told us to.’ Response: Move to China.
3) ‘Vaccine has reduced Covid dramatically.’ Response: In 2020 Covid peaked mid-April. Three months later Covid deaths down to double figures per day. No vaccine.
Vaccine introduced early December 2020.
In 2021 Covid peaked in January. Three months later Covid deaths down to double figures per day. No causation: no correlation.
4) ‘I want a vaccination passport so I can go to Ibiza.’ Response: ‘That’s surely a reason NOT to be vaccinated!’
5) ‘Because you are not vaccinated you will delay freedom.’ (Daily Mail, May 18.) Response: How? Why? – refer to the above responses. Put the onus on them to prove this. If they are so confident in vaccination to protect them why should they be concerned about my vaccination status? It has nothing to do with them.
6) ‘Vaccine is 95 per cent effective’ Response: relatively as statistical sleight of hand yes: absolutely in the real world 1 per cent – look it up!
5) ‘Vaccinated because I’m in vulnerable group or immuno-compromised:’ Response: Well done! Luckily I’m not!
Simply don’t defend yourself but instead put them on the back foot by asking them to justify their decision to be vaccinated.
Somebody who spent an entire career in the pharmaceutical industry remarked early in the Covid situation on the implicit distinction which used to exist between medicines and vaccines. I hope I’m relaying accurately what he said, but if I’m getting it right, it went like this: When developing medicines which are to be administered to people who are already sick in the hope of making them better, a level of risk is acceptable in those medicines which would not be countenanced when developing a vaccine because the latter, by definition, is to be put into the bodies of healthy people to prevent them from getting sick in the first place. The level of care necessary to ensure that level of safety in a vaccine has traditionally meant a long and arduous approval and licencing process, so the speed (haste?) with which the various Covid vaccines have been rushed on to the scene causes me to wonder how they can possibly have been subject to anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny and diligence relating to immediate side-effects and potential long-term complications. Accordingly, any reports of adverse effects already occurring should be cause for serious concern, let alone the sort of conditions which keep being mentioned in connection with folks who have recently been given these vaccines; anecdotal some of these reports might be, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong.
Meanwhile, if you’re reading these words, it’s very likely that you’re already familiar with the reality of who is most predominantly affected by Covid. Today’s programme, as I imagine Sesame Street could have put it, is brought to you by the numbers 82 and 99.9, and the words obese, elderly, infirm, underlying, health and conditions, so I needn’t repeat the background behind them. But these words and numbers are important when deciding whether the vaccine is for me, when the other side of the risk/return assessment contains so much uncertainty. For me, for now, the conclusion is inevitable: The treatment is much, much scarier than the disease.
If someone asks me why I am not having the jab I always say, ‘Before I answer that, I would like to know why you’re having it!’
If you like our work please consider to donate: