Bill Gates’ MSN^ article saying Israel has the highest per capita infection rate and assumes (lies) that it is unrelated to the highest per-capita vaccination rate.
Pretty easy to skew the data too, because people who already had the ‘rona probably won’t develop ADE when vaxxed. Put all of those post-infected types in the study and say, “look ma, no ADE!” Big Pharma couldn’t just recommend the vaxx to post-infected because of two reasons:
Natural immunity is more effective and the “vaccine” is pointless for those all ready ‘rona’d.
They wanted EVERYONE’s money— via the best money pipeline known to business: GUBBAMINT CONTRACTS!!
Some vaccine candidates that targeted coronaviruses, RSV virus and Dengue virus elicited VADE, and were terminated from further development or became approved for use only for patients who had those viruses before.
There’s an old Chinese Proverb, “When you focus on the enemy alone, in the end, you alone will become the (your own) enemy.”
I have a new proverb: only focusing on “Never forget” will become “we don’t remember.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/israel-e2-80-99s-covid-surge-shows-the-world-what-e2-80-99s-coming-next/ar-AAObmmF
Bill Gates’ MSN^ article saying Israel has the highest per capita infection rate and assumes (lies) that it is unrelated to the highest per-capita vaccination rate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
Wikipedia, ^believe it or not, still has enough information on ADE to completely debunk this conspiracy theory/ propaganda outright.
Pretty easy to skew the data too, because people who already had the ‘rona probably won’t develop ADE when vaxxed. Put all of those post-infected types in the study and say, “look ma, no ADE!” Big Pharma couldn’t just recommend the vaxx to post-infected because of two reasons:
Natural immunity is more effective and the “vaccine” is pointless for those all ready ‘rona’d.
They wanted EVERYONE’s money— via the best money pipeline known to business: GUBBAMINT CONTRACTS!!
"have a higher rate of severe illness"
^ This statement is ambiguous and unqualified.
Who determines what severe means?
It could be that they have a "much higher rate of serious illness".
So is "serious" worse than "severe"?
Or what if they have a "very very much super duper higher rate of medium illness"?
Are we doing science.