Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘DANIEL HOROWITZ’

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Why did Scotland experience a spike in infant deaths?


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 11, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-why-did-scotland-experience-a-spike-in-infant-deaths/

One of the most durable public health trajectories over the past 50 years has been the consistent decline in infant mortality in countries with first-world health care. Yet in September, Scotland experienced such a spike at least in neonatal deaths that it rivaled levels not seen since the 1980s. What on earth would cause such a sudden bizarre spike? Nobody seems to have the answer — nor do they want to study all of the potential culprits.

In September, Public Health Scotland announced that 21 newborns had died that month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. According to the Herald Scotland, “the figure for September – at 4.9 per 1000 live births – is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.”

As you can see from the Public Health Scotland (PHS) data, the upper control limit was breached in September, which PHS believes “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred.” After all, the five-year average appears to be about 2.2 per 1,000 live births, so September’s numbers are more than double the average.

Although the incidents of neonatal death tend to fluctuate every other month, the levels appear to be elevated, on average, without the usual intermittent dips below the baseline throughout the entire year of 2021. This is astounding given how much the general trend of infant mortality has declined since the 1980s.

Based on media reports, it appears that the entirety of the public health investigation revolved around whether COVID itself was the culprit of the unusual number of neonatal deaths. The problem is that we didn’t see any of this death in the first year of the pandemic. Also, it was only infants who seemed to experience a sharp increase in death, the least likely cohort to be affected by the pandemic.

In December, PHS announced that based on preliminary findings, it has no evidence that COVID was the culprit. “There is no information at this stage to suggest that any of the neonatal deaths in September 2021 were due to Covid-19 infection of the baby,” said PHS, according to the BBC. “Likewise, preliminary review does not indicate that maternal Covid-19 infection played a role in these events.”

Well, that’s pretty obvious, but what is the culprit for such an unusual trend?

“Preliminary information on prematurity suggests that the number of babies born at less than 32 weeks gestation in September 2021 was at the upper end of monthly numbers seen in 2021 to date. This may contribute to the neonatal mortality rate, as prematurity is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death.”

But why would that cause neonatal deaths not seen since the 1980s, and why would there be more prematurely born babies?

With so many other vaccine safety signals being seen, there is no desire to even look at the possibility that an experimental shot that was not studied in pregnant women – yet was widely distributed to them – had something to do with it. We have no idea what caused this spike, but here’s why any logical person would commence an inquiry around the shots.

  • We know that this shot has caused menstrual irregularities like we’ve never seen before. A University of Chicago survey sought to recruit 500 women with menstrual irregularities in order to study the cause and effect, and instead, researchers got 140,000 submissions. One study found that 42% of women experienced heavier bleeding, while only 44% reported no changes to their menstrual cycles. A whopping 66% of post-menopausal women experienced breakthrough bleeding. This all goes to show how the 20,000 menstrual irregularities reported in VAERS are a joke because the system only captures a fraction of the adverse events.
  • As of Dec. 31, there were 3,511 miscarriages reported to VAERS. Remember, this is something that is extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. Here is the presentation from Open VAERS, which shows the number of reported miscarriages peaking around August/September in the United States.

Does any of this mean we can conclusively say the shots are causing reproductive issues? No. But there certainly are a lot of safety signals that should be followed up on rather than dismissed. I asked Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB/GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 42 years of experience, if he was concerned about these signals. “To the extent of a broad statement that menstrual irregularities are usually minor issues is a true statement,” he said. “However, in the context of the massive increase in menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine, there are very serious potential implications. It supports the cumulative evidence that the jabs’ lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries and affect/infect/expose ALL ovum to the LNP and cargo mRNA [and] is extremely serious.”

Thorp notes that the LNPs can be inflammatory and they likely penetrate every area of the body and, by extension, the fetus. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) easily pass through all the natural barriers that God created in the human body. LNPs are extremely small spherical particles with an outer lipophilic (fat-soluble) membrane containing the mRNA cargo. There may be billions of LNPs in the COVID-19 jab that do not remain in the deltoid muscle; they are readily dispersed throughout ALL bodily tissues, easily pass through the maternal blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and the fetal blood-brain barrier.”

