January 28 – The McCullough Foundation has a study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law titled, “Review: Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits.” The abstract reads in part, “[m]ore than 81,000 physicians, scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professional public health and physician organizations, 2 State Republican Parties, 17 Republican Party County Committees, and 6 scientific studies from across the world have called for the market withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines. As of September 6, 2024, the CDC has documented 19,028 deaths in the United States reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the product is related to the death. The total number of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS (37,544 among all participating countries) have far exceeded the recall limits of past vaccine withdrawals by up to 375,340%. The criteria for an FDA Class I recall, which applies to products with a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death, have been far exceeded. Excess mortality, negative efficacy, widespread DNA contamination, and a lack of demonstrated reduction in transmission, hospitalization, or mortality have undermined the rationale for continued administration… Immediate removal of COVID-19 vaccines from the market is essential to prevent further loss of life and ensure next steps are taken for accountability of the harm incurred.”
The authors separated their data into several sections including VAERS data, excess mortality rates and negative efficacy, ultimately concluding, “We expect that calls for an immediate moratorium on COVID-19 vaccines will continue to increase until a critical mass is reached, and the products are finally removed from the market. Excess mortality, negative efficacy, and widespread DNA contamination associated with COVID-19 vaccines have been sufficiently demonstrated… No large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization, or death as primary endpoints. Thus, the COVID-19 vaccines are not proven to be effective in reducing important clinical outcomes. A position supporting COVID-19 vaccination goes against good medical practice and violates the Hippocratic Oath to above all, do no harm.”
February 4 – A study is published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law titled, “Reports Of Autopsies In VAERS And Associated Adverse Events Linked To Cause Of Death.” Using VAERS data “to examine [the] frequency of reporting of AEs [adverse events] linked to autopsy reports since the start of the COVID-19 injectable product (IP) roll-out,” author Jessica Rose found there was a 1,714% increase in autopsy reports related to the COVID clot shots in 2021-2023 when compared to the seasonal flu shot during the three years prior to 2021. Despite the sharp rise, there was a 77.6% decrease in autopsy reports related to deaths following the COVID jab. To account for this, Rose concluded, “[t]he large decrease in reporting rate of autopsy as a percentage of death reports, combined with the large increase in absolute counts of autopsy reports in the COVID-19 IP context indicates that there is an unexplained void in the data with regard to autopsy reports. This corresponds to known de-incentivization to perform autopsies during the COVID-19 era due to the alleged danger associated with SARS-CoV-2. A large percentage of autopsy-linked VAERS reports in the context of the COVID-19 IP are linked to myocarditis, cardiac arrest and PE, and suggests that the COVID-19 IPs are deterministic for death due to myocarditis, cardiac arrest, and PE.”
February 8 – A study is published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law titled, “Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim? Part I.” Researchers searched the VAERS database for adverse events (AEs) involving pregnancy complications following COVID-19 vaccination between January 1, 1990 to April 26, 2024 and found that “safety signals were breached for all 37 AEs following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, fetal malformations, cervical insufficiency, fetal arrhythmia, hemorrhage in pregnancy, premature labor/delivery, preeclampsia, preterm rupture of membranes, placental abnormalities, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, newborn asphyxia and newborn death.” The conclusion reads in part, “[a]n immediate global moratorium on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is warranted. The United States government, medical organizations, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies have misled and/or deceived the public regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. The promotion of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy… must cease immediately.”
February 12 – A study out of South Korea is published in Scientific Reports titled, “Global burden of vaccine-associated kidney injury using an international pharmacovigilance database.” The researchers analyzed over 120 million WHO pharmacovigilance reports and found a disproportionately high number of acute kidney injury (AKI), glomerulonephritis (GN) and tubulointerstitial nephritis (TIN) cases among those who took the COVID “vaccine.” The authors noted, “AKI cases were reported for all vaccines, and GN and TIN cases were reported for 18 and 15 vaccines, respectively. Before 2020, influenza vaccines had the highest cumulative AKI counts, whereas, after 2020, AKI was most reported after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. GN was most commonly reported for influenza, DTaP-IPV-Hib, hepatitis B, and HPV vaccines, and TIN was most commonly reported for influenza and HPV vaccines, before 2020, while after 2020 the highest proportion of cases of GN and TIN were reported for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.” The conclusion reads in part, “our analyses of a global database revealed that the number and proportion of vaccine-associated renal AE [adverse events] reporting dramatically increased after 2020 and several vaccines were identified that were associated with significant disproportionality of AKI, GN, and TIN reporting. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines showed noticeable signals for AKI, GI, and TIN reporting.”
