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?
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.
Respectfully, I don't disagree that the 'virus' has never been isolated. But.... in every animal trial with MRNA, (and yes there have been 8) the test animals died due to ADE. I don't give a shit about the virus. Never have. It is the result of the jab which is causing the deaths and side effects. Not covid. But once again, I respect your opinion. Have a great day
OK, but then that means that the animals could NOT have been "exposed to the wild virus" and then got sick. Since that is the claim, and since that COULD NOT have happened, it ends the debate. The people you are citing are just wrong.
Could be, but the DOGS DID NOT GET SICK, AND THEY DID NOT DIE. In other words ... NOTHING BAD HAPPENED TO THE DOGS in the studies.
The poeple you are citing did NOT do their homework. Take a look at the people who are calling them out, and THEN make your conclusion.
If ADE is yet another thing being promoted that is not true, then it would be a good thing to know that, and there is no downside to knowing it.
That is all I am saying.
Now, if the people you cite can show that the people I cite are wrong, THEN we would have something, and you might convince me. Until then, I see no reason to believe in ADE anymore than the fake PCR test or the fake virus.
Later.
I suggest you watch Malone's video and McCullough's video where they discussed the ferrets and mice which all died after receiving the MRNA shots.** They have been available for over a year. But.... I don't do your research for you anymore than I would expect you to do mine. Have a good one.
Well, you have not cited any of the studies they are referencing. You are either too lazy to do it, or more likely you really have no clue what they are talking about.
Here is a ferret study that they might have been referencing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525089/
That study did NOT show any ferrets dying. It did NOT even show any of them getting sick.
It is a joke of a "study."
They injected the ferrets with what they claim was an immunization, then "gave them SARS" but we both know that such a thing does not actually exist in any lab anywhere in the world (which you acknowledged). So, what they actually gave them was a soup of stuff, including monkey kidney cells that were poisoned with antibiotics, and they CLAIM it included SARS in the mix. No proof, just a claim.
That was the "exposed to wild virus" they claim they did. Then, NO FERRETS GOT SICK. The only thing they looked at was antibody levels and "viral load" -- which they could not find after a few days. In the first few days, sure, they put the shit in them, so it would not be surprising if some of it was still in them a few days later.
That proves nothing.
And it is an embarrassement that doctors like you are referencing are relying on non-science like this to claim what they claim.