Thorp observes that whereas men continuously make more sperm throughout their lives, women have a finite number of eggs, which means that “every single one is exposed to the LNPs for life.”

Previous studies have shown nanoparticles to be a source of fetal inflammation. “Nobody knows the potentially catastrophic results of this,” warns Thorp. “In my area of expertise of maternal-fetal medicine, we have researched for decades on the catastrophic effect of inflammatory processes that may occur in the fetus and may result in miscarriage, fetal malformation, fetal death, neonatal death, infant death, permanent major newborn damage, permanent major autoimmune damage, permanent cognitive damage, permanent impairment of the immune health, and unleashing of infections and cancers.”

Just how concerning is the VAERS data so far? Dr. Thorp created a chart to compare the rate of miscarriages and fetal deaths (defined together as “pregnancy loss”) per month reported to the system for the COVID shots as compared to all other shots.

As you can see, we have seen 50 times the rate of reporting per month of miscarriages for this vaccine than the other vaccines put together. Thorp mentioned on my show that lest people think he opposes vaccines, he particularly recommends the flu and pertussis vaccines to his pregnant patients. You can see the rate of reporting for pregnancy loss among those shots is very low.

Now look at the rate of fetal malformations that have been reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines as compared to others.

Thorp requested that anyone who had the jab pushed on her in her pregnancy and believes she has suffered adverse effects in herself, her pregnancy, or her newborn to please contact him at jathorp@bellsouth.net.

Given that Scotland seemed to have experienced the most obvious safety alarm signal, why aren’t they looking into any of this? Well, in the richest of ironies, Glasgow Royal Fertility Clinic, one of the top fertility clinics in Scotland, has announced it will not serve any women without the shot. Why do they so badly not want a control group from which to study?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The country that ‘succeeded’ against COVID with masks has the highest case rate in the world


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 07, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-country-that-succeeded-against-covid-with-masks-has-the-highest-case-rate-in-the-world-theblaze-2655944084.html/

Those who believe in the freedom of bodily autonomy are celebrating a slew of recent court rulings enjoining the Biden administration’s injection mandate. However, no GOP state attorney general has bothered to fight the equally immoral, illogical, and inhumane mask mandates that are still in place. Despite nearly two years of evidence that strict mask-wearing has zero effectiveness in stopping the spread, the mandates on 2-year-olds on planes and in many schools still continue. Slovakia is a perfect case study of the mask mendacity.

On May 13, 2020, the Atlantic published an article lauding Slovakia for, at the time, having the lowest per-capita COVID death rate in Europe. The article’s prediction should now be the laughingstock of the world:

When this pandemic ends, and when the reckoning over how the world responded invariably begins, Slovakia will likely be among those highlighted as a success story, whereas the United States—which was supposed to be the country best prepared for such a crisis—will be remembered as among those that suffered the worst. How Slovakia was able to flatten its curve comes down to more than just quick decision making and the widespread adoption of face masks. Perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Slovakia is of the value of leading from the front.

Slovakia was so worried about masks that the country even got Taiwan to donate hundreds of thousands of these useless cloths as part of a bilateral trade agreement.

Well, that was before Slovakia’s first winter wave. One can excuse people for mistaking low spread at the time for mask efficacy rather than the fact that the country just didn’t get its turn yet. But for countries to continue this inhumane mandate despite what we now know demonstrates that masks are not a means to public health but an end in themselves of tyranny.

At over 2,000 new cases per million per day, according to Our World in Data, Slovakia now has more cases per capita than any country in the world. To put this in perspective, that is almost three times the level of the winter peak in the U.S., a country that has not exactly performed well in the pandemic!

It’s true that some individual states closer to the size of Slovakia have had more severe waves. However, even the worst counties in the upper Midwest are tracking about 1,200 new cases per million per day.

And here is the epidemiological curve presented by the inimitable Ian Miller, juxtaposed to policy solutions:

It’s not just Slovakia. Wherever you turn in Europe, both masks and vaccine mandates have failed miserably, and the spread is now worse than ever. Belgium is now six weeks into the new mask mandate, and it has more cases than ever before, even though the Belgians already suffered one of the deadliest waves in all of Europe. Oh, and 87.4% of adults are vaccinated.