February 17 – A study is published in Molecular Therapy Nucleic Acids titled, “mRNA-1273 [Moderna] is placenta-permeable and immunogenic in the fetus.” The abstract reads in part, “mRNA-1273 intramuscularly given to pregnant mice rapidly circulated in maternal blood and crossed the placenta within 1 h to spread in the fetal circulation. Although spike mRNA in fetal circulation faded away within 4-6 h, it could accumulate in fetal tissues, mainly the liver and get translated into spike protein. Transplacental mRNA-1273 proved immunogenic in the fetuses, as postnatally equipped with anti-spike immunoglobulin (Ig)M, paternal allotypic anti-spike IgG2a, and heightened anti-spike cellular immunity. Gestationally administered, mRNA-1273 had a dose-dependent effect on its transplacental transfer and immunogenicity in the fetuses, with higher mRNA-1273 doses leading to increased transplacental mRNA-1273 passage and greater serum titers of endogenous anti-spike IgM/IgG generated by the fetuses. Thus, gestationally maternal mRNA-1273 vaccination might endow the newborns with not only passive but also active anti-spike immunity.” While the study’s authors claim injecting pregnant women with the Moderna clot shot “might” eventually provide the child with some level of “anti-spike immunity,” and that COVID vaccines are “generally recognized as safe for gestational administration,” the risks still outweigh any potential benefit. Back on June 17, 2021, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing women injected with the “vaccine” in the first or second trimester of their pregnancy experienced “spontaneous abortions” at a rate of 82% – which needless to say, does not sound very safe. And considering the fact that time has shown the more of these injections one takes the more prone they are to not only COVID infections, but dying from any cause, studying whether or not they are safe for unborn infants seems unnecessarily stupid and dangerous.
February 18 – Yale University researchers release a preprint study at medRxiv titled, “Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Illnesses after COVID-19 Vaccination.” The study was originally intended to track and analyze data from people who self-reported COVID “vaccine” injuries, but expanded its purview to include patients with what the authors are calling “post vaccine syndrome” (PVS). The researchers found that patients with PVS had lower levels of CD4 T cells and higher levels of CD8 T cells, which secrete tumor necrosis factor (TNF), when compared with healthy control patients. While TNF helps the body heal and kills certain cancers, high levels can play a role in autoimmune disorders, inflammatory disease and cancer. PVS patients also had lower levels of spike protein antibodies, with a subset having an elevated level of spike proteins in their blood up to two years following their last exposure. Though the study included an analysis of just 42 patients, researchers hope to build on these results and expand the size of future studies. The lead doctor on this research, Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, was the former president of the American Association of Immunologists (and a former COVID cult member), so these results are certainly meaningful. Also see this.
February 18 – A study is published in Frontiers in Immunology titled, “[t]he protective role of vitamin D in BNT162b2 vaccine-related acute myocarditis,” which showed a strong correlation between post-COVID vaccine myocarditis and a deficiency in vitamin D. The researchers wrote in part, “[v]accine-related myocarditis is recognized as a rare but important complication, especially after mass-scale mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Knowledge regarding how to minimize the risk is limited. As NK [natural killer] cells can mediate acute myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and vitamin D may inhibit NK cells via cytokine modulation, we hypothesize that the myocarditis side effect is related to a hypovitaminosis D [a vitamin D deficiency]… A high incidence of hypovitaminosis D (73.3%) was observed in these individuals with vaccine-related myocarditis, particularly in those presented with chest pain or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Moreover, vitamin D level was negatively associated with peak serum cardiac troponin T level during vaccine-related myocarditis… These data support the hypothesis that vitamin D plays a crucial role in mitigating mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis by modulating proinflammatory cytokine milieu and subsequent unfavorable NK cell activation, laying a groundwork for preventive and treatment strategies.”
March 3 – A study is published in Vaccine titled, “Comparative analysis of fourteen COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation systems and claim approval rates.” After analyzing data from the no-fault vaccine injury compensation schemes of 14 different countries, researchers found the US system to be the worst as it processes only 25% of the claims submitted and approves only 3%. The UK’s compensation system is also terrible with an approval rate of 2.64%, though they manage to process about 50% of the claims they receive on a yearly basis.
March 6 – A study is published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine titled, “Broad-Spectrum Adverse Events of Special Interests Based on Immune Response Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Large-Scale Population-Based Cohort Study.” Looking at a sizable sample of over 1.7M Koreans, researchers found clot shot recipients were twice as likely to experience issues such as hair loss, warts, shingles, menstrual irregularities, inner ear infections, and gum disease when compared to the unvaxxed. Issues like tinnitus, glaucoma, bruising and visual impairment also occurred at significantly higher rates among the “vaccinated.” Also see this.
