Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Daniel Horowitz Op-ed’

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Idaho conservatives poised to remake legislature like never before


OP-ED | DANIEL HOROWITZ | May 19, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-idaho-legislature-conservatives/

Idaho has long suffered a paradox, in that it is so dominated by Republicans that it is not so Republican at all. Because it is a de facto one-party state, many liberals who are well connected to the woke industries and lobbyists choose to run as Republicans and use their superior campaign cash to campaign as conservatives, the exact opposite of what they plan to do in office. This is why, despite a 58-12 majority in the House and a 28-7 majority in the Senate, conservatives rarely enjoy legislative wins that other red states are able to easily secure. Last night’s elections might have changed that in a big way.

Establishment Republican elites are crowing about their apparent victories in both the Pennsylvania Senate race and the Idaho gubernatorial race on Tuesday. Idaho Gov. Brad Little warded off a challenge from Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. However, when you get past the statewide elections, which require tremendous money and organization to make competitive – money true conservatives don’t have – we find a different story.

A total of 20 incumbent Republicans – 11 running for the Senate and nine running for the House – were defeated or poised to lose as of Tuesday night. A big part of these results is thanks to the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC, which actively recruited candidates against incumbents.

It’s truly hard to overstate the significance of this development. Thirteen of the 28 Republican senators didn’t stand for re-election. Out of the 15 remaining, nine were defeated, and several RINO House members seeking a Senate seat lost to conservatives. There is almost no parallel to that in recent history. While some of the races involved other quirks or were due to redistricting, and a few others were conservatives who were defeated by more ideologically ambiguous candidates, for the most part, conservatives downed many liberal Republicans and made gains in open seats.

Among the highlights were conservative Rep. Codi Galloway beating Sen. Fred Martin, the five-term Senate Health and Welfare Committee chair from Boise. Sen. Jim Patrick, who served five terms in the Senate and three in the House, was defeated by a conservative as well. He was chairman of the Senate Commerce & Human Resources Committee. Also, Rep. Greg Chaney, the outgoing chair of Judiciary, Rules & Administration in the House, lost his bid for a Senate seat, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, vice chair of the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee, lost his seat.

Additionally, two conservatives who moved from California to seek freedom in the Gem State defeated prominent incumbents. Retired California firefighter Carl Bjerke took out Senate Health and Welfare Committee vice chair Sen. Peter Riggs. Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee co-chair Sen. Jeff Agenbroad was defeated by Brian Lenney, who moved his family from California to Nampa in 2010.

Even in a number of instances where the incumbent survived, the challengers came much closer than we usually see in statewide elections. Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder only won his race by about 640 votes. Now he will face a brand-new caucus that can possibly vote him out of leadership. Conservatives would have enjoyed an even better night if not for the fact that leadership drew several of them into the same district and forced them to compete with each other. This dynamic made the House results more of a wash, but the House was already fairly conservative. So, the fact that the Senate has caught up to it will give the legislature a lot of clout over Gov. Brad Little.

What this success at the legislative level demonstrates is that for lower offices, where the bar to entry is much lower in terms of financial needs, conservatives are on a much more level playing field.

Even in the statewide elections, there are signs that in the future, conservatives can sweep the state. Former Congressman Raul Labrador defeated a 22-year incumbent for attorney general. Conservatives also came within a hair of winning the office of secretary of state and only lost because of vote-splitting. Even for governor, Brad Little only secured 53% of the total vote. Had there been a runoff option, the race might have picked up more momentum and could have become contested. With less vote-splitting and slightly stronger candidates, conservatives can truly take over the state next time.

In other states, mainly in the South, where there are runoffs, conservatives have a stronger chance to compete statewide. Next week, conservatives have an opportunity to draw Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey into a runoff. One recent poll showed Ivey only garnering 40% of the vote, with socially conservative businessman Tim James in second place for a potential runoff. Vote-splitting has plagued conservatives for decades, and the institution of runoffs in more states would allow them to compete against the establishment without fear of dividing the vote of thinking voters.

The Idaho media cheer for liberal Republicans because they don’t really have Democrat horses to ride, but even they recognize the significance of the Idaho Freedom PAC’s work in changing the state’s politics. A bigger focus on state legislatures will pay great dividends in the future, and other states can mimic the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC.

Indeed, the trend of RINO chairmen losing their seats played out in other states on Tuesday night. Three RINO Kentucky House chairs lost their seats in northern Kentucky. Eight-term incumbent Adam Koenig, chairman of the House Licensing and Occupations Committee, was defeated by Steven Doan, a liberty candidate supported by Congressman Thomas Massie and state Rep. Savannah Maddox, a rising conservative star who might run for governor next year. Rep. Ed Massey, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from Hebron, and Rep. Sal Santoro, an eight-term incumbent and chairman of the Transportation Budget Committee, were also defeated.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Stan Saylor of York County and Sen. Pat Browne of Lehigh County, both the House and Senate appropriations committee chairs respectively, were defeated by conservative challengers. Saylor had been in the House for 30 years. Republicans already have strong majorities in both houses, and if they can pick up the governorship with Doug Mastriano, a more conservative legislature can dramatically alter the political trajectory of the state.

So, what gives when it comes to 63% of the Pennsylvania Republicans voting for Mehmet Oz or Dave McCormick over the conservative favorite, Kathy Barnette? Very simple. They each raised close to $16 million and ran as solid conservatives, so the other challengers, including Kathy Barnette, were outgunned. On the other hand, Doug Mastriano, likely the most conservative in the gubernatorial field, won his primary in a landslide. In that case, there was no unified establishment candidate with endless sums of money to fool the voters.

