Looking for study where all animals died from ADE after taking MRNA Vaccine

Quite thoroughly. This article was written in 2017, clearly pointing to failure in the development of their mRNA tech. So, we go from failure not only here, but with every major pharma company that’s tried it before (for many years), to EUA “success” in 4 short years.

Right…

Pfizer’s own study shows 95% only if you use the sick people as your sample size, which would be 162

but the sample size was actually 40,000 (half vaxed and half placebo) so it ends up really being less than one percent, lol

it’s just number juggling that gets them to 95, in reality it’s their own study that shows it doesn’t work, lol

I don’t have a link offhand, you can find it

and incidentally, there were 3410 cases of suspected but untested covid in the whole group, close to half vaxed and half placebo, more numbers for them to juggle, lol

here’s an article about some major problems with the math and number juggling in the study:

[link to blogs.bmj.com (secure)]

I remember Texas was the first I heard of it. Maybe this will help.

Thread: COVID Vaccine Trials In Animals Were Stopped Because They Kept Dying, Revealed In Texas Senate Hearing

Anecdotal evidence is mounting though, and one might be able to verify the claims of ADE in animal studies if only companies like Moderna and/or Pfizer would release their data. Kinda hard to assess the efficacy of the new tech if you can’t get the data, don’t y’a think?

The simple fact that it’s not (readily available for study) speaks volumes actually.

More reading material:

mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology

[link to www.nature.com (secure)]

Last Edited by BobGalt on 09/19/2021 10:29 PM

Exactly~! Animals ... Head down to the local ICU.. They have them caged in their own section.. Just follow the sounds of the ventilator pumps..

So you're saying we should ignore the government entirely.

I was put onto a situation in Wuhan back in Nov 2019. By Dec it was 40+ hours/week. And with a copy of the government's pandemic plan in hand, watching things happen here was fascinating. Especially once I read the NPE (nonpharmaceutical interventions) part. In short, they look not just at health concerns, but at social and economic ones also.

Think about the BS early on with masks. They were managing a system (not our health), and masks to first responders and front-line workers were viewed as critical. So they lied to the country to try to keep stocks from drying up instantly.

And then there's the corruption, for a bonus. That's a better fit for the problem of the US government pushing vaccines and ignoring all other treatments, and not even ramping up rapid testing and test availability. It's hard not to believe people are getting obscenely rich over this. For all the wrong reasons.

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Because he is a paid shill for Big Pharma.

So many things here. First, one of those "small handful of truly legitimate reasons" to not take a vaccine is because I don't want to. End of story. Military is one thing, you are essentially signing up to be a slave there, but even that should really only be when you are going into battle imminently. But back to any kind of mandates, if you do not have control over what gets injected into your body, or what medical treatments are performed on you, then you are in no way free, at all. Forget all the bullshit data (see what I did there) that has been pumped through the propaganda machines for 18 months on the severity of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccines, it doesn't even matter.

We can talk about it though. As for "do you have the right to potentially kill", uh, got numbers on that chief? The answer is no, you don't. But even if you did, what do you think those numbers would show? They might show a 1% increase in deaths (i.e. barely even statistically significant) when going from 90% vaccinated population down to 50%. That's pretty darn small. Now compare the number of additional vaccine deaths when going from 50% up to 90% and it is probably a wash. So, that argument is bullshit, and you know it.

And this doesn't even touch on what are the criteria for allowing mandatory injections? I'm sure you would say "when there is a global pandemic, then it is justified". Ok, define "global pandemic". And I mean define it explicitly and unambiguously with actual number. I'm guessing you would say "X number of deaths, or X percent of population die in a given year, then that qualifies". Ok, who is the final arbiter of what the number of deaths were for a virus for a given year? And how would you guarantee that they are not corruptible? You can't, because everyone is corruptible. And you want more deaths to show up, just crank up the cycle count on some new PCR tests. This again shows that since there is no incorruptible way to lay out explicit criteria for when vaccines can be mandatory, it will therefore always be political, and thus never justified.

And let me talk about what you are doing here for a minute, though I know it will not affect you because you are a disgusting human being. You stated that you are using an alt account so that you can disagree with the overwhelming majority of the site without losing karma. Two questions, why do you need karma so bad, and why do you want to spend your precious time at a site trying to change the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the users because they have opposite opinions to you? The answer to these questions is that you are one of two things:

1. A bottom-up enforcer, meaning you have been manipulated into action by a brainwashing propaganda machine to seek out and change the opinions of anyone that is causing problems for the mainstream agenda. But my question is, why not spend that time and energy helping your own side to learn the truth? Most of the information put out by your propaganda machine around the severity of the virus and the efficacy and safety of the vaccines has been blatantly false, yet you do not seem to care. And if you care so much about the truth, why all of the deception to try and spread your opinions?

2. A paid shill (this one is almost 98% the likely situation). In this case, obviously everything makes sense. You do all of the disgusting things you do because your employers pay you to advance their agendas.

A so-called vaccine doesn't have to work or improve protection from getting a virus ... they only/merely have to pay/bribe politicians/whores into pushing it as 'mandatory' onto the public.

Realize:

vaccines no longer have to work, just like elections no longer have to be accurate or truthful.

Lying is the order of this day and age now.

