They started the animal testing and did a fair amount
They never published any results
They stopped the animal testing and went to human trials
So one of two things would have happened:
If the animal tests showed promising results (i.e. they didn't kill the animals or cause serious side effects) they would have continued the testing and/or published the results as it would have helped the narrative that they are safe. They didn't publish or continue so we know this didn't happen.
If the animal tests had bad results (i.e. it killed the animals) they would stop the animal testing.
So while there isn't documented proof that the animals were dying or having serious side effects, it's the only logical conclusion based on the vaccine company actions.
If you subscribe to the theory that this is a depopulation event then, the animals dying was the result they wanted. And, even if it wasn't the reaction they wanted they still used the information garnered from those "failed" test and used it, learned from it. I've thought this for a while now, that they know exactly what is going to happen to people that get the jab and that it's a deliberate act.
What we do know is the following:
So one of two things would have happened:
So while there isn't documented proof that the animals were dying or having serious side effects, it's the only logical conclusion based on the vaccine company actions.
If you subscribe to the theory that this is a depopulation event then, the animals dying was the result they wanted. And, even if it wasn't the reaction they wanted they still used the information garnered from those "failed" test and used it, learned from it. I've thought this for a while now, that they know exactly what is going to happen to people that get the jab and that it's a deliberate act.