I believe I understand why this is happening... Hell, they are telling us their plan!
From the least vaccinated country now evolves the most dangerous strain! And it is HIV like, meaning: it affects and destroys the entire immune system. (As Malone, McCullough etc told us would happen to the vaxxed months ago. ie ADE, antibody deficiency enhancement).
Therefore, not only did it evolve because of the dirty unvaxxed but... now there is a convenient reason why the vaxxed are beginning to suffer in ever increasing numbers. (it surely can't be because the jab has been ineffective from the start)
The narrative will now be switched hardline in the coming days to mandatory vaccinations, as in Austria, which was to get people used to the idea in the first place.
And it also conditions people to believe the vax is now more necessary now than ever - to protect the children.
And.... They can also use this to point out (to the vaxxed) the ineffectiveness of Ivermectin, as this has long been the most widely used drug in that part of the world. Way before covid.
So, expect a push for lockdowns world-wide over the coming days and a push for the children to be jabbed. My only wonder is: how many parents may wake up when they find their 'vaxport' will only be valid if their children are vaxxed?
That's fine. I disagree with you. Let's have a debate.
That is not how science is determined. There was a time when "the most respected people" thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. That did not make them right. Majority opinion is never what makes anybody right (or wrong).
If these people have formed an opinion without looking at the actual studies, then their opinions are uninformed.
Watch that clip I posted at 22:00, and let me know what you think.
Again, it makes no difference if someone is claiming that it is similar to HIV. If they claim it is also similar to unicorns, would you believe them?
If unicorns do not exist, then their comparison would be irrelevant.
Likewise, if HIV does not exist, then such a comparison would also be irrelevant.
lol You're an argumentative fella aren't you. Again, I respect your opinion, because that is only what it is, but I respectfully disagree. And time will ultimately judge who is right.
So, you are the type who forms an opinion and is not willing to consider other possibilities.
That is not a good way to go through life. Thinking you can never be wrong about something is a sure way to be wrong about something. That's what normies do.
Have a good day.
Unless you've backed off your opinion, you just proved yourself to be just as close minded. Again, I respect your opinion. I wish both of us were wrong but... keep up the fight! And quit with the disrespect, it gets you nowhere and earns you nothing.
You got it backwards.
The people you are following who say that ADE is a real thing are promoting an idea that cannot be true.
They are saying that tests were done where:
Animals (such as dogs) were given a vaccine with a "live virus" or they were given a "vaccine" with mRNA (which, of course, is not a vaccine at all).
The animals were then exposed to the "wild virus."
The animals then got very sick and/or died.
Conclusion: The animals got sick and/or died because their immune system could not fight off the wild virus, due to having received the vaccine.
The first two could not have happened, and the third did not happen. Therefore, the conclusion was wrong.
Here is why:
Now, if instead it is the mRNA "vaccine" used, then it is possible that such a drug could be injected into the dogs. But, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE as to what these drugs do in the body. NO RESEARCH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED on this subject. So, there is no way to know if they do or do not cause problems. I suspect that they do cause problems, but nobody can say for sure, since such research either has not been done, or the research has been done but has not been disclosed to the public -- including to the doctors/researchers you are citing.
The animals being exposed to the "wild virus" is ... IMPOSSIBLE. Again, the virus is NOT available in any lab anywhere in the world. Therefore, no researcher could expose anyone or any animal to something that does not exist.
The studies that these people are referring to, where they are claiming the animals died ... DID NOT HAPPEN. The research DID happen, but the animals DID NOT GET SICK, and certainly DID NOT DIE. These people you are following have NOT reviewed the actual studies. You only THINK they did. Clearly, they did not if they got this basic thing wrong. The animals were killed by the researches so they could be studied, but they were not sick before they were killed, and they did not die from the "wild virus exposure" (which did not happen). These doctors/researchers simply did not read the actual studies, even though you assume they must have.
Therefore, their conclusion is not valid.
I have looked at BOTH sides of this issue, not just one side.
You, OTOH, have only looked at ONE side, and you refuse to look at the other side.
You are the close-minded one, my friend.
But you can change that, and take a look at the other side anytime you want.
I'm out for the day. Have a good one.