March 6 – After being unjustly retracted from Springer Nature despite a successful peer review, a study now-titled, “Cardiac Findings in COVID-19 Patients Treated with HAZDPac,” is republished in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science. The ProgenaBiome/McCullough Foundation study found the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID was safe, did not cause heart issues, and was not associated with prolonged QTc. Since 2020 we’ve been fed nothing but lies about drugs like HCQ in order to make us believe the only thing that would save us from the Wuhan Red Death was Big Pharma’s experimental gene therapy drugs. How many lives could have been saved if doctors had been allowed to prescribe medications we knew were effective without the threat of losing everything they ever worked for? Also see this.
March 7 – A study is published in the Journal of Clinical Trials titled, “The Discrepancy Between the Number of Saved Lives with COVID-19 Vaccination and Statistics of Our World [in] Data.” The paper reads in part, “[a]ccording to Our World [in] Data, 57.94 million people died in the world in 2019. In 2020, when COVID-19 began to spread, 63.17 million people died. In 2021, when COVID-19 vaccinations started around the world, 69.25 million people died that year… The living circumstances on the planet were similar in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 and in 2021, we had COVID-19 pandemics. The main difference in living circumstances of the global population was COVID-19 vaccination in 2021. Our World [in] Data confirms that COVID-19 vaccination increased the ‘global mortality’ in 2020, which was 6.30 million, by an additional 6.08 million in 2021… None of the articles that claim that COVID-19 vaccines saved lives used an appropriate method comparing the mortality rate of the vaccinated population with the mortality rate of the unvaccinated population. They all start with the unproven hypothesis that vaccines are saving lives. They build their models on the preposition of how many more people would die if there were no vaccination.
Such an example is the article in Lancet that claims that vaccination in 2021 saved around 14 million lives. If these were true then in 2021, 14 million fewer would die than in 2020… This is highly speculative because it has never been proven that COVID-19 vaccines save lives. It was demonstrated that they increased the mortality rate in 2021 by 14.5%. The article in the Lancet was published in September 2022. At that time, all statistical data in developed countries were available to calculate the mortality rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated parts of the population in 2021 and prove that COVID-19 vaccines save lives. This was not done. The authors developed a theoretical study and mathematical modeling unrelated to existing statistical data and have no real scientific validity… All models that try to evaluate the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination start with the preposition that vaccines saved lives (preposition A). None of them has compared the mortality rate of the vaccinated part of the population with the rate of mortality of the unvaccinated part of the population, which is the only valid scientific method to prove the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination. Their starting position (A) is theoretical and is not based on statistical data. From the methodological point of view, this is an inadmissible and irreparable error… The second methodological error of this study is that it speculates how many more people would die if there were no vaccination. This is a preposition (B). Their speculative calculations proving preposition (B) have no scientific validity because preposition (A) in their research was not proved. A not proved → B has no scientific validity.”
As if this wasn’t bad enough, the COVID cult also tries to have it both ways… Back in February of 2022, while looking over a document out of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) titled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report: Week 7,” I noticed something that could only be described as a complete contradiction of the conclusion reached by the fraudulent paper published in the Lancet. A notation beneath Table 12 (page 42) reads, “[i]n the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.” I had been reading these reports for a while at that point to track the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths occurring for both the vaxxed and unvaxxed, and the numbers continually skewed in favor of the unvaxxed. When this particular report was published on February 17, 2022, the vaxxed accounted for 84.7% of the COVID deaths included in the data – and that was me being generous by counting those who had only received one dose in with the unvaxxed death total. Moreover, the numbers favored the vaxxed more as the age groupings increased!
In addition to all of that, the claim being made here is outrageous for several reasons: 1) They were targeting EVERYONE with the vaccine, not just vulnerable populations, and the emergency use authorization kept being extended to more and more age groups until the clot shots were approved for use in babies just six months old. Considering the fact pregnant women were also being encouraged to get jabbed, there are countless children out there who will never live a day of their life having not been exposed – at some point – to Big Pharma spike proteins… Crazy thought, but I digress. 2) The main selling point used to pressure the public into receiving the “vaccine” was that it would prevent hospitalization and death (since it didn’t prevent you from getting the illness as a vaccine normally would), then not only did the opposite occur, but they claimed to have “expected” that. 3) There are likely “susceptible” and “at risk” people making up at least some portion of the unvaxxed deaths, but just like the assumption the shots saved millions of lives, there’s also no data supporting the notion that people in these categories benefited in any way from taking the jab. It’s no wonder UKHSA eventually stopped including these data tables in their weekly razzle-dazzle “science” reports… The truth might cause a revolution.
