A very small study has shown a very few cases where those who had had covid before they had a jab, showed a reduction in immunity after the jab which appears to indicate that ADE had developed. This is a very worrying development as it indicates that ADE is no longer a theoretical possibility, but can and does occur after the covid jabs. However, with such a small study which did not follow up the participants longterm, it is impossible to say what the long term implications are. All that has changed is that we have gone from "it is a theoretical possibility ADE develops ... but we don't know what it will do longterm". To "ADE does sometimes develop and we (still) don't know what it will do longterm".

A.D.E. or Antibody Dependent Enhancement is a condition that occurs with some vaccines, whereby after initially providing some immunity, as the immunity fades, the vaccine leaves an imbalance in antibodies. This leads to a condition whereby it is more likely that the person who had the vaccine will not only contract the virus, but spread it to others and get a more serious version of the illness.

After reviewing available data, I now believe that the data is consistent with the widespread development of A.D.E. in the UK. That, is not to say that A.D.E. is developing, but instead it is that the data shows peculiarities that I cannot presently explain except through a hypothesis that A.D.E. is developing. I therefore think it is right that I make known this assessment and that I outline the very little that I can discern about the possible impact if this hypothesis turns out to be correct.

It appears to me that the peculiarities in the data started in July, which is about 7 months after the start of the covid jab.If A.D.E. has developed this suggests that it initially causes a relative low level of deaths. Given that the jab was first given to the old, vulnerable (& probably politicians), it seems likely that if A.D.E. is developing, it is being expressed first in these groups. However, just as the jab was rolled out over many months, we would then expect to see A.D.E., start to develop in other groups in the following months. My expectation, is that A.D.E., will get worse, first in the elderly who had the jab first and then in other groups, resulting in more deaths. So, if A.D.E., is developing, we will begin seeing an increase in "covid deaths" amongst these groups in the coming months.

My initial thoughts were that the deaths would occur in one epidemic. On reflection, I now anticipate that these deaths will occur in a series of small "outbreaks". As more and more become susceptible to infection, eventually this will be sufficient to allow the rapid spread of covid, there will then be an epidemic amongst the newly susceptible: there will be a rapid rise in positive tests, then hospitalisation, then deaths, followed by a relative fast decline in numbers, a short lull and then as susceptibility increases amongst those who had the jab, there will be another repeat. Initially, as susceptibility increases, each successive peak is likely to be larger than the previous one.

The over all timescale is unknown, but I have anecdotal information suggesting that in animal trials of a covid vaccine, all animals were dead within two years, however, I have been told by a reliable source that only 50% of animals died, but that might be another study. It therefore seems that the worst case scenario, is at least 50% mortality over a two year period from the date each group got the jab. However, these studies were for more deadly forms of Sars. It is therefore possible the death rate will be a lot less for covid, but that may be a false assumption.

Treatment

In theory, it is possible that giving a booster jab may reduce the chances of contracting covid and therefore death. However, given that the jab created the problem, this approach could just make the situation worse. And, it may only work for a particular variant when we know variants keep changing.

Many suggest that Ivermectin is effective at treating covid. I would not dismiss that without extremely good data (from a reliable source which isn't profiteering from the jab). However, given the suggested cause of A.D.E., it is possible that even if Ivermectin is usually beneficial, that because A.D.E. is an imbalance in antibodies, that if the treatment boosts the immunity in the wrong way, it could worsen the A.D.E. and so might not be beneficial. That same may be said of any other treatment that is thought to "boost immunity".

The present situation is that I know of no treatment, but one may be found, but it is also possible that there may not be any viable treatment.

The jabbed and unjabbed

As I understand it, A.D.E. makes people who took the jab more susceptible to covid, and more likely to spread it to others. As such, there is a risk that the jab may increase the general prevalence of covid and that could put those who have not taken the jab at increased risk. As such, I can envisage a situation where medics who did not take the jab, refuse to treat people who have had the jab because they put those medics at greater risk

Possible Action

In the comedy "Blackadder", the character Baldwick often had what he called "a cunning plan". I don't. Politicians have not been listening to common sense even from the most respected sources, so they will not listen now. The population of the UK have been brainwashed by constant "scare porn" propaganda and social media programming. There is no prospect of deprogramming them. And, there is  no action, short of a time machine to go back and stop giving out the jab, that will stop A.D.E. developing. So, it is now too late for most people who have already had the jab, and it seems unlikely much can be done to change what happens to the rest as UK "experts" never admit they were wrong ... so there is no prospect of a U-turn on their policy of INCREASING the number jabbed by illegally FORCING jabs on everyone.

If this sounds bleak and defeatist, that is because I am a realist. The only thing that will change the minds of those who are presently committing this crime ... is for the deaths to start occurring. But, bizarrely, even when the deaths get recognised as occurring, they will iniitially be interpreted as showing that the program of jabbing people must proceed even faster than previously. Indeed, that is what is happening right now: deaths that seem very possibly caused by the jab are being cited as a reason to jab children.

If anyone had been listening to the UK government or media, rather than looking at the data, they could be forgiven for thinking that 2020 was a totally exception year.