Overall, conservatives would be wise to focus more on state and local races rather than federal races. Making red states red again and state legislatures great again will go a long way in divorcing ourselves from the morass of Washington. The RINOs can have the irremediably broken federal system, while we focus on rebuilding liberty in some of the states.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Hunter Biden’s role in Ukrainian biolabs raises serious questions about gain of function and Ukraine policy


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | March 30, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-hunter-bidens-role-in-ukrainian-biolabs-raises-serious-questions-about-gain-of-function-and-ukraine-policy

Recent emails unearthed by the U.K. Daily Mail and the National Pulse reveal that during the last decade, Hunter Biden seemed to have a keen interest in pathogen research in Ukraine and using it as a tool for geopolitical affairs in that country. It just so happens to be that a pathogen connected to gain-of-function research destroyed the world, and then the next “big current thing” on the geopolitical stage was none other than Ukraine. Shouldn’t the American people get some answers as to why our government was so heavily involved – via the vice president’s son – in both pathogen research and Ukraine and to make sure Ukraine is not Wuhan 2.0?

Earlier this month, I detailed the known connections between biotech firm Metabiota Inc., responsible for the pathogen research in Ukraine, the DOD, and EcoHealth Alliance, along with the Wuhan lab most likely responsible for the leak of SARS-CoV-2. I also noted that Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners (RSTP), a subsidiary of the Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz-founded Rosemont Capital, gave Metabiota, a company accused of dangerous lab protocols during the African Ebola pandemic, its first infusion of cash a decade ago. Now, new emails from Hunter’s laptop demonstrate that his involvement in Metabiota and pathogen research in Ukraine was much deeper than just an initial investment.

On April 4, 2014, Metabiota vice president Mary Guttieri wrote an email to the younger Biden outlining how they could “assert Ukraine’s cultural and economic independence from Russia’” with their joint venture, according to an email from Hunter’s laptop obtained by the U.K. Daily Mail. That is quite a curious goal for a company that supposedly does scientific research and analysis about emerging pandemics.

The outlet also posted another email dated April 8, 2014, from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi referring to a “science project” Hunter had pitched to him involving Burisma and Metabiota in Ukraine. “Please find few initial points to be discussed for the purposes of analyzing the potential of this as you called, ‘Science Ukraine’ project,” Pozharskyi wrote. Hunter sits on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company owned by corrupt billionaire Mikolay Zlochevsky, who fled to Monaco after he was put under investigation.

Hunter’s dad, as vice president, was in charge of our foreign policy with Ukraine in 2014 when all of this was occurring and when the U.S. government was backing the color revolution that led to the ouster of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych. It was at this time that the Defense Department began funding the Metabiota operations in Ukraine.

After receiving 18.4 million from the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) between February 2014 and November 2016, with $307,091 earmarked for “Ukraine research projects,” “Metabiota has worked in Ukraine for Black & Veatch, a US defense contractor with deep ties to military intelligence agencies, which built secure labs in Ukraine that analyzed killer diseases and bioweapons,” according to the Daily Mail.

“It raises the question, what is the real purpose of this venture? It’s very odd,” said former senior CIA officer Sam Faddis in an interview with the Daily Mail. “His father was the Vice President of the United States and in charge of relations with Ukraine. So why was Hunter not only on the board of a suspect Ukrainian gas firm, but also hooked them up with a company working on bioweapons research?”

Biden was so involved in Metabiota that one email written that same month in 2014 reveals that he and his business partner Eric Schwerin discussed subletting their office space to the San-Francisco-based biotech firm.

So, what exactly were they working on? Last week, the National Pulse reported that a feature in the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine’s 2016 Annual Report recounts an October 2016 meeting involving U.S. military officials and their Ukrainian counterparts together with Black & Veatch and Metabiota staff to discuss the lab work. The discussion centered around “existing frameworks, regulatory coordination, and ongoing cooperative projects in research, surveillance and diagnostics of a number of dangerous zoonotic diseases, such as avian influenza, leptospirosis, Crimea Congo hemorrhagic fever, and brucellosis.”

The National Pulse cites a 2019 paper authored by researchers from Metabiota and three Ukraine-based institutes and funded by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency sharing how they isolated a form of African swine flu using a pig from Ukraine in 2016. They also detail their research on Anthrax in animals in Ukraine.

Well, where else have we heard of Metabiota partners working on gain-of-function research of pathogens that typically are in animals? Oh yes, EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan. In the past, Metabiota has worked with EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The zoonotic projects being described in Ukraine sound awfully similar to the gain-of-function work EcoHealth was involved with in Wuhan. In Feb. 2016, EcoHealth’s founder, Peter Daszak, explained the company’s zoonotic pathogen work as follows:

So as an example, first of all, we are only looking at viral families that include those that have gone into people from animals. So, we narrow it down straight away. Then when you get a sequence of a virus and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS, we found other Corona viruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So, we sequenced the spike protein, the protein that attaches to cells. Then we, well, I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work, you create the pseudo-particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses [to see if they] bind to human cells. And each step you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people. So, you narrow down the field, you reduce the cost and you end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers. (C-Span, 1:16:22.)

Sure sounds a lot like the coronavirus that actually broke out several years ago and destroyed the world as we know it. Less than a month later, Ralph Baric, the UNC Chapel Hill biologist who spearheaded the gain-of-function projects for Daszak, co-authored a paper warning with certitude of the emergence of this disease. “The results indicate that viruses using WIV1-CoV spike are poised to emerge in human populations due to efficient replication in primary human airway epithelial cell cultures,” concluded the authors.

How did they know? And doesn’t anyone have a concern that the same players were up to no good in Ukraine, especially given Hunter Biden’s ethical problems and the fact that his dad, the vice president and now the president, was overseeing Ukrainian affairs during that time?

