In the scorching summer of 2021, a momentous decision swept across Europe, sparking a whirlwind of emotions among parents, who had fallen for the 24/7 propaganda, eagerly awaiting a ray of hope for their children.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) had finally granted emergency use approval for the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 12 to 15.
Relief and elation surged through the hearts of countless naive parents who saw this as a beacon of protection against the alleged pandemic.
Yet, the winds of fortune took an unexpected turn as the vaccine rollout for children commenced. Startling reports emerged, revealing a distressing surge in excess deaths among the young ones across the continent. The sense of optimism quickly faded among the thousands of families affected and was replaced by a grim reality that cast a shadow over the hopes of many.
Tragically, the statistics paint a haunting picture, with a staggering 63,060% surge in excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 by the twenty-second week of 2023. These numbers whisper a chilling tale of consequences that were foreseen by many silenced and heavily censored voices.
Back in 2020, as the establishment desperately sought to fast track the use of mrna technology disguised as a vaccine against the alleged pandemic, COVID-19 injections were still in the embryonic stages of development, treading a precarious path toward regulatory approval.
To hasten their availability, regulatory agencies like the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) invoked emergency use authorizations (EUAs), granting a temporary lifeline to these novel and dangerous vaccines.
These EUAs acted as regulatory mechanisms, permitting the usage of medical products in dire circumstances, such as a pandemic, even before they completed the rigorous journey of full regulatory approval.
It was an unprecedented measure taken in the face of an unprecedented crisis. But the alleged Covid-19 pandemic had proven to not be a threat to children, making future decisions by these regulatory bodies extremely questionable and possibly criminal.
One crucial reason why mRNA vaccines had not been widely employed in the general population until December 2020 was the specter of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).
This phenomenon haunted the corridors of scientific discourse, raising concerns that vaccination with mRNA vaccines could potentially exacerbate the disease, rendering those inoculated more susceptible to its clutches.
History had already witnessed a chilling episode of ADE during the development of a dengue fever vaccine. Initial trials indicated promise, displaying protection against the virus for those unscathed by prior infections.
Sadly, in individuals who had encountered a different strain of the virus before, the vaccine seemed to amplify the risk of severe illness, a grim testament to the treacherous nature of ADE.
Similar tales emerged from numerous animal studies, where potential “vaccines” instigated lung inflammation and other adverse effects upon subsequent exposure to the virus. The vaccine-induced immune response, rather than neutralizing the virus, wrought havoc on lung tissue, leaving a trail of unintended consequences.
Additionally, the ominous specter of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) loomed large during respiratory virus vaccine trials, including those against coronaviruses.
For instance, trials for a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine illuminated a disconcerting pattern: vaccinated infants faced an increased risk of hospitalization and more severe respiratory illness upon encountering the virus.
The immune response triggered by the vaccine, rather than safeguarding against the virus, seemed to trigger an overreaction of the immune system, exacerbating the disease’s symptoms.
Respiratory viruses, such as coronaviruses and RSV, had long been recognized as grave threats to vulnerable populations, especially infants and the elderly.