But as the age adjusted death rate for each year in England and Wales shows, that was an outright lie:

The reality is that 2020 was well below years in the 2000s and that if we average 2019, which was particularly low,  and 2020, we find that the death rate was almost the same as years in the 2010s. There was no abnormal number of deaths.

And the situation is even better in Sweden which didn't have a lockup: Lockdown Sceptics

Above is a graph from the React-2 study of anti-bodies showing that each of the three peaks of the epidemic, that the lockups occurred after the epidemic had peaked and started to decline. As such the lockup did not cause the peak, nor did it reduce the size of the peak, nor did it cause the epidemic to deline. If they had any effect, it was at best marginal at the end of the epidemic after it had been naturally controlled without (illegal) government lockups.

For a full discussion by Professor Tim Spector, principal investigator at ZOE; Professor Simon Wood, from the University of Edinburgh see:

Things were not going well for the UK genetic therapy program but they have suddenly gone from a "flop" to a "scandal".

The flop

Put simply, because they gave the genetic therapy to those most at risk of dying, then the death rate should have come down relative to positive cases (with a delay). It hasn't showing the therapy is having no discernible effect.

To explain it in more detail: They gave the therapy to those most at risk of dying. So, we can divide society into two groups:

A: Those most at risk of dying
B: Those least at risk of dying 

Overwhelmingly those who die are in group A. Those who test positive are in both group A and B, however, since group A is much smaller than group B, the people who test positive will be predominantly from group B.

So, the simplest test is to compare the number of positive tests, with the number of deaths and to see whether the ratio remains constant. If the ratio remains constant, then the graph of deaths and the graph of positive cases should be the same (with a delay for deaths). At the moment we are seeing a reduction in both, so we have various scenarios:

1. The rate of decline of deaths is much greater than tests => the therapy worked
2. The rate of decline in deaths is about the same as the test => the therapy has no significant effect
3. The death rate doesn't decline anywhere near as fast as the tests => the therapy is causing deaths.

What we see (graph right source worldometer) is that the graph of deaths (red) and that of positives (blue) are very similar in the second peak. This indicate the therapy had no discernible effect. However, what we also see is that the ratio of deaths to positives has increased from the first to the second peak, after the therapy started to be given. Let's restate that: after the vaccine started to be doled out, deaths were higher than before. Unfortunately, there are a few issues: the delay between positives and deaths, that this delay isn't fixed with tends to smooth out the peak, and that not all the deaths are reported in the last week and a bit. This might leave wriggle room for the vaccine companies. However, we can check this conclusion. We assume that the therapy went first to the very elderly. Then we expect any therapy effect to first have an effect on the most elderly. So if we compare the death rate amongst the very elderly with younger groups if the rate is falling much faster than other groups, then the therapy is working. If about the same, then not. This time we are comparing like with like and do not need to include a time delay. Here is a graph showing total excess deaths which we are told are due to covid (source)

Again, the shape of the curves since 20 December are very similar. We certainly are not seeing a rapid decline of the over 85s taking them below any other age group. Indeed, the numbers are becoming so small that it will soon be impossible to make out any further change. That means for all realistic purposes, this peak in deaths ended naturally and not because of any therapy. So it was a flop!

The Scandal

“This is a new Holocaust” – Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann

But not only is the therapy a flop, but it may well become a scandal if research in Israel that people are far more likely to die from the therapy than covid turns out to be true.

It's very difficult to validate this research, because like the UK, their government is trying to hide the genetic therapy deaths. But this is the key claims:

  • In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
  • Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
  • On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: “We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine.”
  • The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
  • Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.

Source

Explaining the anomaly

The UK have made sure that as many people as possible have heard the false narrative that the "vaccine is working" by claiming that the "vaccine" has been shown to produce anti-bodies. But as we see above, it isn't reducing deaths. However, could the Israeli research explain this anomaly? If people were getting an immune response from the genetic therapy, then that could reduce deaths, but if the therapy is also causing deaths, of which only a small fraction were counted as "covid deaths" due to false positives, is it possible that the coincidence of covid positive and dying from the therapy and the reduction in covid from the therapy appear to cancel each other out? 

The crime

Under international law, it is an extremely serious crime to force people to undergo experimental medical procedures, whether that is a mass quarantine which was a very experimental medical procedure, or the still experimental genetic therapies they falsely call "vaccines". I haven't checked but the punishment may include the death penality, which given that the research from Israel is beginning to suggest the therapy is a death sentence for some, may be quite appropriate.

Now that 2020 is over, I thought I would plot the bi-annual number of deaths per 100,000 population.

As you will no doubt notice, 2019-2020 not only doesn't show an alarming number of deaths, it is in fact the lowest (equal) number of deaths out of all the years in the last two decades. Isn't that GREAT - we should be celebrating that life expectancy went up over the last two years as we had a record breaking low number of deaths.

Under the Human Rights act there is a right to liberty:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases..

whilst there is an exemption for infectious diseases that seems applicable to covid:

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases,

the European Court Guidance on this exemption makes it clear that governments are only allowed to detain "infected persons" and moreover, any law that contravenes this provision, must be interpreted as if it were compatible. Thus in effect, any laws or rules that remove the right to liberty of people, can be read as (possibly) removing the right to liberty of Infected persons and them alone.

Background