"ZERO Deaths from COVID - Liberty, Health, Justice"

NEVER FORGET HOW MANY ELECTED / APPOINTED OFFICIALS, RIGHT DOWN TO YOUR CITY/TOWN PUSHED THE "GET VAXXED" NARRATIVE.

THEY ARE ALL COMPLICIT.

COMPLICIT CURRENT MEMBERS TO THE HAMPTON, NH BOARD OF SELECTMEN:

RICHIE SAWYER

RUSTY BRIDLE

CHUCK RAGE

”From the beginning of the “plandemic,” American Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) warned of the dangers of the COVID-19 injections—especially the mRNA shots pushed on our young people. In October 2020, my team and I authored a white paper on the dangers and called for an absolute prohibition on giving these shots to children. It is a lie when the “parasitic public health class” says “we didn’t know!” 

Now, a recent study of 1.7 million children confirms what we feared: heart damage, specifically myocarditis and pericarditis, has been found ONLY in those children who received COVID-19 mRNA jabs. It is YOUR children who suffer … not theirs.

Not one single “uninjected” child in the study developed these heart issues. 

This new report led by researchers from Oxford University and published in MedRxiv, offers sobering insights. Notably, they found ZERO deaths from COVID-19 among both “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” children. 

In other words, these experimental shots, sold to the public and parents as a means of protection, instead led to unnecessary and severe health risks.

The Frontline Doctors and I repeatedly declared that healthy children were not at risk from COVID. Kids did not need the “protection” of masks, isolation, and certainly not of a rushed injection that was authorized for emergency use only. For children, there was never an “emergency.”

AFLDS Proven Right Again  In 2020 AFLDS blew the whistle on the rushed approval of COVID-19 mRNA “treatment,” and the COMPLETE absence of thorough safety studies. Public health authorities approved emergency use of these injections based on very limited safety trials. 

But those same trials failed to look at critical safety endpoints—like the potential for severe heart inflammation. That critical oversight is now killing our children.

To be clear, these are not mild side effects. They involve severe inflammation of the heart muscle and the sac around the heart, leading to clots, strokes, heart attacks, and even sudden death.

This failure has left children with irreversible heart damage. Families whose children are at risk have a right to know: Who is responsible–and will they pay the price for harming so many of our kids?

Children’s Health Has Been Shamefully Politicized

Children should never be pawns serving the interests of a political agenda, especially when it is clear the real risks were not from the virus but from the experimental “vaccines” that proved to be far worse than Covid. 

The revelations we face today directly result from the propaganda and disinformation spread by our health agencies along with a lack of medical ethics—something we can no longer afford to allow.

AFLDS exists because we believe our healthcare decisions should be based on truth, not fear, and certainly not the agendas of powerful entities who prioritize profit over people. “

IN SUMMARY - latest white paper:

AFLDS, led by Dr. Simone Gold and other physicians, raises concerns about COVID-19 vaccine mandates, calling them "experimental." It emphasizes transparency and further research, opposing mandates like vaccine passports. The paper cites risks of unknowns in long-term effects and civil liberties issues, urging policy caution, especially regarding prioritization by race. It also claims that prior information about treatments like hydroxychloroquine was misrepresented, allegedly suppressing alternatives. The group advocates prioritizing high-risk populations and upholding voluntary, informed decision-making.

The document expresses concern about unknown complications from COVID-19 vaccines, especially for specific groups like pregnant women, the elderly, and those with waning immunity. It suggests that long-term effects, including potential impacts on fertility and interactions with other viruses, remain uncertain due to the novel mRNA vaccine approach. Additionally, the document questions the vaccine's ability to prevent transmission and mentions liability protections for pharmaceutical companies.

Concerns in the document focus on the uncertainty of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in preventing mortality or hospitalization due to the lack of sufficient positive case data for statistical validation. Historical data, like lower-than-expected effectiveness of influenza vaccines, raises doubts about actual efficacy in broader populations. Additionally, the document highlights the lack of long-term immunity data, with experts questioning if annual vaccinations might be required. It also labels these vaccines "experimental," emphasizing the legal implications and potential risks, including antibody-dependent enhancement, seen previously in other vaccine trials.

Concerns in scientific literature have been raised about potential antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH) risks with COVID-19 vaccines, as trials lacked sufficient sample sizes to assess these risks fully. Additionally, issues such as possible infertility risks, neurological disorders, and ethnic disparities in immune responses to vaccines have been cited. Calls for caution emphasize unknowns around long-term safety, particularly with rushed vaccine rollouts. Critics argue pharmaceutical companies' immunity from liability may reduce safety incentives, potentially sidelining rigorous safety protocols and longer-term studies.

The AFLDS recommends that COVID-19 vaccines be:

1. Prohibited for those aged 0-20, due to low risk from COVID-19 and concerns over unknown risks.

2. Discouraged for healthy individuals aged 20-69, emphasizing low COVID-19 risk and unknowns regarding autoimmune effects and fertility.

3. Optional for those over 70 or with comorbidities, with the decision based on individual risk assessment and access to early treatments.

   
   

They stress that vaccination is a personal decision, not a one-size-fits-all policy, and oppose mandates, advocating informed consent between patients and doctors.

This is an apolitical human-rights issue.