Anyone with severe allergies and who risks entering anaphylactic shock has the right to access available cures or remedies, especially during this pandemic.
We cannot serve as guinea pigs and wait to see whether or not we will have an anaphylactic shock because allergy tests against vaccines are not being made available. Yet, vaccine passports are under way, and when I have personally rejected the vaccine it was NOT clear enough that I could not access it due to the high risks related to my allergies. In my case, I cannot eat several different foods, I cannot take antibiotics and painkillers, I cannot use any types of creams, cosmetics and perfumes, with cleaning products my list of choice is limited to a very specific brand of bleach and one vegan cleaning cream, both of which I cannot breath closely when I use it, and still have to cover my face.
I have been recently called to take the vaccine, and I declined. An anaphylactic shock can be a near death experience, but it is traumatic even if it doesn't result in death. Your airwaves clog fast, your tongue swallows, your breathing becomes heavy and difficult, the feeling is obviously physically intense and very scary. After these symptoms occur, it's just a matter of few minutes that for us at risk, can make the difference between dying or living. I went through this about 15 years ago, and I refuse to run the risk to repeat it. I have been told that I could be given the EpiPen right away, but I cannot accept to go through that experience again. The EpiPen only forces the airwaves open, none of the poisons that entered the body and provoked such reaction are being eliminated, no cure is being given, and the stress of a near death experience is great for the body. I - or anyone with similar health conditions- should NOT be asked to undergo such experience again just because they cannot give us an allergy test BEFORE the shot. If we need surgery, we are the ones who have to pay for an allergy test done prior to the operation, because anaesthetics can cause death during surgery, yet there is no obligation for hospital staff to alert you of such risks, you bet on yourself, and when the odds are reversed things are different. People with severe allergies represent about 25% of the population on earth, and we are consistently left behind.
I do not intend to ask why the system is so designed; all I know is that this is a clear violation of human rights. Lifesaving medical care is a basic right. I am not the only one on this planet facing this problem, and with the proposal of vaccine passports, in what category do people with severe allergies fall?
There should be at least an alternative passport that states that due to allergies we can only safely access natural ONGOING treatments and carry with us poof of it. It is possible, it is doable, and it should have been already in place before the pandemic started. We cannot take the risk of anaphylactic shock because governments refuse to investigate what exactly is causing adverse reactions or even give us an allergy test Before receiving the shot.
Based on what is known scientifically (published on the American Library of Medicine since 2020) a few essential oils have given positive results to fight Covid-19. Obviously, the treatment needs to be ongoing one, and it cannot be injected in two or three times. Nevertheless, it is an alternative prevention for people who need it.
I am lucky enough to study towards an MSc that revolves around Neuroscience, I can at least document myself. I have personally tried to check what was that in the vaccine was causing adverse reactions, it has been established that "it could be" propylene glycol, but no real in-depth analyses were carried to determine this, accurately. I have read on more than one research paper that vaccines are safe "because they cause only one death every 100.000". When you know you are likely to be one of ten people every million who could die for an adverse reaction to vaccines, antibiotics or anaesthetics, those numbers make a difference. And falling under the category of "only" one life every 100.000 is NOT acceptable, just like it's not acceptable dying for lack of interest in providing care to those at risk. Allergy tests before receiving shots, before surgery, before being prescribed new antibiotics is not science fiction. It can be easily done, and patients at risk would not die or be hospitalised simply because of general laziness and avoidance.
The second plead of this petition is for health ministers to "explain" the scientific research field that the word "only" put before the description of human death because they are not "statistically significant" should be avoided, especially at a time when science is trying to be as objective and impersonal as possible.
One human life lost because of lack of interest in providing access to allergy tests, is one too many. Ten lives every ten million is still high. Vaccines work for many, NOT for everybody. There are available alternatives and we must have access to it.
The UK and the US have high death rates from Covid-19, obviously a lot must be done to save lives now; since both countries have lead the way in the scientific field it would be great if we people at risk of anaphylactic shock were taken in better consideration during research trials, so that not only more lives would be saved, but maybe a lot more would be learnt about why and how some of us can die because of a lifesaving treatment.
Thanks for your consideration.