March 14 – A study is published in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine titled, “COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preventive Benefits and Risks.” Analyzing 21 different studies containing the health outcomes of over 85 million people, researchers discovered a sharp rise in life-threatening cardiovascular events following a COVID vaccine, particularly after the first or second dose. There was a 70% increased risk of coronary artery disease after the first dose, which rose to a 244% increased risk after the second dose. There was also a 286% increased risk in heart attacks after the second dose, and a 240% increased risk of stroke after just the first dose. Following one dose of the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine, there was a massive 389% increase in the risk of developing a heart arrhythmia.
Researchers also found there was “a protective effect on stroke… and myocardial infarction… observed after the third dose of the vaccine.” So I guess if you manage to survive the first two doses then you’re in the clear? My God… Amazingly, the researchers wrote the conclusion as if they found nothing out of the ordinary. It reads, “Secondary analysis showed no notable disparity in cardiovascular outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA vaccines. The association of COVID-19 vaccination with the risk of coronary artery disease should be considered in future vaccine technologies for the next pandemic.” Hat tip to Dr. Panda.
Table taken from the linked study.
March 18 – A study is published in the Journal of Infection titled, “Post-vaccination IgG4 and IgG2 class switch associates with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections.” After tracking over 200 healthcare workers in Barcelona, Spain beginning in 2020, before the COVID “vaccines” became available, researchers found after three or more doses of an mRNA injection the immune system begins producing more non-cytophilic IgG2 and IgG4 antibodies, and putting the cytophilic/non-cytophilic balance out of order. In some instances they found the IgG4 antibodies to have increased 10-fold, while IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies remained at modest levels or declined over time. Cytophilic IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies are the ones that actively engage the immune system to clear infections (especially the IgG3), whereas non-cytophilic antibodies don’t do much in the way of instructing immune cells to attack viruses. The authors of the study wrote in part, “Elevated IgG4 levels and higher ratios of non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibodies after booster vaccination were significantly associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infections… Moreover, an increased non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibody ratio correlated with reduced functionality, including neutralization.” In other words, the more mRNA injections a person takes, the harder it is for the body to fight off infections including, ironically, COVID infections. This was only found to be the case in people who took mRNA “vaccines,” not those who took adenoviral vector vaccines or were infected naturally. Also see this.
March 18 – A study is published in Psychological Medicine titled, “Global burden of mental disorders in children and adolescents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.” The study found “an estimated 123.0 million new cases of mental disorders were reported among children and adolescents, with an 11.8% average annual increase in the age-standardized incidence rate during the pandemic. Anxiety disorders, which previously ranked third, became the leading cause of nonfatal disability… while depressive disorders rose to fourth place… The burden grew in most regions, especially among females, those aged 15–24, and in high sociodemographic index (SDI) areas. Based on pre-pandemic data, we estimated an additional burden of 795.0, 165.9, and 622.8 new cases per 100,000 population for total mental disorders, anxiety disorders, and depressive disorders globally in 2021, respectively.”
March 18 – A study is published in Secrecy and Society titled, “A Narrative Review of the COVID-19 Infodemic and Censorship in Healthcare.” Researchers looked at how “organizations and governments used misinformation, disinformation, censorship, and secrecy to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.” Some of the key takeaways from the study are: 1) public perception was manipulated through the intentional misrepresentation of COVID data, 2) science did not guide the COVID response, money and politics did, 3) censorship ran wild as the COVID tyrants sought to insulate their bogus narrative, 4) the truth about the origin of the pandemic was actively suppressed, 5) the COVID clots shots were mandated despite their inability to stop the spread, 6) adverse events related to the “vaccine” were ignored and/or covered up, 7) cheap, effective COVID treatments were suppressed and demonized as Big Pharma colluded with agencies like the FDA and CDC to push more expensive patented drugs, 8) COVID mitigation measures like masking and lockdowns did much more harm than good, 9) big corporations, Big Tech and the scientific community all played a role in suppressing dissenting voices, and 10) terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” were wrongfully applied to anyone who questioned, or was in disagreement with, the official narrative. Hat tip to Nic Hulscher.
