MSNBC host Yasmin Vossoughian diagnosed with Myocarditis. The 44- year old journalist is an avid runner and yoga practitioner.

On air, for reasons Anon will not even attempt to try to answer, Ms. Vossoughian declared that the reason she has Myocarditis is…because of the common cold virus. Not the vaccines she took, but the cold.

"And in FACT, in the end, it was still JUST…the cold…that was doing all this, that it caused ALLLLLL of this inflammation in and around my heart."

Fake News is pushing the false narrative, using their own employees' vaccine caused injuries stories no less, that the reason for heart diseases in 44 year old healthy young women has nothing to do with mRNA injuries, but because of the common cold, despite the plethora of evidence now coming out that vaccines are the cause.

Absolutely disgusting display of cult devotion to the NWO crime families.

The enemy of the people bastards at MSDNC are now trying to push the false narrative that the sudden spike in myocarditis is caused by the common cold virus and had nothing to do with the vaccines.

These fake news people are absolutely evil pieces of shit.

https://truthsocial.com/@CitizenFreePress/posts/109784450264153501

>>18259639

>>18259765

>https://t.me/Jack_Posobiec/22446

>>18259886

Without Operation Warpspeed, the country would still be in lockdown mode causing the economy to crash after which many more people would have suffered and died than from a variant of the common cold virus.

>>18259947

You're fooling yourself here, clown.

>>18259999

>newfag

>lurk moar

kek, the clowns make it so obvious too, using stale cliche 'blending in' lingo.

>>18260028

>f&g opinion with no sauce

1. You just contradicted yourself by posting what is ITSELF an 'opinion with no sauce'.

2. Anon doesn't require additional sauce for what is itself SAUCED by THIS post.

>>18260055

>You have no proof of your claim

You have no proof it's not correct.

>>18260086

Thank you for proving you have no proof.

>>18260093

Thank you for again proving you can't refute what was said, you have no sauce.

You are in fact touting your theory as fact.

>f&g

You wrote that as a definitive, conclusive absolute statement of fact of reality, that you present yourself as knowing reality as it happened, such that you brazenly declare that you can absolutely without a shred of any evidence or sauce, know that what I wrote is 'f&g'.

See, you could have just said no sauce.

You could have just said you won't believe until you see sauce that suits you.

But no, you made the positive claim that you know reality better than I do, such that you can declare to me that what I wrote is NOT in fact what happened, that it is ONLY my mere 'opinion'.

That logically requires you to have some special intelligence that INFORMED you such that you can see what I wrote and claim it's f&g.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but you have not provided any such intelligence such that you can convince me that what you said is incorrect, and therefore BY YOUR OWN LOGICAL INSTANTIATION, you have made a claim to knowing reality as it is without a shred of evidence.

No, you can't say 'you made the claim I don't have to provide you with any sauce' and leave it at that, because in your hasty stupidity, you went too far and went beyond skepticism until provided with evidence, to a very different, indeed SELF-CONTRADICTORY assertion and you went ahead and made a conclusive statement of reality of your own, that you know reality is such that what I wrote cannot possibly be true.

This is your bed, you lie in it.

>>18260142

It's not a deflection, YOU are deflecting away from your claim that you know reality better than I do such that you can conclude what I wrote isn't what happened.

Well, if you present yourself as knowing reality better than I do, if you tell me that you have some knowledge that enables you to identify what I wrote is wrong, well, present your evidence and sauce then.

You never sauced YOUR 'bullshit' assertion of reality.

One of us is incorrect, two of us are making claims about reality (as a reminder your claim is that reality is absolutely not what I said it was), neither of us are providing sauce, and one of us is inconsistently demanding sauce for statements of knowledge of reality.

You can keep asking for what you're not providing all day if you want, I have my convictions, you have yours, and yet only you seem to be demanding I do what you're not.

>>18260188

>You pass your opinion off as a fact

You did that when you declared 'f&g'.

>I already said you may be right.

You never said that until that sentence right there.

I will say you could he right that what I said isn't true, but it's what I have concluded based on pattern recognition that won't have any 'sauce', because it's not a reference to what someone else said (in which case to be consistent you'd have to ask for sauce on the sauce), it's a conclusion I made that I think is true.

>I require sauce to believe your story.

I too require sauce to accept that your knowledge of reality is superior to mine such that you can present 'f&g' as fact.

>>18260226

Understandable given this board has plenty of KNOWING deceivers.

BTW, I am nowhere close to the only person saying this. It's a view of reality I have been trying to falsify so far without 'success'.