To begin with, the CDC, as late as May 2020, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies that “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

The only randomized controlled trial studying mask efficacy against COVID published last year was the now famous Danish study that failed to show any meaningful reduction in spread from mask-wearing. Then, several months ago, the media trumpeted a large study done in Bangladesh that seemed to show efficacy. Well, now that the authors have released the actual data, we see that indeed no such claim can be made from the study. It turns out that out of over 340,000 individuals over a span of eight weeks, there were only 20 fewer cases of COVID detected in the mask group over the control group – 1,106 symptomatic individuals confirmed seropositive in the control group and 1,086 such individuals in the treatment group.

Even these results are hard to interpret because of numerous confounding factors. University of California Berkeley professor Ben Recht critiqued the study as follows:

This study was not blinded, as it’s impossible to blind a study on masks. The intervention was highly complex and included a mask promotion campaign and education about other mitigation measures including social distancing. Moreover, individuals were only added to the study if they consented to allow the researchers to visit and survey their households. There was a large differential between the control and treatment groups here, with 95% consenting in the treatment group but only 92% consenting in control. This differential alone could wash away the difference in observed cases. Finally, symptomatic seropositivity is a crude measure of covid as the individuals could have been infected before the trial began.

Given the numerous caveats and confounders, the study still only found a tiny effect size. My takeaway is that a complex intervention including an educational program, free masks, encouraged mask wearing, and surveillance in a poor country with low population immunity and no vaccination showed at best modest reduction in infection.

In other words, you can now add this to a list of 400 studies compiled by the Brownstone Institute that fail to find any correlation between public policy interventions and better pandemic outcomes.

It’s not OK for Republican-controlled states to continue to ignore the facts that masks are inhumane and they simply don’t work. Consider the fact that Head Start has now mandated masks on 2-year-olds, many of whom have special needs. Oregon has moved to make its mask mandate permanent. Why are no red state governments at least suing against the federal mandates, and why are so few red states even banning mask mandates within the states?

The courts are all political. They only responded to the lawsuits against the vaccine mandate when they saw robust political opposition within the political branches of the red states. They see no such opposition regarding the mask mandates. Thus, absent a unified effort from state attorneys general, they are unlikely to respond to a handful of individual lawsuits. The same legal rationale denying the feds the power to force vaccines also denies them the power to cover our breathing holes. But the courts only respond to political momentum.If nearly two years of masking failing to work anywhere is still not enough to end the most invasive human mandate of all time, then we truly are no longer a free people.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs-theblaze-2655321861.html/

A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH’s own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH’s own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they’d promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here’s one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let’s go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it’s given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is “generally well tolerated” and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment’s treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It’s all in the $cience.
What is self-evident from the NIH’s disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It’s primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Harvard researcher finds absolutely no correlation between vax rates and COVID cases globally


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZOctober 05, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-harvard-researcher-finds-absolutely-no-correlation-between-vax-rates-and-covid-cases-globally/

Basically, our organization is run on COVID money now.” ~ Chris Croce, senior associate scientist, Pfizer (Project Veritas undercover video)

We were lied to … big-time.

Back in December, the CDC stated clearly that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine “was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Indeed, in late March, Director Rochelle Walensky promised, “Our data from the CDC suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus.” Even those who had questions about transmission among the vaccinated were only concerned about asymptomatic transmission, whereas now we see that the vaccinated can contract the infection symptomatically.

Fast-forward three-quarters of a year through the era of mass vaccination, and a Harvard researcher could not find any correlation between vaccination rates and COVID case rates after examining 68 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States. “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days,” concluded the authors in the study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. “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.”

The authors continue:

Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.

Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as “High” transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.

It’s also important to keep in mind that when calculating the data, the authors used a sensitivity analysis by applying a one-month lag on the percentage population fully vaccinated so that people wouldn’t be considered fully vaccinated until 14 days after the second dose. However, studies have shown that this is the most vulnerable time for getting the virus. Why should that be blamed on the lack of vaccination rather than on the vaccine? So if anything, the numbers are likely even more unfavorable to the vaccine than this analysis suggests.

