And is there one documented, reputable study that shows, after “tweaks” were made to the “vaccine” formulas that test animals were fine after challenged with viruses?
No. I finally got the trolls to SHUT UP about 'there are successful vaccine trials!" by demanding they supply proof of a successful animal trial. I've demanded they concede there are no successful animal trials until they supply proof of one. No one took me up on it.
Vax Pushers have never supplied proof that the research which began on this specific type of vaccine platform (virus protected by lipid pouches) in 2005 ever resolved the critical documented issue with ADE which caused all animal trials to fail, prevented testing on people and which was warned about in this December 2020 NIH document about the Covid 'vaccines'.
I'll put an excerpt of that copyright free article below the line.
Sometimes trolls try to deceive us by proclaiming the problem was resolved in 2005 with the discovery of lipid pouches.
That's a slight of hand. Prior to 2005, these 'vaccines' failed because the body correctly identified injected 'vaccine' viruses as pathogens and destroyed them before they could reach the cells and tell the cells to produce spike proteins.
In 2005, a researcher developed a lipid pouch that could convey the virus through the body undetected by the immune system and deliver it to the intended cells. This was a breakthough, but is obviously before the documented problems with ADE.
Trolls know this and hoped I didn't.
But this has some good news for some of the vaccinated. Some people injected with Covid 'vaccines' had allergic reactions and attacked the injected materials. I think we can safely assume some immune systems defeated the protective lipid pouches, exposed the virus, and defeated the vaccine virus. Even if the body only put up a partial fight, some protection was gained.
EXCERPT of NIH Document on informed consent risk of ADE below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.