"I have a post-vaccine nine-year-old on my desk. Dead." | Pathologist dr. Ryan Cole
Dr. Ryan Cole and dr. Robert Malone about a week ago.
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Fauci instructed medical professionals to NOT do autopsies on 'COVID' deaths (and also deaths after injection). You cannot find that for which you do not look.
Dr. Cole is currently doing an autopsy on a 9 year old child why died after, and probably because of, injection with the COVID shot.
More and more autopsies are being performed.
In the same town as the 9 year old, a healthy 22 year old wrestler also died post-vaxx.
Why would you not do autopsies? Why would you not learn from the dead (with full permission of themselves and their loved ones) to benefit the living? Perhaps because you don't want to know the answer? Perhaps you want to control the narrative without any pesky facts getting in the way?
Why would you jab children with a shot that doesn't work for a virus [variant] that isn't here anymore, for a virus that most of them have already recovered from [and that never was a significant risk for them anyway]. The jab isn't necessary, safe or effective for anyone, and certainly not children.
Some valid questions to ponder:
- Why isn't real science being done?
- Why are questions prohibited?
- Why are careers of medical professional being destroyed when these very people are only trying to do what's best for humanity?
Perhaps if you ponder these questions, you come to the conclusion that it never was about public health and it was never about a virus.
The government agencies keep saying that the shots are safe and effective, but with no or bad data to back up that strong claim. On the other hand, the 'dissidents' have excellent data to claim the shots are unnecessary, toxic and ineffective. It could be possible that the data or conclusions of the dissidents are wrong.
The government agencies are free to review the data of the critics and point out where the critics are wrong in a live debate, but in sharp contrast to the dissidents, the 'experts' decline all invitations to discuss the facts with an elite team of opposition. In fact, they have done so for the past 20 years. Why would that be? Perhaps they know they would be pathetic losers if such a debate would ever take place?
This is about a generation that should not be harmed with something they do not need.