M.Tauro and all the signatories of this petition
Please find verifiable links about essential oils and anaphylactic shock study:
Essential oils and dietary restriction's effectiveness to help prevent Covid spread
Ref: Huang, J., Tao, G., Liu, J., Cai, J., Huang, Z., & Chen, J. X. (2020). Current Prevention of COVID-19: Natural Products and Herbal Medicine. Frontiers in pharmacology, 11, 588508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.588508
Quotes from the study: "While the development of cure is at full speed, less attention and fewer effort have been spent on the prevention of this rapidly spreading respiratory infectious disease. Although so far, several vaccine candidates have advanced into clinical trials, limited data have been released regarding the vaccine efficacy and safety in human, not mention the long-term effectiveness of those vaccines remain as open question yet." "We demonstrated that to fill in the response gap between appropriate treatment and commercially available vaccine, repurposing natural products and herbal medicines as prophylactic will be a vigorous approach to stop or at least slow down SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In the interest of public health, this will lend health officials better control on the current pandemic."
Ref: Suraphan Panyod, Chi-Tang Ho, and Lee-Yan Sheen (2020). Dietary therapy and herbal medicine for COVID-19 prevention: A review and perspective Copyright © 2020 Center for Food and Biomolecules, National Taiwan University. Production and hosting by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Quotes from the study: "Current literature provides obvious evidence supporting dietary therapy and herbal medicine as potential effective antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 and as preventive agents against COVID-19. Thus, dietary therapy and herbal medicine could be a complementary preventive therapy for COVID-19. However, these hypotheses require experimental validation in SARS-Cov-2 infection models and COVID-19 patients."
Ref: Silva, J., Figueiredo, P., Byler, K. G., & Setzer, W. N. (2020). Essential Oils as Antiviral Agents. Potential of Essential Oils to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An In-Silico Investigation. International journal of molecular sciences, 21(10), 3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21103426
Quotes from the study: "However, essential oil components may act synergistically, essential oils may potentiate other antiviral agents, or they may provide some relief of COVID-19 symptoms."
Quotes form the study: "Based on the current knowledge a chemo-herbal (EOs) combination of the drugs could be a more feasible and effective approach to combat this viral pandemic."
5, Anaphylactic shock risks
Ref: McLendon K, Sternard BT. Anaphylaxis. [Updated 2020 Jun 7]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/
Quotes from the study: "Physical presentations of anaphylaxis range from mild skin flushing and pruritis to severe respiratory symptoms."
"Having epinephrine on hand can be life-saving if one wants to avoid a fatal outcome. However, despite considerable evidence that epinephrine is the drug of choice, it is under-used. " I
"In the United States, the rates of anaphylaxis have doubled over the past 20 years, and at least 1500 people die from the disorder each year."
UK study: Anagnostou, K., & Turner, P. J. (2019). Myths, facts and controversies in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis. Archives of disease in childhood, 104(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314867
"Many reactions are not treated appropriately (discussed below), yet fatal anaphylaxis is (fortunately) a rare event, with a case fatality rate under 0.001%.8 Severe anaphylaxis, however, is unpredictable, and severe reactions may mimic more mild anaphylaxis reactions in the first instance.9 Delay in appropriate treatment almost certainly contributes to fatalities.10 Therefore, it is critical that all anaphylaxis reactions are treated as a medical emergency".
Reber, L. L., Hernandez, J. D., & Galli, S. J. (2017). The pathophysiology of anaphylaxis. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 140(2), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2017.06.003
Quotes from the study: "Anaphylaxis represents one of the most urgent of medical emergencies, where rapid diagnosis and prompt and appropriate treatment can mean the difference between life and death. While there has been steady progress in our understanding of the antibodies, effector cells and mediators that can contribute to the development and manifestations of anaphylaxis, especially in the context of mouse models of the disorder, the basic clinical management of anaphylaxis has changed little in decades (see Castells et al.6 in this issue of JACI) and Table 2. In a report published in 2005, Sampson et al.5 identified as major research needs both the development of "universally accepted diagnostic criteria" and the importance of identifying "reliable laboratory biomarkers to confirm the clinical impression"