“The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants,” conclude the authors, including the lead researcher from Harvard’s Center for Population and Development Studies and a student researcher from Canada. The study did not factor in which vaccine predominated in a given country, but rather looked at the top-line vaccination rates, which include several vaccines that likely vary in terms of effectiveness.

How can these mandates hold up in court given that they likely don’t even pass the rational basis test of fulfilling a state’s vital interest of stopping the spread of a virus?

A July study of Israel perfectly embodies the complete lack of efficacy from this vaccine, especially in recent months. In a study published in a European CDC journal, Israeli researchers in one hospital found studies a serious outbreak among a group of patients and staff of whom 96% were vaccinated. 42 patients and staff wound up getting COVID from a vaccinated dialysis patient who had an extremely high viral load. According to the authors, “Of the 42 cases diagnosed in this outbreak, 38 were fully vaccinated with two doses of the Comirnaty vaccine, one was recovered with one vaccination and three were unvaccinated.” All patients and family members wore surgical masks and all staff wore N-95s with face shields and gloves.

Overall, “Among the patients (median age: 77 years; range: 42–93; median time from second vaccine dose to infection: 176 days; range: 143-188), eight became severely ill, six critically ill and five of the critically ill died.” All of the unvaccinated cases were described as mild, even though one of them was in his 80s. The Israelis are using this to push for boosters, but what it really demonstrates is that the vaccine has been a dud, especially for those who needed it the most.

The reality is that the notion that protection against serious illness is holding up, even as the vaccinated spread the virus more than ever, is collapsing by the day. According to the Associated Press, hospitalizations are surging in New England. The five states with the highest percentage of a fully vaccinated population are all in New England. At some point, it becomes hard to blame a worse spread than pre-vaccination on the few remaining unvaccinated adults without first investigating whether the vaccine itself made the virus worse.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Now that vaccinated people need the monoclonal treatments, Biden admin and media attack the treatment


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 20, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-now-that-vaccinated-people-need-the-monoclonal-treatments-biden-admin-and-media-attack-the-treatment/

For those of you who couldn’t believe that the government’s war on ivermectin and every other treatment was rooted in a sinister motivation, its new attack on the monoclonal antibodies should indelibly cement the terrifying thought in your mind. The government and the media are now using the same attack pattern on the monoclonal antibody treatment that they used on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin now that it has become popular with people desperate for treatment – vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

On Sept. 14, the Biden administration announced that the feds would be cutting the number of monoclonal treatments per week in the southern states and reallocating them as part of a broader plan to start rationing the treatments. For example, in Florida, HHS issued an allocation for the week of Sept. 13 of 3,100 doses of BAM/ETE treatments and 27,850 doses of REGN-COV. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a press conference last week, this would effectively reduce Florida’s allocation by 50%. The federal agency did this without any warning or indication that there was a shortage.

Then, last Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki explained the move as follows“Our supply is not unlimited and we believe it should be equitable.” HHS then followed up with an explanation of the policy of “equity.”

But wouldn’t you focus on where it’s needed at a given time rather than blind “equity”? Also, Biden promised just days earlier during the announcement of his vaccine mandate to boost monoclonal distribution by 50%.

Well, here is the answer to the enigma: In that same announcement, Biden warned, “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.” Is the federal takeover of the monoclonals his ace in the hole? And why wouldn’t the government just produce more? We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare, shutdowns, and vaccines that failed so miserably that people who already got the shots still need the monoclonals! So why not put the funding into the monoclonals?

Well, if you are trying to ascertain the motivation of government always watch carefully for its stenographers in the media to follow up with the psy-ops on the general public, which will reveal the true messaging. Once you read this New York Times article, you will see clearly that this is really not about “equity” or some concern over supply. In an article titled, “They shunned COVID vaccines but embraced antibody treatments,” the NYT essentially frames the monoclonals as some right-wing solution that is only for those who didn’t want to get the vaccine.

