Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘DANIEL HOROWITZ’

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Most important outcome of Dobbs decision? Making state legislatures great again


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | June 27, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-most-important-outcome-of-dobbs-decision-making-state-legislatures-great-again-2657567821.html/

It’s the body of government closest to the people, yet it’s the most forgotten, overshadowed, and weakened body in recent years. However, with the Dobbs opinion returning the power to regulate abortions to state legislatures, we now have the opportunity to focus our attention on legislative elections, sessions, and policies and settle our acerbic cultural and legal differences in the most prudent and democratic process.

We are an irrevocably divided nation, and it will only get worse over time. We can’t agree on the definition of a marriage, a woman, a citizen, a criminal, a fundamental right, or the purpose of our existence, much less the purpose of our government. We can either continue forging ahead with a winner-take-all approach to politics and have the federal executive bureaucracy – the least accountable and transparent branch of government and most distant from the people – decide every important political question. Or we settle those debates in state legislatures – the branch closest to the people where most members are elected every two years.

Whether you abhor abortion as murder or think it’s the greatest sacrament of virtue, the reality is that red states are going to ban abortions (many already have) and the blue states are going to obsessively expand access to them. Unlike the seven justices who initially banned all regulation of abortion in 1973, all those legislators in each state will be subject to removal every two or four years. For the most part, the legislators will vote in a way that reflects the values of the majority in their areas. This is the self-sorting process we’ve always needed. This dynamic needs to expand to every other important issue of our time. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s much better than where we are today, and it will allow us to live side by side harmoniously in a de facto amicable separation, albeit with shared custody over certain issues that are national in scope.

In the coming months, conservatives will be trained by their favorite Fox News media figures to obsess about the potential of a RINO takeover of Congress and the coming presidential election, even though the latter won’t even be relevant, policy-wise, until 2025. But the reality is that Republicans control trifecta supermajorities in a number of states today and will only expand that dominance next year. Come January, they have the ability to make those states de facto sanctuaries for our rights and values – if only we focus our pressure on elected state Republicans and educate them concerning the enormity of their power. It’s time to use it.

In his national design for governance, Madison explained the state vs. federal arrangement in Federalist #45 as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Think about issues like COVID fascism and transgenderism. Internal order, liberties, and property, etc. – this can all be rectified at a state level. Anything outside war and foreign commerce is fair game. This is where conservatives failed to act during the lockdowns and COVID fascism. They should have activated the legislatures immediately and forced debate for the states to immediately reject the federal policies. It’s still not too late to change course.

In responding to the Biden administration’s immoral and illegal policies and edicts over the next two and a half years, conservatives should have a one-track mind and be singularly focused on how they can pressure their legislatures to interpose against the federal tyranny. Conservatives have long been distracted away from a state legislative focus, but perhaps the Democrats will teach them how it’s done. Believe me, the blue states will immediately take action and juice up funding for abortion while expanding its legal scope – perhaps even to after the birth of the baby.

Likewise, most GOP legislatures and attorneys general seem to have acted swiftly to immediately ban abortion at the first opportunity. But we now need to see this swiftness on other issues as well. For example, Biden’s Department of Education just promulgated a rule putting any school or university on the hook for sexual harassment if they don’t call men who think they are women by female pronouns. This is the sort of illegal federal regulation that states must immediately stop. Legislatures should instantly convene and block its implementation within their states.

The big problem we have in legislatures, though, is that so many of them are only in session for a few months a year. In states like Texas, they are only in session every other year. This means that, for example with COVID, when you have federal and state executive branches suspending the republic, we often have to wait months or years for legislatures to act. It was OK to have a part-time legislature when we had a part-time executive branch and the legislature was the only organ of government that legislated. However, now that the federal and state departments of health and education legislate 365 days a year without any checks or balances, the concept of a part-time legislature actually harms us.

As such, conservatives must begin pushing reforms to make it easier to call legislatures back into session, and it should not be tied to the whims of the governors. We don’t need state legislatures voting on bills all year, but we must reserve the prerogative to get them back into session at a moment’s notice to interpose against tyranny.

For years, Republicans have accumulated a ton of power in many states, have done nothing with it, and have failed to clean up their own cultural Marxist swamps within state-run agencies. Abortion was the only red line conservative voters established and held their elected representatives to. It succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. Now it’s time we harness that energy for issues like medical freedom, Pfizer liability, transgenderism, illegal immigration, crime, First Amendment protections, and interposition against the tyrannical Biden administration. What the Dobbs victory has clearly shown is that we will only enjoy the rights and policies commensurate with our desire to fight for them.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: New study shows Sweden’s decision to keep schools open was all gain, no pain


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | June 14, 2022

Rad more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-sweden-schools-open-study-2657506412.html

They did this under the guise of science and saving lives. We now have a generation of children who are delayed in language, social skills, and educational attainment, while overburdened with mental, emotional, and behavioral ailments. And yet it was all done for absolutely nothing – no gain, all pain. This has been appallingly obvious since schools were shut down and then children masked in 2020, but a new study from Sweden – the global control group – demonstrates the scope of this crime with unmistakable clarity.

A study by Swedish researchers published in the International Journal of Educational Research found that in this Nordic country, “word decoding and reading comprehension scores were not lower during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic.” This is simply astounding, given what we have witnessed in almost every other country. The researchers analyzed 97,000 Swedish primary school children from 248 different municipalities, 1,277 schools, and 5,250 classrooms.

Just contrast this to a McKinsey study that analyzed more than 1.6 million K-12 students in over 40 U.S. states that found that students were, on average, five months behind in mathematics and four months behind in reading. An investigation by WBFF’s Project Baltimore from the local Fox affiliate found that 62% of middle schoolers in Baltimore County had one or more failing grades by the third quarter of the 2021 school year, up a whopping from 35% from before the shutdowns. Investigators also found that 41% of Baltimore high schoolers had a grade-point average of 1.0 or below, an increase of 24% since before the school closures in March 2020. The education situation in a state like Maryland is so dire that 81 percent of all Maryland students tested last year in grades three through five were not proficient in math, and 76 percent were not proficient in English language arts.

It makes you wonder if Swedish kids might outshine American children one day in English in addition to their native language! What was the secret to their success? They simply followed science and morality and kept schools open without dystopian plexiglass and masks. There was no fearmongering, social isolation, learning impediments, or learning stoppages. And of course, there is no evidence that a single child died from COVID as a result of schools being open. All gain and no pain.

In the light of international studies on reading skills in younger students during the pandemic, we conclude that the decision to keep schools open benefitted Swedish primary school students. This decision might also have mitigated other potentially negative effects of school closures, especially for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

Never before in our history has there been such a grave policy promulgated by government that was known up front to have no benefit but induced cataclysmic damage. It’s not just the learning disorders that are plaguing a generation of kids. 2021 paper in the Lancet found, based on data from 204 countries, a 27.4% increase in major depressive disorders globally, accounting for an additional 53 million cases. Additionally, researchers found a 25.6% increase in cases of anxiety disorders, accounting for another 76 million cases globally.

One cannot possibly quantify the long-term effects to society of driving such a ubiquitous mental and emotional health crisis. According to the CDC, a third of high school students reported poor mental health during the pandemic, and 44% said they “persistently felt sad or hopeless.”

What is going to become of those kids? Many of them will live unproductive and sad lives, but many others will die young. A paper published recently in JAMA found that the rate of drug overdose deaths doubled among adolescents during the pandemic. In 2019, the overdose fatality rate among adolescents was 2.36 per 100,000, very consistent with the previous decade. In 2020, it shot up to 4.57 per 100,000, and for the first six months of 2021, the rate increased another 20%, to 5.49 per 100,000.

Kids should never have been made to feel anxious about the virus or about the response to it because it should never have affected them. It was known early on that not a single one of Sweden’s nearly 2 million children died of COVID during the initial wave in the spring of 2020 when Sweden kept its schools open (without mask requirements) and the rest of the world shut their schools.

Rather than admitting their mistake and committing to never shutting down schools again, governments are once again foisting a policy with all pain and no gain on the youngest of children. Later this week, the FDA will likely approve Moderna’s and Pfizer’s outdated shots on babies and toddlers, for a virus that never harmed them. We have never pushed novel therapies on children, especially those who already have numerous documented problems, for something that poses such a low risk, especially when the vaccine is outdated and doesn’t work for the variants circulating today.

As of June 3, there were already 49,878 children (ages 0 to 17) reported in VAERS who have experienced an adverse event from one of the COVID jabs. 7,547 of the childrenwere hospitalized, and 125 died. Remember, this is for a virus that no longer exists in that original form and from which there was a near-zero risk to children.

Between March 2020 and December 2021, according to researchers from the U.K. Health Security Agency, even among the rare documented pediatric COVID deaths, 56% of those under age 20 “were due to unnatural causes or due to causes unrelated to COVID-19.” Even among the remaining 81 deaths in the entire country under age 20, 75% had significant co-morbidities. Yet we are giving them a novel therapy Pfizer itself admitted is associated with hundreds of adverse maladies based on de facto zero risk, just like we shut down their classes, socially isolated them, and mummified their faces for the same nonexistent risk. What will it take to suspend these immoral experiments on our children?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Portugal as an enduring embarrassment of the failure of the mass vaccination campaign


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | June 09, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/portugal-as-an-enduring-embarrassment-of-the-failure-of-the-mass-vaccination-campaign-2657482411.html/

Next week, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet to likely offer emergency use authorization for Moderna and Pfizer’s biological products to be injected into babies as young as six months old. No amount of evidence demonstrating negative efficacy and enormous side effects will factor into its decision. Never mind the fact that there never was an emergency for young children to begin with, and there certainly isn’t one now.

Yet the FDA will undoubtedly approve a shot that has failed and is outdated – so much so that two weeks later, it will meet about updating the formula for new variants, of course, after having injected the outdated formula into the arms of babies and toddlers. One data point that certainly will be missing from the meeting is the observation about Portugal.

According to Statista, Portugal has the highest vaccination rate of any country in Europe aside from the tiny island of Malta. Nearly every adult is vaccinated in this nation of 10.3 million, 94% of all people (including young children) have received at least 1 dose, and 70% have received boosters. In fact, the New York Times ran an article about Portugal last year, noting that “there is no one left to vaccinate” there.

Yet, Portugal now has the highest case rate and COVID death rate per capita in Europe and the second highest COVID fatality rate in the world behind Taiwan, according to Our World in Data.

Here is the case rate map of Europe:

And here is the death rate map:

At 2,293 cases per 1 million individuals, as of June 7, Portugal’s 7-day rolling average case rate is seven times greater than that of the United States and is now higher than the worst peak of cases in America. Moreover, it’s not that Portugal never had a big wave – it has already experienced a peak in the winter that was three times as great as the worst days in the U.S. So even after many people already had the virus, officials keep testing positive for the virus despite – or perhaps, because of – the near universal vaccination rate.

It is true that Portugal has a high rate of testing, but not that much higher to account for exponentially higher case rates. As of June 1, Portugal’s positivity rate was nearly four times that of the U.S.

Then there are the COVID deaths. At 4.1 deaths per million, Portugal is now far outpacing all the other European countries with high case rates by over 60%. Its current death rate is more than four times that of the U.S. This simply should not be happening now that everyone is vaccinated and everyone who is vulnerable is boosted if the shots are anywhere near as effective as we are told.

The Portugal News reported that between May 24 and May 30, the southern European nation “recorded 175,766 infections, 220 deaths associated with COVID-19, and an increase in hospitalizations and intensive care.” Health Minister Marta Temido said last week that “Portugal is probably the European country with the highest prevalence of this sub-lineage and this partly explains the high number (of cases) we are seeing.”

But that really doesn’t explain it. Why would Portugal have a much worse problem with these variants than the country in which they were first detected — namely South Africa? Is this not a fulfillment of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning that the sub-optimal evolutionary pressure of these shots, originally designed for the Wuhan strain, would work against the body for future variants?

Let’s a take a look at South Africa’s BA.4/BA.5 wave from late May as compared to Portugal’s? Can you even detect it?

South Africa’s recent peak, which is now over with, was one-twentieth the size of Portugal’s – and this is after Portugal already had exponentially more cases from the previous wave. However, even as it relates to death rates, the afflicted country is outpacing South Africa.

Keep in mind that Portugal is still experiencing higher death rates even after having already incurred a lot of deaths from the original pool of vulnerable people during the first winter. It simply makes no sense for Portugal to be experiencing this many deaths with Omicron, which does not replicate well in the lungs. Remember, while Portugal has run out of people to vaccinate, according to the New York Times, less than a third of South Africans are vaccinated with very few having had boosters. Also, South Africa’s life expectancy is 18 years lower, and 20% of the population has AIDS.

For how much longer is the FDA going to be allowed to ignore a year’s worth of signals not just indicating cataclysmic safety concerns but negative efficacy – and downright perpetuation – of the virus? Just look at this week’s Walgreens COVID-19 testing index, and you can once again see that higher positivity rates are associated with those with more shots, especially as time goes on.

The mendacity of obfuscating the truth about these shots has gotten so ludicrous that the media and medical associations are now chalking up the rash of sudden cardiac deaths among young people as an unexplained “sudden adult death syndrome.” And now they want to inject these products into the final group of unvarnished children. What does that say about who we are as a people if we let it happen?

In the New York Times article from October crowing about “no one left to vaccinate” in Portugal, Laura Sanches, a Portuguese clinical psychologist, is quoted as bemoaning the fact that Portugal doesn’t “really have a culture of questioning authorities.” Well, here in America, we once did have such a culture. Reagan once said that “freedom is the right to question, and change the established way of doing things,” an understanding “that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions … to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people.” Will we finally exercise that freedom?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: What have we gotten from two years of mask-wearing?


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | May 31, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-what-have-we-gotten-from-two-years-of-mask-wearing-2657419946.html/

It’s truly hard to overstate the damage done to a generation of children by the two-year masking regime. From language and developmental inhibition to social and behavioral anxiety, these Chinese cloths have created a generation of bumbling fools. So, was it worth it?

In a preprint published in the Lancet, Ambarish Chandra of the University of Toronto and Tracy Beth Høeg of the University of California at Davis replicated a CDC study comparing counties with school mandates to those without mandates. However, rather than using the CDC’s artificial and arbitrary number of counties and duration of study, they extended the study using a larger sample of districts and a longer time interval, employing almost six times as much data as the original study. Using this updated method to measure the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, they found “no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates.”

The study observed over 1,800 counties from July through October 2021, which is presumed to be the largest observational sample ever conducted on the mask issue.

In fact, for most weeks, there was a non-statistically significant higher case rate among the masked counties. What this demonstrates is that with all of the CDC’s observational studies, arbitrary endpoints were clearly manipulated to show results they knew did not reflect reality.

Similarly, a study of fatality rates in 35 European countries during the 2020-2021 winter peak found no positive relationship between reduced mortality rates and mask compliance. If anything, there was a reverse correlation. “While no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission,” concluded the author in an April study published in Cureus. “Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”

Several months ago, an observational study published in Medicineby German doctor Zacharias Fögen compared the overall case fatality rate in 81 counties in Kansas without mask mandates compared to the 24 with mandates. He actually found a statistically significant higher fatality rate in the mask counties. “Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”

Dr. Fogen posits as a potential reason for negative efficacy that the mask-wearing can make the virions smaller and cause them to penetrate deeper into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis. “A rationale for the increased RR (risk ratio) by mandating masks is probably that virions that enter or those coughed out in droplets are retained in the facemask tissue, and after quick evaporation of the droplets, hypercondensed droplets or pure virions (virions not inside a droplet) are re-inhaled from a very short distance during inspiration.”

While negative efficacy is still a hypothesis, there have been documented negative side effects to mask-wearing. A preprint Italian study from earlier in May found that short-term surgical mask usage was associated with an increased inhaled CO2 level greater than 5000ppm in 90% of 10- to 18-year-olds in the sample. “Shortly after wearing surgical masks, the inhaled air CO2 approached the highest acceptable exposure threshold recommended for workers, while concerningly high concentrations were recorded in virtually all individuals when wearing FFP2 masks,” concluded the authors. “The CO2 concentration was significantly higher among minors and the subjects with high respiratory rate.”

Yet here we are, over two years into this saga, and schools are still masking children, while some that stopped are bringing back this barbaric practice. To this day, people with severe mental and physical disabilities are being forced to wear masks when seeking medical attention at health care facilities. Trauma survivors who suffer panic attacks from having their faces covered are forced to choose between panic attacks and loss of medical care.

But children will, by far, be the most harmed by this policy. The language development impediment that will result from the past two years of inhumane mask mandates is incalculable. The head of the U.K.’s Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills found that children suffer from “limited vocabulary,” while some babies “struggled to respond to basic facial expressions,” partly due to interacting with people wearing face masks.

Talk about a cost-benefit analysis!

To this day, only a few states have banned mask mandates from coming back. The New Hampshire governor recently vetoed a bill from the state legislature banning local school boards from implementing such immoral policies upon children. What we really need is a ballot initiative in every state to spell out in the state’s constitution that a person has a fundamental right to refuse to wear a medical device and cannot be discriminated against in the realm of public accommodations for exercising that right. Moreover, there should be criminal penalties for any adult who forcibly masks a child.
If we plan to wait for “the science” to catch up to reality and morality, we will be waiting a long time. It might be obvious to us that masking is cruel and ineffective, but not to the megalomaniacs in power. That power needs to be stripped permanently.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The FDA is planning a therapeutic jihad on American children in June


Commentary by Daniel Horowitz | May 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-fda-therapeutic-children-2657308197.html/

Typically, a lack of efficacy and a cataclysmic level of hundreds of different side effects would be reason to take a therapeutic off the market. But in the post-Nuremberg Code era we find ourselves in, such outcomes serve as a resume enhancer for the product. The FDA is planning a blitz of increased approvals of the shots on the youngest of Americans, yet not a single national Republican has stood up and said “No.” Only one governor, Ron DeSantis, has recommended against their use in children. Which will be the first state to block implementation of the FDA’s new therapeutic jihad on behalf of Big Pharma?

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has an ambitious schedule for this coming June. Here are its upcoming meetings.

June 7: Approval of Novavax first time for those over 18.

June 8: Approval of Moderna in teenagers.

June 21: Approval of Moderna in kids under 6.

June 22: Approval of Pfizer in kids under 5.

June 28: Exploring new shots for new variants.

Isn’t it interesting how they are meeting about the need for new shots for the current variants after already likely approving old shots on babies who don’t need the shots and for a variant that hasn’t existed for over a year?

Here we have many European countries banning the Moderna shot on those under 30 because of myocarditis, yet our government will likely expand its use to babies at a whopping dose of 25 micrograms! We now have over 1.2 million adverse events reported to VAERS, and CDC researchers admitted in a JAMA paper that the myocarditis numbers – just shy of 40,000 – are “likely” underreported. Also, we now know that Pfizer and the FDA knew about 1,223 deaths shortly after release. As for Moderna, we don’t have a single court-released document from the company yet, so who knows what they are hiding?

It would be one thing to approve something that worked amazingly for COVID despite terrible side effects. But the shot is a complete bust.

The expectation of negative efficacy from these shots has become so widely accepted that now the only question is who is the next famous politician or celebrity to get COVID multiple times after having gotten three or four shots. Take a look at this chart from the Walgreens COVID-19 index of all its testing this past week broken down by vaccination status:

Have you ever seen a vaccine of which the more doses you get, the more likely you are to test positive? Notice how the unvaccinated account for a lesser share of cases than either their share of the population or of Walgreens-administered COVID tests. The results are based on 81,818 tests administered nationwide in Walgreens stores from May 2 through May 8.

So now they want to take vaccines with such counterproductive outcomes and foist them upon children? Remember, the FDA has already demanded the manufacturers produce a study on subclinical myocarditis. In its Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Addendum for Comirnaty, the agency cited one study at the time of Pfizer’s approval noting that subclinical myocarditis might be 60 times as prevalent as clinical myocarditis. That would bring down the 1 in 1,000 rate among young males to as low as 1 in 17 for subclinical ticking time bombs!

Let’s not forget that in all the children’s trials, there were zero deaths and hospitalizations in the placebo groups. So, what exactly were we trying to protect against – even before we knew the shots weren’t effective and possibly negatively effective? Cold or flu-like symptoms? Well, here is the data of side effects from Moderna’s 5-11 trial:

“The most frequently reported adverse reactions were pain at the injection site (92%), fatigue (70%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), injection site swelling (14.7%) and redness (10%).”

So even before we get to more serious side effects like heart inflammation, we have a massive percentage of children getting flu-like symptoms from the shots, which is what they would get anyway from the virus. How can this pass the threshold of any principle laid out in the Nuremberg Code or the Helsinki Declaration?

It’s gotten so bad that Pfizer and Moderna can no longer rely upon dubious trials showing a 90% reduction in COVID. Especially for young children, even for mild infection, they couldn’t even manipulate any data showing any degree of efficacy, so they had to rely on an arbitrary measure of antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes. In shocking statement before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, conceded they would approve the shots on young children even if the manufacturer’s own dubious data shows less than 50% efficacy (and even that is only for minor illness).

“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize” because they nonetheless reduce the risk of severe disease in the mildest COVID variant, Marks revealed during the May 9 briefing.

Just keep in mind that, according to the CDC, 74.2% of kids 0-11 already got natural immunity from prior infection. So not only will they fail to test kids for antibodies before injecting them, but even the remaining quarter who might be COVID-naive, they are trading risk of death and severe side effects (and pervasive mild side effects) for a possible tiny degree of very short-term efficacy against sniffles, but a long-term negative efficacy against those sniffles. A preprint study by the NY State Department of Health in February showed that the Pfizer shot was just 12% effective against the first Omicron variant for 5- to 11-year-olds, but drops to -41% after just 42 days!

How can any of these shots be administered until we understand why so many data points seem to show intensifying negative efficacy with time? It’s like investing in a stock that first goes up for a few weeks, but then you erase all the gains within a few days and then gradually lose all your principal investment. Every Republican claims to be pro-life, but distributing these shots to young children is not pro-life, even if they are not quite mandated. Would they sit idly by if the federal government distributed abortifacients throughout their states?

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The new Western fascism: Countries are gradually using jail exclusively for political opponents


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 23, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-new-western-fascism-countries-are-gradually-using-jail-exclusively-for-political-opponents-2656778951.html/

For all the talk about Putin’s authoritarian grip over former Soviet states, we have our own authoritarian Putins now governing Western democracies and crushing all political dissent. Holding someone without bail for organizing a peaceful protest against the government sounds like something Putin would do, yet it is now happening in Canada and has already been happening here against those who did not engage in violence on Jan. 6. Meanwhile, these same Western leaders support de-incarceration for the most violent criminals, demonstrating that it’s not even about authoritarianism, but a two-tiered society built upon the ideals of fascism.

Last Thursday, Tamara Lich, one of the organizers of the trucker convoy who set up the original GoFundMe account, was arrested in Ottawa for simply opposing the Trudeau regime and organizing a peaceful protest. Not a single person from the hundreds of thousands of truckers acted violently, a few blocked roads, and Lich herself did nothing. She is being charged with “counselling to commit mischief,” which reeks of Iranian-style prosecution.

On Tuesday morning, Ontario judge Justice Julie Bourgeois denied Lich the opportunity to post any bail, even though she promised not to engage in more lawful protests and instead return to her home in Alberta. “I cannot be reassured that if I release you into the community that you will not reoffend,” Bourgeois said. “Your detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public.”

Those who follow my running column on robbers and gun felons who get released without bail, and even some murderers who get released on low bail despite massive criminal records, can appreciate the rich irony. Lich might reoffend by committing an action that is not only legal but serves as the cornerstone value of dissent in a free and democratic society. If this standard were applied to BLM, there would literally be millions in jail today, and they often engaged in violence, not to mention more widespread blocking of roads.

Justice Bourgeois is a former liberal candidate for parliament and was endorsed by Trudeau in 2009. Thus, we are now at a point in Western (former) democracies when political prisoners cannot get a fair trial because the courts are completely co-opted by regime-supporting judges. Worse, Bourgeois once excused rising violent crime as “desperate people going through desperate times and using desperate measures.”

Hence, the very same judges and politicians who believe that political dissent is a dangerous crime also believe that career violent criminals need to be let out of jail. The same people who want to deny peaceful citizens the right to carry a gun seek to release every gun felon who has committed violence with a gun.

To that end, what is happening in Western countries is even worse than China or a return to pre-enlightenment Western governing values. In China, they wouldn’t tolerate murderers and carjackers. They will at least apply their harshness with equality – to an extent. What we are seeing in Canada and the U.S. is a form of postmodern Western-style fascism that elevates criminal behavior to the highest ideals of society while punishing the expression or utilization of basic human rights if they violate those ideals.

This is the plain definition of fascism. It doesn’t have to always be rooted in race. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” This is what we are seeing in Western countries today. It’s not a matter of targeting any one race but creating a standard of national interests and announcing that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to those interests – even if they affect one’s body in the most intimate way – is a threat to the nation and needs to be segregated, discriminated against, persecuted, and suppressed.

It’s not about equal-opportunity authoritarianism, because it is directed solely at those who don’t fit the national standards. Thus, we are witnessing the worst influx of illegal immigration and domestic crime precisely during the time of the most heavy-handed authoritarianism against “some” citizens. At the same time that we have the most autocratic stay-at-home order of all time, we experienced the greatest ubiquitous mass gatherings in history through BLM protests and riots.

It’s easy to rest on our laurels and thank God we are living south of the 50th parallel, but we have already seen political dissidents held without bail for a year with no criminal record for very nebulous charges that are clearly directed at chilling political dissent, not deterring violent or even disruptive behavior. For example, Couy Griffin, a county commissioner in New Mexico and founder of Cowboys for Trump who certainly had no prior criminal record, was initially held without bail for several weeks, despite never having stepped foot in the Capitol or committed assault or vandalism. The unappointed magistrate judge kept him solely because of his political views and used that as pretext to show he is a flight risk.

“I don’t think that the defendant will follow my conditions if he believes I am part of this machine of the democratic process,” proclaimed magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui at a hearing on Feb. 1, 2021. She went on to note that his political views, because she disagrees with them, makes him eligible to be held without bail – something not done for many murderers with massive rap sheets. She said that believing the election was stolen was “no different than people not believing facts or science.” No wonder they now want to criminalize dissent from their illogical and unscientific “public health” ScIeNcE.

It is therefore clear that we already have Canada’s problem of the judicial system criminalizing political opposition and thought crimes. Yet this is occurring at a time when our judicial system has largely done away with pretrial holding even for violent repeat offenders. Here are just a few recent stories to consider when trying to process the breathtaking speed at which we have devolved into an authoritarian state … except for what actually needs deterrent from strong authority!

  • James Tubbs, 26, who plead guilty to molesting a child at a Los Angeles Denny’s restaurant restroom, will serve no time in prison and will not have to register as a sex offender, thanks to the new rules put in place by prosecutor George Gascon. Tubbs, who now believes he is really a woman, is instead being held in a female juvenile facility, even though he is an adult male, because he was just shy of his 18th birthday when he committed the crime. Fox News recently released a tape of Tubbs bragging about beating the system. “I’m gonna plead out to it, plead guilty,” Tubbs says in one recording. “They’re gonna stick me on probation, and it’s gonna be dropped, it’s gonna be done, I won’t have to register, won’t have to do nothing.”
  • There is a carjacking epidemic in almost every major city. Recently, Chicago police superintendent David Brown revealed that 60% of all incidents were perpetrated by juveniles and that the system offers no real consequences for them.
  • Speaking of political crimes, how about attempting to assassinate a mayoral candidate? Well, in our fascist social “equity” system, it depends on the race and motive of the perpetrator. Earlier this month, BLM activist Quintez Brown was charged with attempted murder for stepping into the campaign headquarters of Louisville mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg and opening fire. Luckily, the bullets only grazed the candidate’s clothing and the shooter was stopped and apprehended. He came with extended magazines and clearly was coming as an assassin, but a judge let him out on $100,000 bail, which was posted by national BLM umbrella groups. “There is simply no defense for a would-be assassin to be released on bail, 60 hours after firing on his intended target,” Adam Edelen, the former chief of staff for former Democrat Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, tweeted. Can you imagine if someone from the trucker movement had done this to a prominent pro-mandate politician?
  • Bronx Supreme Court Justice Naita Semaj-Williams just allowed two teenagers charged with murder, manslaughter, robbery, gang assault, and other crimes to be released without posting bail. In a previous case earlier this month, Semaj-Williams walked back a $60,000 bond for a criminal charged with attempted murder and released him on his own recognizance.
  • These situations are occurring even in Texas. In 2019, Treveon Tatum, 20, was charged with murder but released by a Houston judge on just $50,000 bond. Despite being arrested again the following April for felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, Tatum still did not have his bail revoked. Despite violating the terms of his bail multiple times, he was never re-incarcerated. Then, on Feb. 8, he was charged again with a new murder.
  • While COVID is being used an excuse to jail business owners and political dissidents, the same virus is being used as pretext to release true public safety threats. Earlier this month, Garrett W. Caspino was cited twice by police for criminal trespassing while acting erratically in a residential neighborhood of Corvallis, Oregon. However, he wasn’t arrested because of COVID-19 protocols.” But just an hour later, he allegedly broke into a home in broad daylight, pulled down his pants, and choked the female homeowner against the wall while showering. He was later chased out of the house by the victim’s boyfriend. Despite the seriousness of the charges and the clear likelihood he will “reoffend,” Caspino will still have an opportunity to post bail, albeit a high amount.