Recently, the National Pulse found, based on EcoHealth’s 990 filings and analysis by ProPublica, that the company’s investment income surged by 342% in the year of the pandemic. EcoHealth received millions of dollars from Fauci’s NIAD to work on “killer” viruses with the Wuhan Institute, creating “chimeric” viruses that spread in humans at rates “equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”

Now consider the fact that Metabiota’s CEO, Nathan Wolfe, penned an article in Time on Aug. 1, 2014, detailing his opinion on the Ebola outbreak in Africa and then literally predicted coronavirus as the next outbreak:

While Ebola virus won’t be the next global Andromeda strain, there are viruses out there that could be. Coronaviruses (like SARS) and influenza viruses (like the H1N1 virus of 1918) for example, show that some viruses truly can spread around the world in ways that will blindside and impact our entire planet. It is notable that a novel coronavirus, the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and a novel influenzavirus, the H7N9 virus, receive very little attention from the international media. Perhaps as importantly, there are millions of still unidentified viruses in animal reservoirs, among which, almost certainly is a virus that we’d have no capacity to understand, or stop were it to suddenly emerge today.

If we didn’t have a pandemic likely created by similar research – possibly by the same players – killing millions globally and injuring tens of millions of others, I wouldn’t be too concerned with these research projects in Ukraine. But given what has occurred, why is there zero concern from the media or the politicians about what we have been doing in Ukraine and elsewhere? And how does it shape our entire geopolitical worldview on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The Pentagon’s RESPONSE to the explosive DOD medical data is an even bigger story than the data


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 07, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-pentagons-response-to-the-explosive-dod-medical-data-is-an-even-bigger-story-than-the-data/

One thing is clear about the revelation of the 2021 military epidemiological data and the military’s response to it: There is undoubtedly a public health and national security crisis in the military, and the Pentagon’s reaction only seems to be concerned with exonerating the vaccine, not fixing its own alleged problem.

It’s now certain that the military’s health surveillance system — DMED — showed a massive increase in sickness and injury diagnoses in 2021 over previous years, particularly in the neurological, cardiovascular, oncological, and reproductive health categories. The military, in a very terse and cryptic statement to PolitiFact last week, admitted as much, but claimed without any further explanation that the data in the system accessed by several military doctors working with attorney Thomas Renz was only a “fraction” of the true numbers that existed. In the words of the Pentagon spokesman, it was a “glitch in the database.” Where those true numbers existed, why they weren’t in the system for five years, what exactly was in the system, and why the 2021 numbers were accurate according to the DOD account remain a mystery.

However, one by one, the military public health officials have been adding back random numbers to the 2016 through 2020 codes. I’m told by Renz and two of the whistleblowers that throughout the past week, they have queried the same data again, and in most of the ICD categories, they have found that the numbers from 2016 through 2020 were “increased” exponentially to look as though 2021 was not an abnormal year. This has been done without any transparency, any press release, any statement of narrative, and sloppily in a way that makes the already unbelievable narrative simply impossible to believe.

In addition to believing that every epidemiological report for five years was somehow completely tainted with false data — including during the first year of the pandemic itself — we would have to believe that the minute they discovered this from Renz, they suddenly discovered the exact numbers. A five-year mistake fixed overnight!

Just take a look at the following statement given to the Epoch Times, the only other public comment delivered by an authorized Pentagon spokesman:

“Comparing the DMED database to the source data contained in DMSS, AFHSD discovered that the total number of medical diagnoses from 2016-2020 that were accessible in DMED represented only a small fraction of actual medical diagnoses for those years. In contrast, the 2021 total number of medical diagnoses were up to date in DMED. Comparison of 2021 to 2016-2020 resulted in the appearance of significant increased occurrence of all medical diagnoses in 2021 because of the under-reported data for 2016-2020. AFHSD has taken DMED offline to identify and correct the root-cause of the data corruption,” said Maj. Charlie Dietz.

That’s it! They are only concerned with downplaying any potential culpability of the vaccine, not explaining how they were flying blind, according to their official narrative, on such an important endeavor for so many years. Just consider the fact that at last week’s meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), officials revealed that they have been monitoring vaccine safety data from the DOD, among other places.

You know what that means? The CDC was looking at data for months that showed insane safety signals and did nothing about it, and somehow nobody in HHS or the DOD all along thought the data was a “glitch.”

Moreover, the DOD’s new data (as presented on Renz’s website) that was somehow updated so quickly is impossible to believe for a number of other reasons. Take a look at the top-line number of ICD codes in 2016-2020, as reflected in the data before the DOD tampered with it to input the new updated numbers.

Here is the original data of total annual outpatient diagnoses in DMED before the Pentagon changed it:

And here is the top-line tally for 2016-2020 based on the new numbers added:

This is a bar graph presentation from Thomas Renz contrasting the 2016-2020 total outpatient ICD diagnosis codes in the military before the DOD change and after the change. As you can see, during a typical year, there were about 2 million diagnosis codes, jumping almost tenfold in 2021. However, based on the changes made last week, 2021 is exactly in line with every other year (even though 2021 remains slightly lower; the data does not include numbers from December).

Here’s the problem with such an alleged presentation of the data. Putting the vaccines aside, the DOD’s “new” model would literally erase the existence of COVID off the face of the planet as if we never had the biggest pandemic of our lifetime. Even if the vaccine never caused a single doctor’s visit, COVID alone had to increase the codes. Yes, the military is generally very young, and deaths and hospitalizations were relatively low, but it’s impossible to believe that especially during the vicious Delta outbreak since the summer, there was no increase in COVID-related doctor’s visits. Just long COVID alone had to register a meaningful increase. Ironically, the Biden administration is forcing a vaccine mandate for a virus that, according to this alleged new data, didn’t cause even a 1% increase in baseline outpatient doctor’s visits this year!

The data originally reflected on DMED that was downloaded by the whistleblowers a few weeks ago makes much more sense because it accommodates both COVID and vaccine injury, which would explain the unprecedented increase. Now, obviously, COVID alone can’t explain all the increases, because some of the specific data points presented have already been associated with the vaccine injury, per VAERS and other studies, as opposed to the virus.

More fundamentally, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that there are this many diagnoses in the military in a given year. All active-duty soldiers have to be medically screened. Obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions are very rare, and the population is generally very young. If we really have over 20 million diagnoses every year in the military (consisting of about 1.4 million active-duty personnel), there is something seriously wrong, and that in itself is a huge story.

Let’s drill down to some specific ICD codes to drive home this point.

Take a look at the data for nervous system diagnoses before the numbers were altered:

Now look at the new numbers:

We are to believe that there was ZERO increase in the year of the Delta pandemic as well as what we already know from the civilian world about vertigo and migraines following the shots? We were all shocked by the percentage increase, but to say there was no increase whatsoever defies any expectation. Moreover, we are to believe that there are nearly 1 million nervous system diagnoses in the military every year in a fighting force of 1.4 million?

To further explore this point, let’s look at the number of pulmonary embolism diagnoses before and after the DOD “fixed” the data. Blood clotting in the longs is a clear consequence of the spike protein, which sticks to CD-147 receptors on blood vessels.

Here are the numbers before:

And here are the numbers after the DOD alteration:

While even the “revised” numbers do show some degree of increase, it is not enough to account for the unprecedented nature of both COVID and the COVID vaccines. But the more serious issue is how can a military of healthy young people have such a high baseline of pulmonary embolisms every year? One estimate of pulmonary embolism prevalence in the U.S. is between 60 and 70 per 100,000 per year. But that is almost exclusively in the elderly and sicker population. Soldiers 20 to 25 years old don’t exactly get pulmonary embolisms. So even accounting for the fact that these are diagnosis codes and not unique individuals (some might have had a few visits in a year), the numbers are way too high.

Finally, it’s important to note that the DOD is so overprotective of the vaccine that it revised numbers to show zero increase in ailments that are universally understood to have increased – at least to some extent – because of the vaccine. Although they were smart enough to still show a baseline increase in myocarditis (everyone knows that), the new numbers would indicate zero increase for pericarditis.

Here is the original data queried by the whistleblowers:

And here is the new data, which seem to indicate no unusual increase, even if we add in the missing month for 2021:

The silence both from the media and congressional members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees is astounding. One of two things is true: Either there was mass vaccine injury in the military, or our military has been very unhealthy and the Pentagon completely lost control over epidemiological surveillance of these health issues for years. Either way, this is the story of the year.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-6-important-covid-data-points-that-destroy-the-prevailing-narrative/

When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now, actually, makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.

Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!

Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. “Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.” In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown “the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself? Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The vaccines are working … exactly as they were designed


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-vaccines-are-working-exactly-as-they-were-designed

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” —George Orwell

There is nowhere to run or hide from the growing observations that the closer we come to universal vaccination rates in many countries, the worse the pandemic has become. We have always known that leaky vaccines have the potential to create viral enhancement, but the recent data is unmistakable. At the same time, the COVID cultists are panicking over an emerging variant that actually might be the mildest of all while mainly affecting the vaccinated — a perfect refutation to the mass vaccination push. All signs point to the need to suspend the shots and focus exclusively on monoclonal antibodies and other early treatment. Or is there an ulterior motive?

At this point, we better pray that Omicron becomes dominant in the U.S. as quickly as possible. The most devastating observation of 2021 is that more people have died from COVID under the mass vaccination regime during the existing variant than before there was a single jab. According to the CDC’s “Data Table for Daily Death Trends,” there have been 127,184 COVID deaths from September 1 through November 30 this year, which is 45% greater than the 87,829 recorded deaths over the same period in 2020. And some of the deaths from this year are still lagging and likely to be updated.

Typically, viruses mutate down and become less virulent. Last year, there was much less built up immunity, we had fewer treatment options, and we had zero vaccines. It is nearly impossible to ignore the fact that the narrow-spectrum leaky vaccine has made the virus much worse.

During the peak of the winter wave in January, there were 19 recorded deaths for 15- to 17-year-olds. In August, when the vaccines began to leak and we likely experienced vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, kids noticeably got sicker. Although deaths were still very rare, there were 63 recorded deaths among that age cohort, and the numbers have generally remained higher.

Imagine if we had put all the funds for the leaky shots into the monoclonal antibodies and an outpatient treatment regime built on the latest research of dozens of therapeutics that have shown promise in combatting the virus. Yet rather than focus on alternatives and investigate what went wrong with the injections, our establishment leaders are doubling down, even as the failure is undeniably in plain sight. As such, it’s hard to escape the sinister conclusion that they intended this all along.

Consider the fact that Cornell University has an ironclad vaccine and mask mandate, yet 3.5% of the entire campus tested positive last week alone. The school has now switched to online learning.

Consider the fact that before the NFL season started, 52 of 53 players on the L.A. Rams’ roster were vaccinated. Now they lead the league with 11 players on the COVID list.

Consider the fact that Newton, Massachusetts, has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with 97% of the entire population vaccinated, including 99% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 87% of 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet, despite this and indoor mask mandates, the town has more cases than this time last year and is likely headed toward a record.

Consider the fact that a country like South Korea barely recorded deaths during the entire pandemic, but now has many more cases and deaths, with nearly all adults vaccinated and one of the highest vaccination rates for a country that large (over 50 million).

Consider the fact that England and France, both with very high vaccination rates and large prior COVID waves, have recently set case records.

Likewise, Portugal, with the highest double-vaxxed rate in Europe, now has more cases than during the winter peak.

Several months ago, a Harvard study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, the only one to look at thousands of U.S. counties and different countries to study correlation between vaccination rates and case rates, found zero correlation. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people,” concluded the author.

The establishment suggests that the shots at least provide some with temporary protection from critical illness. But what good is that if the shots actually make the virus more virulent for everyone and then offer a degree of preventive protection for its consumers while screwing everyone else?