Some Republican governors have set up antibody clinics while opposing vaccine mandates, frustrating even some of the drugs’ strongest proponents. Raising vaccination rates, scientists said, would obviate the need for many of the costly antibody treatments in the first place. The infusions take about an hour and a half, including monitoring afterward, and require constant attention from nurses whom hard-hit states often cannot spare.”It’s clogging up resources, it’s hard to give, and a vaccine is $20 and could prevent almost all of that,” said Dr. Christian Ramers, an infectious disease specialist and the chief of population health at Family Health Centers of San Diego, a community-based provider. Pushing antibodies while playing down vaccines, he said, was “like investing in car insurance without investing in brakes.”

Except it’s simply not true. The vaccines are no longer working, especially for those who got them early on — particularly the elderly — and many of the people who got them badly need treatment. As Gov. DeSantis reported, the majority of those seeking monoclonals are vaccinated, a fact I have verified in the facility closest to me in Baltimore. Here are the statistics the Florida government publicized at last week’s press conference:

At our Broward site, 52% of the patients that have received treatment have been vaccinated, 69% of those over 60 that have received treatment at the Broward site had been vaccinated. In Miami Dade almost 60% of everybody that’s been treated at the Tropical Park site has been vaccinated. And 73% of the patients treated at the state site in Tropical Park that are over the age of 60 have been vaccinated.

So again, it’s the exact opposite of what the media and the Biden administration are saying. The vaccines cost a fortune and failed. Now these same people need treatment. The same government officials rationing the monoclonals have already scared 99% of doctors away from prescribing and pharmacists from filling cheap off-patent drugs that have cured the few people who can access them. The monoclonals are made by the cool kids at big pharma and are approved by the government. Except our government paid them off up front and then refused to even make the public aware of their existence. Thus, even things produced by big pharma are now attacked, so long as they actually work and people begin successfully using them.

It’s so cute to watch the government and media suddenly become concerned about expensive treatments after spending billions on the vaccines. There is a simple solution, and that would be mass production of ivermectin and encouraging all physicians to treat everyone early with it and other cheap drugs. But now that the government has essentially banned them, the monoclonals are the only show in town. This is where the Biden administration wants to place Americans they don’t like into a death trap.

Texas Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough warned that this is not about a lack of supply. “The manufacturer has confirmed supplies are ample but due to the Defense Production Act, the White House and its agencies are the only entities who can purchase and distribute this treatment,” wrote Keough on Facebook.

With the war on any and all forms of early treatment, ask yourself this question: Does our government really want the pandemic to end?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The biggest COVID lie right now: No immunity from prior infection


Why should the estimated one-third of Americans who have already contracted the virus still be treated like ticking time bombs? How much longer will the government get away with denying the science behind immunity from infection?

The isolation of all human beings as a strategy to deal with this virus began with the novel assumption of mass asymptomatic spread, a hypothesis now disproven by studies on transmission. Now, the mandatory masking and isolation are continuing without question based on a shocking lie that the one-third of the country who have already gotten the virus – despite the masks and lockdowns, by the way – are not immune to the virus.

As more and more studies have come out showing that prior infection confers long-lasting immunity – not just the 90 days we are told by the government – the purveyors of panic and tyranny have sought to use the focus on several supposedly new variants to deny the presumed immunity from prior infection. However, a new comprehensive study from Harvard Medical School and Boston University researchers should put this latest myth to rest.

The researchers took blood samples from people who had the virus from March 3 to April 1, 2020, long before the new variants were discovered, which allowed them to presume they all had the original Wuhan strain. They found the S-specific memory B cells “conferring robustness against emerging SARS-CoV2 variants” – the U.K. (B117) & South African (B1351) variants.

“Loss of protection against overt or severe disease is not an inevitable consequence of a waning serum antibody titer,” wrote the authors. “This atlas of B cell memory therefore maps systematically a crucial component of the long-term immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

In other words, the inherent immune system full of B cells (in addition to T cells) provides robust immunity not just long after the antibody titers wane from the original infection, but also against emerging strains of the virus.

There has been much discussion over whether the vaccine confers immunity against the new variants, but the more important fact is that previous infection confers such immunity, as is the case with nearly every virus. Indeed, cases have plummeted in South Africa and England precisely since the new variants have been discovered, which would be difficult without natural immunity from the prior waves working against the new variants.

In Denmark, the U.K. variant composes roughly three-quarters of all cases, yet the country is averaging one death per day over the past 7 days. The same holds true for a number of states in America.

A retrospective observational study of 14,840 COVID-19 survivors in Austria found just a 0.27% reinfection rate during the second wave. “Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies,” concludes the study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

It’s also important to remember that, as with other viruses, immunity doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t test positive again, but that you won’t experience serious symptoms even if you do. The goal is not to prevent colds and flus, but to pre-empt serious illness and death. “With follow‐up on mortality available until December 23, only one 72‐year‐old woman died two days after her tentative re‐infection diagnosis,” observed the authors of the Austrian study. “She was not hospitalized and according to her medical records her cause of death (‘acute vascular occlusion of an extremity with rhabdomyolysis’) was not causally attributed to COVID‐19.”

As the Los Angeles Times reported already in February, with an estimated 35% of Americans already infected (up to 50% in Los Angeles!), “the biggest factor” driving the plummeting of cases “paradoxically, is something the nation spent the last year trying to prevent.” That is herd immunity. As illogical as it was to lock down all Americans last year, regardless of whether they were sick, it’s downright insane to continue masking people who already had the virus AND have no current symptoms.

We’ve already learned from reams of medical research that asymptomatic individuals rarely drive outbreaks. Coupled with already having been infected, the likelihood of a recovered COVID patient both getting the virus and transmitting it is so low that it makes further masking of these people unconscionable.

With this thought fresh in your mind, now consider the insane abuse our government continues to foist upon kids by masking them seven hours a day in school. You can have a child who already had the virus and currently has no symptoms, yet he is still forced to wear a mask. What’s worse, with mass testing of children, yet extremely low rates of infection in recent weeks, the chance of false positives is extremely high. Last week, Professor Jon Deeks, a biostatistician from the University of Birmingham, told the U.K. Telegraph, “It seems likely that over 70% of positive test results are false positives, potentially many more.”

So, children continue to be masked or even removed from school with no symptoms, based on faulty testing, predicated on a false assumption of mass asymptomatic spread – when so many of them already have immunity. In other words, this cycle can go on forever.

Just how big a lie is mass asymptomatic spread? Last month, the Federalist’s Georgi Boorman trenchantly observed how the CDC mistakenly admitted that its entire premise of masking and isolating asymptomatic people is based on a lie. While finally acknowledging in its Jan. 29 report the fact of insignificant levels of spread in schools, the CDC let the following genie out of the bottle:

“Children might be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than are adults. … This apparent lack of transmission [in schools] is consistent with recent research (5), which found an asymptomatic attack rate of only 0.7% within households and a lower rate of transmission from children than from adults. However, this study was unable to rule out asymptomatic transmission within the school setting because surveillance testing was not conducted” (emphasis added).

So, when it comes to explaining why children rarely spread the virus, the CDC settled on the principle that children usually get infected asymptomatically, which means very little transmission! That would apply to adults who don’t have symptoms, too, but the CDC will never concede that point. In fact, the low rate of transmission in that study includes both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases. Nevertheless, despite the CDC admitting that kids, especially young kids, are not vectors of spread, it updated its guidance to continue recommending that children as young as two, aka babies, wear masks at child care facilities except for when they are eating and sleeping!

Which raises the question: With so many people already having had the virus and feeling healthy, what is the legal justification for using the police power of quarantine against those people? There is none, and there never has been a legitimate constitutional authority, yet they’ve done it anyway. In other words, if we don’t end this tyranny now, it will never end, because quarantine and masking are no longer a means but an end.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Wall construction under Biden? Red states can complete border wall in Texas and Arizona


What can states do when the federal government not only keeps its border open, but directly invites the cartels and smugglers to bring in potentially millions of new migrants, along with cartel members, gangsters, and previously deported criminals? That is a question we never thought we’d have to grapple with, but it is of vital importance for our national security and communities.

