There is a “third wave” of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) barreling our way. And those affected by it will be the “vaccinated” who agreed to get injected with experimental gene therapy cocktails that have forever altered their DNA and made them more susceptible to disease and death.
Buried within a report compiled by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modeling (SPI-M) is an admission that most of the people who will die during the so-called third wave will have already been fully injected for the Chinese virus.
“The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the wave, respectively,” the report reveals.
“This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age group,” it further explains.
The group’s reasoning is that around 10 percent of people over 50 who are vaccinated will not derive any protection from the vaccine, this based on a supposed 90 percent “efficacy” rate. This 10 percent equates to around 2.9 million people.
One analyst predicts around 40,000 deaths while another says there will be closer to 60,000 deaths. Either way, this is a lot of deaths caused by a “vaccine” that in and of itself is completely unnecessary based on the fact that the Chinese virus itself is not even that high-risk.
While one in 200 people were said to have died during the “first wave” – and we know this was drastically overinflated – as many as one in 70 will die during the third wave, experts predict, all thanks to the vaccine.
After bearing criticism for supposedly being too “pessimistic,” some modelers have since painted a rosier picture about how everyone who has been vaccinated will be just fine. This makes people feel good and will thus likely be the narrative that is perpetuated moving forward.
When people start dropping dead, however, will they make the connection to the jabs, or will the unvaccinated simply get blamed? The medical establishment always seems to have a way of assigning blame to something other than the true cause.
Still, not all sources are predicting beautiful outcomes for the vaccinated. One analyst says the controversial AstraZeneca jab will only reduce “infections” by about 31 percent after two doses. Others say the shots might perform a little better at around 63-65 percent.
AstraZeneca, meanwhile, is claiming an efficacy rate of 94 percent, ignoring the hordes of jab recipients who are dropping dead from blood clots caused by the injection.
The seasonality aspect must also be considered as greater sunlight exposure and other factors tend to mean less sickness during the warmer months. Just wait until fall and winter, though, when seasonal illness starts to “spread” and every vaccinated person whose body has been primed to react unnaturally to pathogenic exposure sees his or her immune system kick into overdrive.
Think cytokine storms the likes of which this world has never seen, resulting in mass sickness and death.
The report also predicts a spike in the reproduction rate, or “R” number, of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), bringing it back to, or even higher than, what it supposedly was at the start of this whole thing.
The model suggests that the R-rate will rise to 2.2 by May 17, which is what it was during the previous Tier Two restrictions that were imposed throughout the U.K.
Even outlets that support vaccination are starting to admit that people’s natural immune response is attributable to declining infection rates, even without the jabs. At the same time, they are pushing them as a way to supposedly keep the R-rate low, despite the fact that many expect it to rise because of mass injection campaigns.
“… it’s worth bearing in mind that a substantial proportion of these unvaccinated people will already have immunity from a prior infection, or at least some natural immunity from other coronavirus,” points out one source that would otherwise seem to support vaccination.
On the flip side, the dire models that admit vaccinations are going to cause more death are also being used to suggest that lockdowns and restrictions should remain, which the same quoted source above points out should not be the case.
“Continuing to base policy on models which are already out of date by the time they are presented cannot be a sensible way to make decisions about the nation’s freedom,” it contends.
“It’s time to move on – cautiously, but resolutely – with the release of restrictions based on data not dates, and certainly not models.”
You can read the full analysis at this link.
To keep up with the latest news about Chinese virus injections, be sure to check out ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include: