Remember what your duty is

It is your job to awaken all the sleeping lions


Be a Truthteller

All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

It’s time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it cost lives

ICU Doctor describes nightmarish COVID-19 vaccine injuries in letters to FDA, CDC, lawyer says agencies haven’t replied
We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.”

By Kevin Bass , MS MD/PhD student, medical school

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and “they” responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.

And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech “misinformation” and blaming it on “scientific illiteracy” and “ignorance,” the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government’s opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as “grifters” those who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple: It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.


RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

WHO extends Global COVID emergency but some Countries ready to nove on


The World Health Organization today extended the global COVID-19 public health emergency, while acknowledging the pandemic is “probably at a transition point” — but some countries indicated they’re ready to return to normal.

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
Childrens Health Defense ORG

COVID-19 remains a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), the World Health Organization (WHO) said today — but it may not remain so for much longer.

This was the central outcome of the 14th meeting of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) Emergency Committee on Jan. 27. The meeting focused on the PHEIC declaration for COVID-19, first enacted on Jan. 30, 2020, and most recently renewed in July 2022.

The WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

The WHO said it “determines that the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern,” but “acknowledges the Committee’s views that the COVID-19 pandemic is probably at a transition point.”

The WHO’s advisory committee called on the organization to propose “alternative mechanisms to maintain the global and national focus on COVID-19 after the PHEIC is terminated,” CNN reported.

The IHR Emergency Committee advised the WHO that COVID-19 deaths remain high globally compared to other infectious respiratory diseases, while vaccine uptake is still “insufficient” in low- and middle-income countries and emerging COVID-19 variants continue to pose a concern.

As was widely expected, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus accepted the committee’s recommendations. In statements during the days leading up to the meeting, Tedros indicated the PHEIC declaration would remain in effect — for now.

At a Jan. 25 WHO press briefing, Tedros said:

While I will not preempt the advice of the emergency committee, I remain very concerned by the situation in many countries and the rising number of deaths. While we’re clearly in better shape than three years ago when this pandemic first hit, the global collective response is once again under strain.”

And in other remarks made last week, CNN reported, Tedros said:

My message is clear: Do not underestimate this virus. It has and will continue to surprise us, and it will continue to kill unless we do more to get health tools to people that need them and to comprehensively tackle misinformation.”

Tom Bollyky, director of the global health program at the Council on Foreign Relations, last week told STAT, “I think they will be particularly slow here, given a still quite high death toll, given what’s happening in China.” But the WHO may end the PHEIC declaration later this year, Bollyky said.

And Dr. Isaac Bogoch, a Canadian infectious disease specialist, told Canada’s CTV on Friday that the WHO is “not discussing if COVID-19 is still a problem or not. They are discussing whether or not this is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and that of course means that it’s a major event that impacts multiple countries, where you need global coordination to get it under control.”

Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said this about the WHO’s decision to extend the emergency:

Today’s announcement is a recognition that the global threat posed by COVID-19 is not over. While the world has made remarkable progress over the last two years, implementing the largest and fastest global vaccine rollout in history, we cannot afford to be complacent.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Gavi partner and holds a seat on its board.

In an op-ed published today in TIME, Dr. Steven Phillips, MPH, vice president of Science and Strategy at the COVID Collaborative, cited historians as he argued the COVID-19 pandemic will be over when the public thinks it is.

As a possible sign of this, The New York Times Jan. 25 announced the end of its “Virus Briefing” newsletter, which it launched in spring 2020, soon after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.

WHO: Prepare for ‘long-term public health action’ and tackling ‘misinformation’

The WHO’s International Health Regulations are a binding international treaty, under which a PHEIC can be declared if it meets three criteria: It is serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected; it has the potential to spread across borders; and it may require a coordinated international response.

If the WHO declares a PHEIC, an agreement between countries is formed to adhere to WHO recommendations for managing the emergency. However, under current regulations, each country declares its own public health emergency under a PHEIC.

At the Jan. 27 meeting, a global overview of the current status of COVID-19 was presented. According to the WHO, this overview encompassed:

“Global COVID-19 epidemiological situation; currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including descendent lineages of these variants; unexpectedly early seasonal return of influenza and RSV in some regions, which is burdening some already overstressed health systems; status of global vaccination and hybrid immunity; and new travel-related health measures, including testing and vaccination requirements, implemented in response to the recent wave of COVID-19 cases after policy changes.”

Committee members expressed a number of different concerns about COVID-19 during the meeting.

For instance:

“The WHO Secretariat expressed concern about the continued virus evolution in the context of unchecked circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and the substantial decrease in Member States’ reporting of data related to COVID-19 morbidity, mortality, hospitalization and sequencing, and reiterated the importance of timely data sharing to guide the ongoing pandemic response.”


“They recognized that pandemic fatigue and reduced public perception of risk have led to drastically reduced use of public health and social measures, such as masks and social distancing. Vaccine hesitancy and the continuing spread of misinformation continue to be extra hurdles to the implementation of crucial public health interventions.”

However, the IHR Emergency Committee “acknowledged the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point.”

As a result, the committee “discussed whether the continuation of a PHEIC is required to maintain global attention to COVID-19, the potential negative consequences that could arise if the PHEIC was terminated, and how to transition in a safe manner.”

The committee also acknowledged that the “virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future” but that “there has been a decoupling between infection and severe disease when compared to earlier variants of concern.”

Accordingly, the committee noted “a need for improved surveillance and reporting on hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths to better understand the current impact on health systems and to appropriately characterize the clinical features of COVID-19 and post COVID-19 condition.”

Pandemic treaty, which would endow WHO with more power, still in the works

As recently reported by The Defender, the WHO is debating a proposed new “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the IHR.

Either or both of these developments would greatly expand the scope and reach of the IHR, greatly increase global public health surveillance mechanisms, institute a system of global health certificates and “passports” and allow the WHO to mandate medical examinations, quarantine and treatment.

The WHO, in its statement today, said it “continues to work closely with countries on all aspects of the COVID-19 response, including for strengthening the management of COVID-19 within longer-term disease control programs.”

“Specifically,” the WHO said, the meeting “highlighted its support to States Parties to: maintain multiple component surveillance systems; implement sentinel surveillance using a coordinated global approach to characterize known and emerging variants; strengthen COVID-19 clinical care pathways; provide regular updates to the COVID-19 guidelines [and] increase access to therapeutics, vaccines and diagnostics.”

The WHO added:

“Significant progress has also been made in: developing effective medical countermeasures; building global capacity for genomic sequencing and genomic epidemiology; and in understanding how to manage the infodemic in the new informational ecosystem including social media platforms.”

The WHO called on state actors to fine-tune their public health communication strategies as they pertain to COVID-19 vaccines and other countermeasures.

The WHO asked states to:

“Remain vigilant and continue reporting surveillance and genomic sequencing data; to recommend appropriately targeted risk-based public health and social measures (PHSM) where necessary; to vaccinate populations most at risk to minimize severe disease and deaths; and to conduct regular risk communication, answering population concerns and engaging communities to improve the understanding and implementation of countermeasures.”

As previously reported by The Defender, the WHO partners with several organizations, including “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard, for such purposes.

Some national policymakers waver on continuing pandemic declarations

Many national governments continue to implement their own pandemic-related emergency public health declarations.

The Biden administration on Jan. 11 extended its COVID-19 public health emergency, which means it will remain in place until at least April. This extension came despite President Biden, in September 2022, declaring the “pandemic is over.”

Prior to the WHO’s Friday meeting, Canada’s chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, said that regardless of the WHO’s decision, Canada’s public health response to COVID-19 will not change.

The Lancet, in an article published Jan. 14, said, “The COVID-19 pandemic in 2023” is “far from over” and that following China’s easing of its COVID-19-related domestic and travel restrictions, “there is a new, dangerous phase that requires urgent attention.”

However, Indonesia’s Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin, who at November’s G20 meeting called for an international “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” to enable the public to “move around,” said prior to Friday’s WHO meeting that he will “lobby the WHO” about ending his country’s public health emergency.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan announced earlier this month that he had instructed his cabinet to reclassify COVID-19, placing it in the same category as seasonal flu, rubella and chickenpox in spring, the Gateway Pundit reported.

“In order to further advance the efforts of ‘living with Corona’ and restore Japan to a state of normalcy, we will transition the various policies and measures to date in phases,” Kishida said.

WHO updates list of medicines to stockpile for nuclear emergencies

Also on Friday, the WHO updated its list of medicines “that should be stockpiled for radiological and nuclear emergencies” and its “policy advice for their appropriate management.”

“These stockpiles include medicines that either prevent or reduce exposure to radiation, or treat injuries once exposure has occurred,” the WHO said.