Fact.

Caveat emptor.

[link to www.pbs.org (secure)]

This is one scary scenario.

" 'With the hottest strains, every unvaccinated bird dies within 10 days. There is no human virus that is that hot. Ebola, for example, doesn’t kill everything in 10 days.'
In fact, rather than stop fowl from spreading the virus, the vaccine allows the disease to spread faster and longer than it normally would, a new study finds."

Wasn’t a study it was a lab test

6 minutes later...

Exposed as a liar.

They're real. I posted links to some on here myself. The trouble is, the Google machine keeps deindexing them so they're becoming difficult to find and a couple of them that were on NIH pubmed have been 404'd....

I bookmarked them back in 2020 but nearly all of the links have been 404d as well.

If you look in my post history... I annotated some of them and posted current links a few weeks back the last time this discussion came up.

Prove it.

You know you're deliberately ignoring good information when it's given to you.

So, you're obviously a vaxxer. Better hope you can trust politicians with your medical decisions.

Remember "we're the government, and we're here to help."

Welcome to the world of helping genocidal maniacs murder people.

Welcome to the world of sharing the same future as the murderers.

I didn’t read the whole thread - stopped once I started seeing all the shills, so apologies of any of this is a repost.

Starting in April 2020, I started archiving and categorizing every study that I read relating to COVID-19 or it’s predecessors. I have an enormous database of information accumulated so I think I have what you mean.

First of all, these studies had nothing to do with mRNA.

Scientists have been trying to find a vaccine for coronaviruses for more than 20 years. Remember, though SARS-COV-2 is a coronavirus, it’s just one in a class of coronaviruses that include, for example, the common cold.

Every time they created a successful vaccine, ADE was the end result. Without exception. I know of four studies; see below. Note I haven’t read these in over a year I think it’s what youre seeking.
Ferrets:
[link to journals.plos.org (secure)]

Ferrets and non-human primates:
[link to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (secure)]

Mice:
[link to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (secure)]

Cats, swine and rodents:
[link to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (secure)]

Regarding PCR tests...

Link to the Corman-Drosten Review Report from November 2020 curated by an international consortium of scientists in life sciences on the RTPCR tests revealing flaws and requesting retraction of the original paper laying out the RT-qPCR test protocol…

[link to cormandrostenreview.com (secure)]

Abstract from the report...

In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field.

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The following 22 Scientists conclude...

Pieter Borger(1), Bobby Rajesh Malhotra(2) , Michael Yeadon(3) , Clare Craig(4), Kevin McKernan(5) , Klaus Steger(6) , Paul McSheehy(7) , Lidiya Angelova(8), Fabio Franchi(9), Thomas Binder(10), Henrik Ullrich(11) , Makoto Ohashi(12), Stefano Scoglio(13), Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens(14), Dorothea Gilbert(15), Rainer Klement(16), Ruth Schruefer(17), Berber W. Pieksma(18), Jan Bonte(19), Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare(20), Kevin P. Corbett(21), Ulrike Kämmerer(22)

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

They've been working on mRNA vaccines since 1989.

Incidentally, I once worked for a biological study company. I actually sat in the mammal toxicology unit and this was the kind of stuff they worked on .... Ebola... Yellow fever, Etc. I got paid pretty w lol because I had to sign a waiver agreeing that if any biohazard ever escaped containment, we would all be sealed into the building.

They were working on this mRNA stuff then. And no, it wasn't working. The test populations kept dying and then they would have to necropsy the controls.

It's not that it doesn't work for coronavirus, it doesn't seem to work with anything that mutates rapidly without causing major side effects aka "genetic syndromes" that typically result in untimely death.

ADE

is more fake

than AZT or REMDESIVIR causing ppl 2 die

^^^ AKA ^^^

PCRGATE

I don't think anybody questions whether or not the mRNA genetic therapies are effective against the strain they were created for. The problem is ... In a nutshell... That down the line you have no programmed your immune system to make these antibodies and only these antibodies. So, when a new strain emerges for which your antibodies are ineffective, your body begins to produce tons of the thinking it's defending itself, when in fact it's doing nothing at all, and the virus is replicating unmitigated in the background.

There are also other problems in that your body may now produce these proteins unmitigated in overdrive leading to other problems, like clotting.

This is a ridiculous question. If you ever had a cold, the flu, an STD, chicken pox, HPV, or any other of millions of different pathogenic diseases that are spreadable within a community, the same argument can be made.

Nobody else is responsible for your health but you. If you want to live you're life solitarily in a cave in the Andes mountains and only visit the general public in a tyvek suit, that's your prerogative, but you're not going to force your medical decisions on me..

My body, my choice.

it is not because of mRNA that animals died, but rather because of suboptimal antibodies

[link to www.chop.edu (secure)]

The specimens have repeatedly suffered lung & liver failure. Yes, the euthanize them before "natural causes" as the impends death is already apparent, and they want to biopsy the organs for study before there is nothing left.

Not true...
It depends which mRNA vaccine you mean, lmao ...the one for SARS covid 2 hasn't been tested on animals yet, or did you forget that ?
The studies on sars1 had many issues. no mRNA has EVER passed
animal testing, and since the covid19 vax is a small yet untested on animals , that record is intact

Sorry sar2 should say covid19