Let’s not forget that Dr. Fauci warned from day one that you need a perfect vaccine because a half-baked one runs the risk of making the virus worse. In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg last March, Fauci said in response to those who wanted rushed vaccines, “If you vaccinate someone, and they make an antibody response, and then they get exposed and infected, does the response that you induce actually enhance the infection and make it worse? The only way you’ll know that is if you do an extended study [not on volunteers, but on the public].”

“This would not be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse,” he continued when the Facebook CEO pressed him on rushing forward with a vaccine.

A month later, Fauci warned at a press conference that “the worst possible thing you could do” is vaccinate someone and create enhancement.

Well, a year and a half later, isn’t that exactly what we are seeing? Remember, the FDA warned during the initial emergency approval period that “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown.” And that’s at a time when the FDA didn’t know just how badly these shots would wane … or did it? Is it perhaps the intent to create the need for endless shots to fix the immune suppression and viral enhancement created by the first round – just like a heroin addict who constantly needs more poison to temporarily assuage the latest withdrawal symptoms, until he descends into a death spiral?

It is now universally accepted that the vaccine first suppresses your immune system, possibly for six weeks following the first shot, before it provides any protection for a few months thereafter. To encourage people to vaccinate even more while the numbers are high is the surest way of enabling more people to get the virus. This will create an endless feedback loop, driving a vicious cycle of suppressed immune systems, vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, and excess mortality from both the side effects and from COVID, which in turn generates fear to pressure more boosters in the hardest-hit areas. The German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is making boosters available for people to take every four weeks. Thus, the more the shots fail, the more the makers succeed. It’s no longer enough to oppose mandates. It’s time to stand athwart history and yell “STOP” to this entire vicious cycle.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Sweden obliterates the lie of ‘vaccines’ as ticket to ending pandemic


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-sweden-obliterates-the-lie-of-vaccines-as-ticket-to-ending-pandemic/

It is now undeniable that in almost every part of North America, Europe, and East Asia, the pandemic is more prolific than it ever was before a single person was vaccinated, even though most of those countries have nearly every adult vaccinated. Thus, it is impossible to deny that vaccinologists like Geert Vanden Bossche and Luc Montagnier were correct when they predicted that mass vaccination with a suboptimal, non-sterilizing vaccine in middle of a pandemic would create vaccine-mediated viral enhancement. It’s hard to imagine how people who pushed this strategy didn’t see this coming.

The typical retort to this allegation is that it’s all the fault of “the Delta” and that somehow things would have been even worse without the shots. The problem with this assertion is that we are seeing the sharpest waves ever in the most vaccinated countries. Also, the fact that Sweden has never gotten a Delta wave demonstrates that natural immunity alone would have ended this pandemic.

Central and Eastern Europe are now on fire from the latest wave of the virus, which some researchers suspect is no longer Delta. Putting the variant aside, every single European country has gotten at least one wave of the virus — to varying degrees of severity — since Delta proliferated in June. The one exception is Sweden. The Scandinavian country now has the second lowest case rate in all of Europe, but more importantly, unlike Spain, which is the lowest, the Swedes never experienced a single Delta wave (as Spain did in July).

Even other Scandinavian countries like Iceland and Norway, which seemed nearly impervious to this virus until the past few months, are suffering their largest waves to date.about:blank

As you can see, even the Scandinavian countries or other countries that currently have low case rates all had one or two Delta waves since June – except for Sweden.

It is self-evident that Sweden’s natural immunity was able to preclude any major Delta wave — the only country in Europe to accomplish this feat. Although Sweden currently has a high vaccination rate — slightly higher than that of the U.S. — the Swedish government didn’t start its vaccination drive until much later than the U.S., U.K., and other countries that have had two Delta waves.

According to the narrative of the masters of the universe, Sweden should have been particularly vulnerable to Delta, while the U.K. should have coasted through it. Instead, the opposite occurred.about:blank

Let’s look at the vaccination curves of Sweden and Ireland and then compare their case rates over the past 4-5 months.

As you can see, the two countries have similar vaccination curves, but Ireland wound up jabbing an even greater percentage of its population. What are the results?

Thus, it wasn’t the vaccination success that stemmed the tide of this variant in Sweden, because Ireland should be doing even better. It’s that Sweden was lucky to have achieved herd immunity before the disastrous vaccination campaign made the pandemic worse. With most of the population likely already immune, they are not harmed by any form of vaccine-mediated viral enhancement.

If we look at other countries that have higher vaccination levels than Sweden, among them some of the most vaccinated countries on earth, they have all done worse than Sweden since the mass vaccination commenced in the spring. This includes both countries like Belgium that already had the virus bad, as well as countries like Iceland and Singapore, which never seemed to have a problem prior to the mass vaccination.

Case rates:

Vaccination rates:

What is abundantly clear is that a vaccine that, to begin with, doesn’t stop transmission and gradually wanes is not a vaccine and, in fact, makes the virus learn to grow stronger and more durable. “Delta” was not inevitable, nor are the coming variants. Sweden could have declined to vaccinate a single person and its curve would have looked the same, because it’s clear from its contrast to every other country as a stark control group that its population’s greater natural immunity is the active ingredient responsible for the country’s success. The mass vaccination, on the other hand, is now the greatest obstacle to ending this pandemic in countries that have not achieved herd immunity through prior infection.

Let’s not forget that Sweden conducted the most comprehensive long-term study of vaccine effectiveness in the world and found that after 6-7 months, “no effectiveness could be detected” from the Pfizer shot. In fact, the study found negative efficacy after 210 days for those over 50, which harmonizes with what we are seeing before our very eyes throughout the world. For some older adults, the shots are as much as -77% effective, and the numbers seem to drop every month.

As one retired California nurse asked of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, “Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected in the first place?”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: North Dakota legislature essentially greenlights Biden’s immoral mandate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | November 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-north-dakota-legislature-essentially-greenlights-bidens-immoral-mandate-theblaze-2655551334.html/

Imagine having an 80-14 majority in a red-state legislature a week after Democrats were defeated in a blue state, and you are considering legislation on Biden’s unprecedented injection mandate at a time when he likely has a 20% approval rating in the state. One would expect the GOP legislators to easily take “yes” for an answer from their constituents and categorically ban all COVID fascism. Instead, they listened to the special interests that are in cahoots with the federal government, rejected a popular bill that would have tackled the problem, and instead passed a bill that explicitly greenlights the mandate.

Last night, the North Dakota House passed HB 1511, a bill that essentially does nothing to protect North Dakotans. Sure, it bans state government mandates, but those were never really a threat. The issue at hand is that the federal government is threatening businesses that they must require injection passports for their workers. The only way to combat that mandate, and yes, restore the pre-COVID free market, is to ban (with the threat of legal action and/or fines) the imposition of such a mandate on employees.

So, what is in HB 1511? It never even attempts to ban the vaccine mandates, but only stipulates that employers must allow for exemptions, which include religious/philosophical objections, medical concerns, prior infection, and a testing opt-out. That might sound like a reasonable compromise that is worth passing, as other states have done, and if written properly, it would effectively protect anyone who wants out of the needle rape. The problem is that the final section of the bill voids even the religious exemptions to the extent that they conflict with the federal regulations. Thus, just like the Wyoming House did (with overwhelming GOP majorities), the North Dakota GOP opposed the federal mandate, unless the feds actually enforce it!

Even the rest of the bill is weak, and worse, it downright greenlights discrimination. The bill does bar any denial of service to customers based on vaccination status, but then places an exception for health care. Thus, at a time when we need a bill doing just the opposite – to ban hospitals from mistreating or denying surgeries and organ transplants to those without the unsafe and ineffective injections (as another draft bill that was rejected purported to do) – this bill explicitly blesses such immoral and illogical discrimination. This bill makes current law worse by explicitly blessing the requirement that someone gets a shot in order to obtain medical care, something that cannot be done under current state and federal anti-discrimination law.

Also, even the ban on vaccine mandates among state institutions was given a carve-out for all state colleges, which are now allowed to deny admission or employment based on someone’s injection status. The bill supporters hang their hats on the fact that the bill bans vaccine passports, but the issue is not a specific piece of paper. Students and others will still be required to show some proof of the shot.

There was a better bill that would have categorically banned most vaccine mandates and confronted the feds directly. HB 1510 was drafted similarly to the Montana bill, which was the first in the country to bar mandates. Even that bill had a compromise carve-out for health care. Shockingly, only 38 Republicans out of 80 voted for it!

Here is the target list for the upcoming elections:

Adams; Anderson, B.; Anderson, D.; Anderson, P.; Beltz; Boe; Boschee; Brandenburg; Buffalo; Cory; Damschen; Devlin; Dobervich; Dockter; Guggisberg; Hager; Hagert; Hanson; Hatlestad; Heinert; Ista; Johnson, D.; Johnson, M.; Karls; Kiefert; Klemin; Kreidt; Louser; Martinson; Mitskog; Mock; Monson; Nathe; Nelson, J.; Nelson, M.; O’Brien; Ostlie; Pollert; Porter; Pyle; Richter; Roers Jones; Sanford; Schauer; Schmidt; Schneider; Schobinger; Schreiber-Beck; Stemen; Strinden; Vigesaa; Weisz; Westlind; Zubke.

The watered-down bill that did pass the House passed the Senate 33-14 on Friday. Ironically, even this bill, which in many ways makes current law worse, was too conservative for a handful of Republicans (there are only seven Democrats in the chamber).

The seven Republicans who thought somehow that even this bill was too compassionate for their constituents were:

  • Howard Anderson, District 8
  • Randy Burckhard, District 5
  • Karen Krebsbach, District 40
  • Judy Lee, District 13
  • Dave Oehlke, District 15
  • Nicole Poolman, District 7
  • Jim Roers, District 46

Watching the Senate debate this morning, I heard one Republican after another suggest, “There’s still people dying in the hospital,” “We’re all in this together,” and “We have responsibilities, not just rights.” Ironically, these are all arguments against the failed status quo that has gotten us to a point where things are worse than they were before the injections, yet North Dakota Republicans are now to the left of even what Bill Gates and others are now conceding about the failures of the shots.

Why is it that conservatives have to be made to feel like we are asking from our legislatures a trip to the moon? We are not asking to reform our entire government and end the Great Society. We are simply asking them to completely erase the now-discredited approach to COVID that has killed so many people without saving a single life. What is so hard? These are the types of bills you would pass when you have divided government, not when you have supermajorities at a time when Democrats are on the ropes and lives are on the line.

On a positive note, the House did pass HB 1514, a bill that bans the medical board from taking action against doctors or nurse practitioners who prescribe ivermectin and against pharmacists who fill the prescriptions. But the original proposal also stopped pharmacists from denying prescriptions, which is the bigger problem on the street. It also had a provision to allow patients in the hospitals the right to try ivermectin and barred any discrimination of care against those without the shots.

“Well, take what you can get, Daniel.”

But why should any of these provisions be removed from the bill? How could anyone – Republican or Democrat – be opposed to these ideas? Again, all these tactics are evil, are unscientific, and reek of medical fascism. The GOP’s reluctance to take a categorical stand is incomprehensible from a policy standpoint, as well as from a moral and even electoral standpoint.

And remember, at least North Dakota was willing to go this far. We have numerous other deep red states that won’t even get into session and haven’t passed a single meaningful bill in 19 months to push back against the greatest threats against our liberties, bodies, and well-being. The science is now 100% clear that all these measures are causing harm, making the virus worse, and blocking our ability to properly treat people. Ideally, if states would actually follow the law, science, and the Nuremberg Code, they would ban the administration of these shots altogether and completely reorient our approach to this virus. So what we are asking for, to begin with, is a compromise.

There’s a time to compromise on the will of the people, and there is a time to fully embrace the will of the people. When it comes to countering “Faucism” in red states, it is the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong issue to embrace compromise – especially one that actually makes current law worse.

Expressing the sentiments of RINO legislators across the country, Ohio Speaker Bob Cupp recently suggested it’s time for us to move on from fighting COVID fascism. “They are reflecting what they hear in their district, but it’s, it’s clearly time to move on,” Cupp recently said of efforts from his rank-and-file Republican members to fight for medical freedom. Well, if Democrat districts can get representation for their tyrannical views, why can’t our districts get representation for liberty and medical freedom? We will move on from fighting COVID fascism when the RINOs and Democrats move on from imposing it upon us.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: FDA’s own Pfizer approval document suggests myocarditis from shot might be bigger threat than COVID


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | November 09, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-fdas-own-pfizer-approval-document-suggests-myocarditis-from-shot-might-be-bigger-threat-than-covid/

They are not even trying to convince us any more. They are now using brute force to coerce us into COVID fascism, including forced injections, so they have no need to even hide their false information.

In Pfizer’s FDA briefing document prepared for the Oct. 25 meeting was an admission that even according to the company’s own unverified and misleading math, there is a scenario where there would be more hospitalizations among children for myocarditis — just one side effect — than from COVID. “Under Scenario 3 (lowest incidence), the model predicts more excess hospitalizations due to vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis compared to prevented hospitalizations due to COVID-19 in males and in both sexes combined,” states Pfizer in page 33 of the document.

How in the world could there be any universe where we would approve a shot, much less promote and force it in many settings, when there is a possibility of greater harm than benefit, when the harm is man-made and the virus is left to chance? They know quite well that this approval will eventually lead to soft and hard mandates, which have already begun in California schools.

The document concludes by expressing the same callous attitude toward those raising concerns as toward all their interventions from day one. “However, in consideration of the different clinical implications of hospitalization for COVID-19 versus hospitalization for vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis, and benefits related to prevention of non-hospitalized cases of COVID-19 with significant morbidity, the overall benefits of the vaccine may still outweigh the risks under this lowest incidence scenario.” In other words, sure, we have no clue what’s going to happen, but it’s always better to err on the side of shoving this on children who have a 99.9% recovery rate.

Moreover, there are a couple of obvious factors that demonstrate clearly, by their own admission, the shots pose more risk than benefit:

  • Already in March, 42% of children 5-17 have had the virus, according to the CDC, and that number is likely much higher following the prolific spread of the Delta variant. So the benefit in terms of lives saved is much less than they predict, because the majority of children likely already have protection even from mild illness. We are not beginning with a clean slate with 100% of children vulnerable to getting the virus. Plus, studies have shown among adults that those who already had the virus not only don’t need a vaccine, but these shots pose a greater risk to them than to those without prior infection.
  • Even the infinitesimal risk of serious illness among young children is clearly limited to a very defined pool of very sick and severely obese children. It would be one thing to just make it available for those children. But if you isolate healthy children, it’s quite evident that so many more lives would be lost than saved because healthy children essentially do not get seriously ill from this virus.
  • COVID hospitalizations among children are grossly exaggerated in the data and conflated with those admitted for other ailments who just had COVID incidentally. A study published in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics found, “Nearly one-half of the infected children had coinfection with other common respiratory pathogens.” Scientists from University College London and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool studied the data from all pediatric COVID-19 infections in the U.K. and found that 61% of the reported pediatric COVID deaths were overstated.
  • This analysis still assumes that the vaccines are over 90% effective. In reality, Sweden’s extremely large study has shown that the efficacy wears off to zero after seven months, and the U.K data demonstrate that thereafter the vaccinated are more likely to get COVID than unvaccinated people. Thus, if the entire benefit of injecting children, as suggested by Pfizer, is to prevent mild non-hospitalized cases, the vaccines actually contribute to the risk incurred, not the benefits reaped from the shots.
  • This analysis ignores the fact that there are numerous other treatment options for children and adults alike that will reduce chances of death without causing side effects like myocarditis. We need not be faced with the false dichotomy between poisonous shots and not treating the virus. Why are these shots getting approval for children’s use before the monoclonal antibodies, which are much safer and have been shown to work even pre-emptively up to eight months later?
  • Are we really going to trust Pfizer’s numbers? In reality, independent studies have found the risk of myocarditis to be much worse. A preprint from University of California Davis found that “for boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE [cardiac adverse event ] is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021.” A recent study of the Danish population published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that “the incidence of myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination among males appears higher than reports from the United States.” Have you ever wondered why it always seems that the negative information on the vaccines is downplayed and the supposed positive benefits are exaggerated in the U.S. more than elsewhere? Clearly, the signals regarding cardiovascular side effects are greater than U.S. authorities are willing to admit. In September, the U.K. Telegraph reported, “Data from Public Health England (PHE) shows that during that period there were 2,103 extra death registrations with ischemic heart disease, 1,552 with heart failure, as well as an extra 760 deaths with cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke and aneurysm and 3,915 with other circulatory diseases.”

The question everyone should be asking is, “What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in this age group, and how many people will we kill, maim, and weaken their immune systems on the way to achieving that number?” Dr. Toby Rogers, an economist and statistician, laid out the numbers in simple arithmetic last week. He concludes that if you give Pfizer 80% effectiveness against the 57 reported fatalities over this six-month period, it would work out to saving 45 lives after vaccinating 28 million children. So, the NNTV to prevent a single COVID death would be 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45), but because it’s a two-dose regimen, you would need 1,261,550 total injections.

Now what about the risk? If you take the 128 reported vaccine deaths among those ages 12-24 as a baseline, then utilize Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford’s estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41, that would amount to 5,248 fatal side effects during the same period of time. Thus, in order to save 45 children, we’d kill 5,248 — for a ratio of one kid saved for 117 killed. And again, this analysis doesn’t account for the fact that for healthy children, there are essentially zero COVID deaths, more than half the children likely already had COVID, there are other treatments available, and on the risk side, we don’t know if there are long-term side effects that will create excess deaths well beyond the shot’s six-month window of efficacy.

Additionally, we don’t even know if those getting the shot now will enjoy anywhere near this degree of efficacy given that the virus is rapidly changing. What we do know, however, from the adult vaccinations, is that adults are more vulnerable to the virus for the first month, then again as the vaccine wanes after six months. Plus, Pfizer’s trial shows that more than half the children experienced cold or flu-like symptoms from the shots. So they admit that there were no cases of serious illness in the control group and are thus using the shot to merely prevent a flu, yet it will likely give them flu-like symptoms up front and make it more likely they will get the virus after six months.

Indeed, there has never been such a lopsided risk-benefit ratio to any medical device approved by our government, even on a limited basis, much less used to bribe and shame children into injecting. As Dr. Eric Rubin, member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said during the Oct. 26 meeting: “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes.”

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to note that Dr. Rubin is a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, rather than the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Irish county with 99.7% vaccination rate has highest COVID case rate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 28, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-irish-county-with-99-7-vaccination-rate-has-highest-covid-case-rate/

With 99.7% of adults in the Irish county of Waterford having received the COVID shots, they have the highest per-capita case rate of COVID anywhere in the country. Are they now going to suggest it’s the fault of the 0.3%?!

The Irish Times reported last week that with one Waterford city district at a 14-day incidence rate of 1,486 cases per 100,000 of the population, Waterford has the highest incidence rate of anywhere in Ireland. The COVID case rate is three times the national average, which in itself has been increasing steadily in recent weeks, despite 91% of Irish adults being vaccinated. However, Waterford takes the cake.

“Waterford has the highest rate of vaccination in the country with 99.7 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (as registered in the last census) fully vaccinated,” reports the Irish Times. “The county has gone from having one of the lowest rates of Covid-19 infection in Ireland to one of the highest.”

How can a vaccine that is this leaky, and apparently even counterproductive, continue to be pushed on a population even if it had zero side effects? How many more examples of this do we need to see?

According to Our World in Data, most Irish began to get vaccinated in April/May, which is exactly when we saw a reversal of fortunes, with more cases than we’ve seen in months.about:blank

What else have we seen rise at the same time? You got it. COVID cases.

about:blank

And no, it’s not just mild cases. Ireland has the highest number of people in the hospital with COVID since March, and the trajectory is getting worse. This is with the highest vaccination rate in the EU – over 90% of those over 16 – and it’s particularly bad in the most vaccinated county of Ireland. The state’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tony Holohan, said he was “increasingly worried about the rising incidence of the disease nationwide” and that the primary focus “must be to protect the most vulnerable from Covid-19.” He then proceeded to blame the unvaccinated! Gee, if just 9% of those over 16 in the country are unvaccinated and just 0.3% in the worst area, what percentage of the vulnerable do you think are not vaccinated?! And wasn’t the vaccine designed to protect “the most vulnerable?”

At some point, there is nowhere to run or hide from the botched vaccine that not only fails to stop transmission, but causes viral immune escape and makes more virulent variants. A recent analysis of the emergent A.30 strain published in Nature shows that “the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency.” This is what happens when you “shoot at the king and miss,” so to speak, by fighting a virus with weak, narrow-spectrum, and waning antibodies. We’ve gone backward. U.K. data already shows that the vaccinated are infected at a greater rate per capita – in some cohorts twice the rate – for every age group over 30.

It’s becoming clear that not only does this vaccine create greater transmission, but it also fails to protect against critical illness, especially for those who need the protection the most. Even the studies that continue to rely on old data – before the vaccines fully waned – show that the protection against critical illness doesn’t really work for the immunocompromised.

new study from Sweden published as a preprint in the Lancet claims that the vaccine efficacy against serious illness is still holding up. There’s just one catch. “The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities,” conclude the authors. Well, isn’t that why we needed a vaccine in the first place? Even the Swedish study shows that after 210 days, there is zero efficacy against symptomatic infection, after which there seems to be negative efficacy. Researchers found just 52% efficacy against severe illness in all men after six months, which means you can no longer count on it for protection.

It’s also important to remember that many people in Sweden – more than most other countries – already had the infection, possibly asymptomatically. So, it’s possible that the efficacy of the shots is being overstated because some of those people benefited from natural immunity.

Thus, where are we nine to 12 months after the shot? Negative efficacy against symptomatic infection for all, as witnessed by the hard data in places like the U.K. and Ireland, and very low and spotty efficacy for serious illness, going down to zero for those who need it the most. But this is not cost-free. Who is to say that the effectiveness against severe illness won’t go negative as well, following some sort of pattern of antibody dependent disease enhancement? Moreover, who’s to say more mass vaccination of children and boosters for adults won’t create even more viral immune escape that will strengthen the virus and subject people to the risks of the shots without even protecting them for another month against these new self-perpetuated mutations?

This week, the Irish parliament was issued a “stark” warning from health officials about the growing threat of the virus. During sane times, policy leaders would reject the definition of insanity by engaging in introspection and changing course from existing failed policies. Yet in their warped minds, no matter how much the vaccines make the virus worse, you can always vaccinate more! So long as there is a single human being who didn’t receive the latest number shot, there’s always a way to project the viral enhancement on those who didn’t create it.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: