**Greg Gutfeld Exposed Trump’s ‘Anti-Science’ Vaccine Stance Years Ago 😱 | Now Backing RFK Jr. Shocks Fans!**

 Latest News      Business      Entertainment      Sports        Health        Education      Jobs

A resurfaced clip shows **Greg Gutfeld slamming Donald Trump’s anti-science vaccine views** years before the 2024 election drama 😮. Now, Trump’s surprising **support for RFK Jr.** has reignited debates on health, politics, and loyalty. 👉 Discover the full story and what it means for the 2025 race!

**Greg Gutfeld Slams Trump’s ‘Anti-Science’ View on Vaccines in Resurfaced Clip – Years Before Backing RFK Jr.**

A **viral resurfaced video** of Fox News host **Greg Gutfeld** is sparking major online debate. In the clip, Gutfeld criticized **Donald Trump’s stance on vaccines**, calling it “**anti-science**” and “dangerous to public health.”

What’s shocking fans now is that **years later, Trump has publicly shown support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.)**, a candidate widely known for his controversial positions on vaccines and health policies.

The timing couldn’t be more explosive 🚨. With the **2025 election season heating up**, Trump’s alliance with RFK Jr. has left many conservatives and independents questioning his consistency.

**Key Highlights:**

* 📺 Old footage shows Gutfeld warning against Trump’s vaccine views.

* 💉 Trump once labeled vaccines “potentially harmful” before walking back comments.

* ⚡ Now, Trump’s backing of RFK Jr. reignites “anti-science” concerns.

* 🗳️ Political experts believe this could impact Trump’s base and sway undecided voters.

Supporters argue that Trump is “listening to medical freedom voices,” while critics say this move could **damage trust in science and health policies** at a crucial election moment.

**💊 Does the Common Heart Attack Pill Really Help Everyone? ❤️🩺 Shocking New Findings You Need to Know! 🚨**

  Latest News      Business      Entertainment      Sports        Health        Education      Jobs

A decades-old pill remains helpful for heart attack patients even with modern treatments that can prevent lasting damage to the heart muscle, two large trials have shown.

Still unclear is whether all patients, or only some, benefit from so-called beta-blocker drugs, which are typically prescribed to everyone after a heart attack.

Two sharply contradictory reports were presented on Saturday at a large cardiology meeting in Madrid and published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It is not unusual for trials to yield different results,” said Dr Borja Ibanez of Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III in Madrid, who led one of the trials.

“Somewhat uncommon is to see two trials with apparently divergent findings presented on the same day.”

Most important, Ibanez said, is the finding both teams agree on, which is that beta-blockers reduce the combined risk of another heart attack, heart failure, or death in patients without heart failure but with mildly impaired heart function.

The question is whether the pills are beneficial or useless for those with normally functioning hearts, who account for about 80% of patients after a first heart attack.

Beta-blocker manufacturers include Mylan, Novartis, opens new tab, Pfizer, opens new tab, Abbott, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, opens new tab, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, opens new tab, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, opens new tab, Lupin, ANI Pharmaceuticals, opens new tab, and Eagle Pharmaceuticals, opens new tab.

The drugs work by inhibiting the hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine, thereby lowering heart rate and blood pressure, decreasing the workload on the heart and reducing its oxygen demand.

Both new trials involved heart attack survivors whose hearts were still contracting normally, that is, the left ventricle was pumping out at least 40% of its blood with each beat. Both trials followed patients for roughly 3.5 years.