The WHO also said:

“As the leading international organization in public health with both the authority and responsibility to assist in health emergencies, WHO provides advice and guidance to countries on public health preparedness and response to radiation emergencies, including stockpile development.

“In health emergencies WHO may assist in procuring or sharing medical supplies among countries.”

“This updated critical medicines list will be a vital preparedness and readiness tool for our partners to identify, procure, stockpile and deliver effective countermeasures in a timely fashion to those at risk or exposed in these events,” said Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme.

SOURCE: THE DEFENDER Childrens Health Defense ORG

RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

Died Suddenly 2022 Documentary

Died Suddenly 2022 Documentary
Died Suddenly 2022 Documentary

Healthy adults are dropping dead all across the globe. In the last 18 months, the term “Died Suddenly” has risen to the very top of “most searched” Google terms. Now, the award-winning documentary team that brought you, “Watch The Water”, and “These Little Ones” travels around the world to find answers, and tell the stories, of those who Died Suddenly.

Source: Died Suddenly 2022 Documentary

RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

President Donald J. Trump Makes Special Announcement at Mar-a-Lago – 11/15/22

President Donald J. Trump Makes Special Announcement at Mar-a-Lago – 11/15/22
Donald Trump: “America’s comeback starts now.”
“This will not be my campaign, this will be our campaign, all together – because the only force strong enough to defeat the massive corruption is you, the American people. We’re gonna unify people.”
Are you ready? I am too!”
Donald Trump files FEC paperwork to run for President of the United States in 2024

Public Health Scotland investigates rise in neonatal infant deaths but refuses to check vaccination status of mothers

ICU Doctor describes nightmarish COVID-19 vaccine injuries in letters to FDA, CDC, lawyer says agencies haven’t replied
ICU Doctor describes nightmarish COVID-19 vaccine injuries in letters to FDA, CDC, lawyer says agencies haven’t replied

By Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Dr. John Campbell recently posted a video summarizing the news regarding the increase in neonatal deaths in Scotland, and Public Health Scotland’s (PHS) investigation into these excess deaths.

It was published less than a week ago, and at the time of publication today it has over 650,000 views and over 12,000 comments. I am amazed that YouTube has allowed this video to remain up (so far.)

While PHS is investigating what might be causing these excess deaths, one thing they are NOT investigating is whether or not the mother was vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot.

PUBLIC health experts ruled out any link between spikes in neonatal deaths and the Covid vaccine without checking whether any of the infants’ mothers had received the jag during pregnancy.

Experts stressed that there was no “plausible” link between the unusually high levels of mortality among newborns in September last year and March this year to justify investigating maternal vaccination status.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”.

In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”.

Furthermore “the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”. (Source.)

Watch this video by Dr. Campbell which is just over 14 minutes long, and see what other measures health officials seem to be doing to try and cover up any evidence of vaccine-related deaths among babies.

Full article: Health Impact News

RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

The Real Anthony Fauci: Event 201, the Pandemic Simulation in 2019

Who is behind Covid-19?
Who is behind Covid-19?

If you have not watched the movie, it’s imperative that you do. Share this with every single person you know.

Watch The Full MOVIE

All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

Harvard and Johns Hopkins scientists find COVID-19 jabs 98 times worse than virus

Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination

By daniel_g

Nine health experts from major universities said in a new pre-print study that the experimental COVID-19 injections are up to 98 times worse than the virus.

They also stated mandatory boosters for colleges are “ethically unjustifiable.”

The study was posted on The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) in September, titled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities.”

Scientists from the University of Washington, University of Oxford, University of Toronto, Harvard UniversityHarvard Medical School, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Johns Hopkins University – Department of Surgery, and others conducted the study.

Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm,” the study found.

The researchers also concluded that “per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males.”

They deemed university booster mandates unethical for the following reasons:

  1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
  2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
  3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
  4. US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
  5. mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.

The study’s conclusion reads:

Based on public data provided by the CDC, we estimate that approximately 22,000 to 30,000 previous uninfected young adults ages 18–29 years must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one Covid-19 hospitalisation. Given the fact that this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by prior infection nor a risk-adjustment for comorbidity status this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.

Our estimate shows that university Covid-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—between 18 and 98 serious adverse events requiring hospitalisation and  1373 to 3234 disruptions of daily activities—that is not outweighed by a proportionate public health benefit.

Serious Covid-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty are ethically unjustifiable.

Worse still, mandates are associated with wider social harms. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making.

These findings have implications for mandates in other settings such as schools, corporations, healthcare systems and the military. Policymakers should repeal booster mandates for young adults immediately, ensure pathways to compensation to those who have suffered negative consequences from these policies, provide open access to participant-level clinical trial data to allow risk- and age-stratified harm-benefit analyses of any new vaccines prior to issuing recommendations125, and begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.

Read the full study HERE.

Source: We love Trump

***Support We Love Trump and Mike Lindell plus get up to 66% off — use promo code WLT at***

RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

WATCH: State Senators reportedly have evidence to indict CDC officials!

Fauci. Time to bring justice
Fauci. Time to bring justice

By Vince Quill

It’s time to bring these criminals to justice for crimes against humanity.

CDC officials like Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Deborah Birx have long since admitted that they knew what they were saying was wrong, but decided to push misinformation anyway.

Birx specifically knew that Covid-19 shots didn’t work, but decided to push the narrative regardless, maybe she thought she was doing a good thing, but the road to hell is paved with great intentions.

This was a narrative that killed people, put them out of a job, destroyed families, and annihilated the economy.

In short: these people are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be punished as such.

Now we are seeing Dr. Henry Ealy, and state senators Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum claim that they have enough proof to indict CDC officials for their crimes.

These brave truth seekers have filed a grand jury petition against the CDC and its corrupt officials:

Want accountability for these criminals? Sign the petition below to help convene a Grand Jury investigation against the CDC.

— Draven S. 🐭 (@DravenS17) September 5, 2022

The CDC violated a plethora of federal laws throughout the bio-attack, primarily the Administrative Procedures Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Information Quality Act when the agency “cooked the books” and “hyperinflated the death count” at the start of the covid pandemic ” in order to declare an emergency,” Dr. Ealy told The Gateway Pundit in an exclusive interview.

WATCH: State Senators And Frontline Doctor Have All The EVIDENCE TO INDICT CDC Officals For VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW And File Unprecedented GRAND JURY PETITION — Here’s What The CDC Is Doing To Get Away With Mass Murder

— Nwo-Report (@ReportNwo) September 10, 2022

Admissions of Fraud: Hold the CDC Accountable for Misleading Data
Rochelle Walensky: “We are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes — from testing, to data, to communications.”
Dr. Henry Ealy: “Now you can make a mistake on testing. You can make a …

— N.K (@NK97111667) September 9, 2022

Dr. Birx previously stated via Fox News:

I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection.

And I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.

It will. But let’s be very clear: 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated.

So that’s why I’m saying even if you’re vaccinated and boosted, if you’re unvaccinated right now, the key is testing and Paxlovid.

Source: We love Trump

***Support We Love Trump and Mike Lindell plus get up to 66% off — use promo code WLT at***

RELATED: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…

CDC admits Post-‘Vaccine’ myocarditis risks labeled misinformation are legitimate

Miller's review of critial vaccine studies
CDC admits Post-‘Vaccine’ myocarditis risks labeled misinformation are legitimate

By daniel_g

Anyone who raised concerns about myocarditis following the COVID-19 shots was labeled a conspiracy theorist and censored on social media.

Your crime was spreading ‘COVID misinformation.’

When reports first surfaced in 2021 that some cases of myocarditis — the inflammation of the heart muscle, potentially leading to blood clots and heart attack or stroke — were potentially associated with the Covid-19 vaccine, the corporate media and its fact-checkers were quick to label them as misinformation, saying the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its small risks,The Federalist wrote.

Despite numerous papers and case studies indicating warning signs, mainstream media and Big Tech pushed the ‘safe and effective’ narrative.

However, doctors and scientists who warned the public about the risks associated with the COVID-19 shots faced a vicious smear campaign.

A year later, the media can no longer hide the association between the experimental shots and myocarditis.

“Last year’s misinformation on vaccine-associated myocarditis in young men is this year’s well-established fact,” Matt Shapiro wrote on his substack.

There were several shocking charts and statistics within the slides, but a notable one is this chart, which noted that the incidence of myocarditis among young men in response to the vaccine is much higher than previously reported.

Read the full article
Source: We love Trump

***Support We Love Trump and Mike Lindell plus get up to 66% off — use promo code WLT at***

Related: All about COVID-19 mass vaccination program, experimental vaccine, science warns, corona scandal, pandemic/Plandemic, the global reset, Nuremberg Tribunals II, Articles and videos…