In January, I laid out the constitutional case for states to secure the border when the federal government is actively working against border security, one of the foundational purposes for the states to create a federal government in the first place. Now, one Texas lawmaker is introducing a bill that could serve as the impetus for states actually securing some degree of control over the border.

On Monday, Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton filed HB 2862, which would fund the completion of the border wall in Texas with state funds. The bill requires the governor to request reimbursement from the federal government. Such an effort would bolster the existing Operation Lone Star, in which Gov. Greg Abbott has deployed the Texas Rangers to the border.

The reason this bill is so important is because the Biden administration halted the construction of the border fence even while portions of the wall were still being built. The fact that parts of the wall were built non-contiguously has allowed the cartels to easily go around the fencing. Worse, as I reported last week, the cartels now have the advantage of using the new access roads built during the construction. Thus, the half-completed fencing, in some ways, leaves us more vulnerable than before the construction.

Overall, the Trump administration constructed 453 miles of new fencing – 373 miles of replacement fencing for existing designs that were dilapidated or easy to breach and 80 miles where no fencing existed. However, most of that fencing was in Arizona or in the El Paso sector, which includes far west Texas and New Mexico. Just 18 miles were completed in the Rio Grande Valley sector and zero miles were completed in the Del Rio and Laredo sectors, but 165 miles in those three sectors were under construction when Biden terminated the project. Del Rio, in particular, is a hot spot at this point.

It’s also important to build in Arizona. As the Cochise County sheriff told me in an interview, the fact that the wall and its infrastructure were halted midway through made things worse than they were before. Builders completely ripped out the old fencing to build new fencing, but now, with construction halted, there is nothing there, and illegal immigrants and smugglers can cross over with cars and enjoy the newly built access roads. “They literally just walked away from it,” said Sheriff Dannels.

What’s worse is that in Cochise County, the infrastructure in the low water crossings was not completed, which means that when the heavy rains come in a few months, the foundations will be destroyed, making it much more expensive to rebuild. Meanwhile, time is of the essence, as Sheriff Dannels is now counting close to 3,000 runners detected on his cameras per month, up from just 400 a month a year ago. His sergeant, Tim Williams, who runs the camera system, tells me the department is only apprehending about 35% of them. Due to the rugged terrain and remote areas, those crossing in areas of the border like Cochise are mainly criminals and drug runners – not the sort of people you want disappearing into the interior.

Arizona would be wise to follow up with its own bill to complete at least the existing infrastructure of the border wall. Likewise, other red states can chip in by appropriating small amounts of money to pool together in an effort to help these two border states shoulder the national burden. They can also crowdsource from private funds.

Such a national effort to complete the border wall would publicly embarrass the Biden administration and force an inflection point in our body politic regarding the border situation as a whole. States will be forced to choose between anarchy and security. The red states have no choice but to act before hundreds of thousands more teem through our border.

Don McLaughlin, mayor of Uvalde, Texas, 60 miles into the interior from the Del Rio border with Mexico, explained on my podcast how ranchers in his county are now being confronted by desperate smugglers.

“The ranchers are getting confronted more and more, their fences are getting cut, and their land is being trashed by the migrants,” said the border mayor. “What’s concerning is that they are getting bolder and bolder about coming to your house and demanding you give them food, you give them transportation, and you give them money. It’s a powder keg that’s going to blow up. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when somebody is going to get shot – whether it be a local citizen, a local rancher, or one of these immigrants coming across the ranches, because they’re getting braver and braver. And some of them, to be honest, are very aggressive when they approach you. We’re seeing more aggressiveness now than we’ve ever seen before.”

The anarchy that spills over on our side of the border obviously bubbles up from the Mexican side. Even the Mexican government has become exasperated with Biden. As Reuters reports, Mexico President AMLO referred to Biden as the “migrant president,” and his government is concerned at how Biden’s policies have created a sophisticated market for organized crime up and down the smuggling routes of Mexico.

Perhaps the red states can even work with Mexico to build the wall and make Biden pay for it!

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: