- The Washington Times - Thursday, December 10, 2020

It was Day One of U.K.’s rollout of the much-ballyhooed coronavirus vaccine — and already people began reporting adverse reactions.

That’s not just bad news. That’s oops, public relations’ devastation bad news.

Anyhow, now the UK. government regulators are saying that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions to things like, umm, cats or Christmas trees or, oh, let’s see, maybe chemicals that are injected into their bodies that haven’t undergone testing for long-term effects — that maybe these people with these significant allergy-prone histories ought not stand in line for the Pfizer-BioNTech version.

Good advice.

Nothing like rising hospital counts to bring a halt to ye olde injection program, yes? After all, those hospital rooms are supposed to be reserved for coronavirus patients — not coronavirus vaccination patients.

Regardless, the defenders of the rushed global coronavirus vaccine program are now coming out hard to defend the rushed global coronavirus vaccine program in the face of the unfortunately timed allergic reactions suffered by a couple of England’s early shot-takers. And they’re defending the rushed global coronavirus vaccine program by offering up the rather lame “we knew this was going to happen” line of defense.


“As is common with new vaccines, the MHRA [Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely,” said Stephen Powis, the national medical director for the National Health Service in England, in a statement reported by The Associated Press.

In other words: We knew that some people wouldn’t react well to the vaccine. So we’re now asking that those people who think they won’t react well to the vaccine to stay home and not take the vaccine.

That’s an interesting public relations whitewash.

It’s sort of the same message the people who don’t want to serve as Big Pharma’s coronavirus guinea pigs have been saying as reason to not take the shot — that the side effects aren’t known, and that this unknown makes it risky business for individuals to take the shot.

Now here come the adverse side effects.

But instead of acknowledging individuals’ concerns and underscoring the individuals’ rights to choose what goes into one’s own body, versus what does not, government — at least the government in the United Kingdom — is shoulder-shrugging off the adverse allergic reactions of a couple, and saying, in essence, big deal, this is expected.

Well, if the government expects negative effects from the coronavirus vaccine, isn’t that the same as admitting that individuals are quite right and proper and correct in hesitating to take the coronavirus shot?


Yes, it is.

The fact that the government is trying, Orwellian like, to draw the opposite conclusion just underscores the need for individuals to think and think hard before taking the vaccine.

On the COVID-19 vaccine, there’s no guarantee of its safety. At this point, there’s not even a guarantee citizen safety is the government’s No. 1 priority.

And for Americans, the lesson is this: Just because government says something is safe doesn’t mean it is. Just because politicos and medical bureaucrats promise the vaccine will return society to normal doesn’t mean it will. On the vaccine, Americans need to think and consider carefully the effects, the side-effects and the long-term effects and side-effects — because right now, and this is the red flag, nobody knows.

• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter by clicking HERE.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide