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.
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
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.