March 20 – A study is published in the Journal of Public Health and Emergency which sought to analyze how healthcare workers (HCWs) in Ontario, Canada were impacted by the province’s COVID vax mandate. The authors wrote, “[d]espite controversy, vaccine mandates were implemented in most healthcare settings across Canada, with many still in effect. Many studies have examined the perceived problem of vaccine hesitancy within the healthcare labour force. However, few have investigated the lived experience of mandated vaccination from the perspective of HCWs themselves… Most respondents were unvaccinated, had been terminated for non-compliance with vaccination mandates, experienced personal losses, and reported negative views on mandates and their impacts on patient care. We identified six themes: (I) policies conflicting with scientific evidence and professional practice; (II) conflicts with medical ethics; (III) unacknowledged or dismissed personal hardships; (IV) unacknowledged or dismissed physical harms; (V) discrimination against unvaccinated HCWs and patients; and (VI) negative impacts on patient care… Our study revealed a system in Ontario healthcare settings that inflicts significant harm on non-compliant HCWs and patients, discriminates against these HCWs’ right to work, and violates the right to informed consent of both HCWs and patients. These ethical violations, compounded by the mounting lack of evidence of effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination to stop viral transmission – this effectiveness proposed as its scientific rationale – call for an urgent reconsideration of the practice.”
March 20 – A study is published in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Research & Innovation titled, “Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes, and new perspectives.” The study found the “vaccine” has been causing more cases of heart inflammation than COVID itself, contradicting a lie we’ve been told since the jab producers first rolled out their products (it was later that they were forced to admit this was one of the side effects). Not only do the jabs themselves cause inflammation, but repeated doses make a person more susceptible to COVID, which in turn could result in heart inflammation. The researchers also push back on the claim that cases of vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis are usually mild, and that symptoms go away relatively quickly. Not only can heart inflammation be severe and long-lasting, but even mild cases can end up causing problems in the future. Moreover, mild cases with little to no symptoms can lead to serious heart problems if exerting oneself while unknowingly in this state. Finally, the authors cast doubt on the level of risk/reward the general public was sold on, especially regarding children and young adults. To this point, the authors wrote, “[t]he combination of low risk of severe COVID-19 and a higher likelihood of mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis in younger people makes it difficult to rationalize a policy of ongoing mRNA vaccines in this population. The theoretical absolute benefit of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is largely contingent on an individual’s baseline risk of severe COVID-19 disease, prior natural immunity, current SARS-CoV-2 and access to early ambulatory treatment protocols. For healthy individuals under the age of 20, 30, or 40, the upper bound of absolute benefits has consistently been negligible across all strains, often approaching zero. Furthermore, no robust studies to date have reliably established a benefit of the COVID-19 vaccination in infants, children and young adults… This underscores the critical need for age- and risk-stratified evaluations to better inform public health policy and to ensure that the harms do not consistently outweigh the theoretical benefits. Given the substantial evidence presented here concerning cardiotoxicity and serious cardiac events in younger generations, we strongly recommend the immediate withdrawal of COVID-19 mRNA products from the market.” Update (6/13/25): Dr. Nathaniel Mead, one of the authors of study, joins Nic Hulscher on the Focal Points podcast to discuss its findings.
March 25 – A pair of studies (Part I/Part II) are published in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics titled, “Critical appraisal of multidrug therapy in the ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemia Part I. Evidence supporting the strength of association,” and “Part II: Causal inference using the Bradford Hill criteria.” Both studies looked at “three published case series of 119 COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia [low blood oxygen levels] who were successfully treated in the United States, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria with similar off-label ivermectin-based multidrug treatments.” In addition to ivermectin, the treatments included different combinations of vitamins C and D, zinc sulfate, nebulized nanosilver, and doxycycline, along with some combination of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, prednisone, ceftriaxone, enoxaparin and aspirin. None of the patients treated with these various drug combinations died, though five required hospitalization. Oxygen levels for all patients improved within 24-48 after treatment started (there were 61 patients with blood oxygen levels below 90% when the treatment began).
The abstract written for part two states in part, “efficacy of the two most aggressive ivermectin-based multidrug protocols is supported by the Bradford Hill criteria for temporality, strength of association, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, consistency, and analogy. The causal relation between the treatment of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients using these protocols and the reduction in hospitalizations and mortality is supported as an inference to the best explanation.” In other words, ivermectin-based treatments are very effective against COVID. May we never forget how the death cult and their minions prohibited the use of ivermectin at the height of the COVID scamdemic, even going so far as to take away doctors’ licenses if they dared prescribe it for off-label use – a very common practice in medicine. However, in order to get their clot shots an emergency use authorization they needed to pretend as if there were no drugs out there that could treat the Wuhan Red Death, and so they let countless people suffer and die as a means to an end… And these are the people who claim to be the good guys.