The raison d’etre of the existence of Western governments is plainly spelled out in the preamble of our Constitution – to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Yet we now have a government that ensures tyranny and promotes the curse of violent anarchy while perverting justice based on politics and identity. One could not possibly abrogate the underpinnings of our social contract in a more grotesque manner than what today’s global elites governing Western countries are doing. This is unsustainable and must change. It is our right – our duty – to demand a new government “to provide new Guards for their future security.” The same failed political strategies of the past do not speak to the magnitude of corruption in our government.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The lies about vaccine efficacy are exposed, so Scotland stops publishing data


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 18, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-lies-about-vaccine-efficacy-exposed-so-scotland-stops-publishing-data/

If the truth hurts your narrative, you must censor it. But what if your own information harms your own narrative? Well, then you stop publishing it. For the past few months, Scotland has been publishing age-stratified case rates by vaccination status in a very well broken-down chart every Wednesday afternoon, similar to the way the U.K. published the data every Thursday. The common thread observed from these trends was that the unvaccinated had the lowest case rate, the double-vaccinated had even higher death and hospitalization rates, and the triple-jabbed gradually had increasingly higher case rates, which clearly doesn’t portend good news even for hospitalization and death in the long run. When people like me started using their data, we were lambasted by the “fact-checkers” paid for by Big Pharma. Now Scottish health officials announced they will not be publishing the data at all.

“Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status — over concerns it is misrepresented by anti-vaxx campaigners,” reports the Glasgow Times.

The notice of change was published on page 29 of the latest, and evidently final, Wednesday report from Feb. 16. “PHS is aware of inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the data when taken in isolation without fully understanding the limitations described below,” they decried.

You mean like screenshotting their own charts?

Obviously, there can be confounding factors, but those factors actually cut both ways. However, at the end of the day, these are age-stratified adjusted case rates per 100,000 and are completely fair game to use. No vaccine that is anywhere near as effective as they make it out to be should be netting these results.

Here is the latest case rate chart from the final report:

As you can see, for the past two weeks they have been placing disclaimers at the bottom of the charts.

What the chart clearly shows is what we have been seeing throughout the world — from the U.K., Canada, and Israel, for example — namely, that the second shot has gone negative a long time ago and the third shot is gradually following in the same direction. The public health officials themselves are demanding that people get boosters because they say the other shots wane. Well, logic would dictate that now that we are three to five months into the boosters in most places, they are waning as well. We also know that waning efficacy is potentially associated with a Trojan horse effect of antibody dependent disease enhancement, something the FDA admitted was never studied in the long run (at the time they thought the shots wouldn’t wane) but would be a risk “potentially associated with waning immunity.”

The main argument of those who are against us screenshotting their own charts to point out what they themselves have admitted is a speculative theory that perhaps the vaccinated test more often than the unvaccinated. That is a purely speculative confounding factor in the favor of the vaccine, but here is a concrete proven confounder against the vaccine: Scotland counts the first 21 days of the first vaccine as unvaccinated and the first 14 days of the third vaccine as double-vaccinated. We already know from Alberta’s data (which of course they also took down since we cited it) that roughly 40% of cases, 47.6% of hospitalizations, and 56% of deaths among the vaccinated occurred within 14 days of vaccination! So if anything, many of the cases and deaths ascribed to the unvaccinated are caused by the immune suppression of the first shot, and many cases and deaths ascribed to the double-vaccinated makes that cohort look even worse than it already is in order to ameliorate the image of the boosters.

Furthermore, if the higher case rates among the vaccinated are the result of a higher testing rate, then why would the double-vaxxed also be worse off than the unvaccinated for hospitalizations and deaths, as PHS has been showing for weeks in its other charts?

It’s quite evident that everyone is tested in the hospital. If anything, it stands to reason that the unvaccinated would be more aggressively tested even when admitted for other ailments and therefore potentially be roped into incidental hospitalization counts more often than the vaccinated. For example, in June 2021, Scripps Health in San Diego announced it would only test unvaccinated asymptomatic patients but not the vaccinated. Clearly, the testing requirements of the unvaccinated and the counting of the (immune-suppressed) partially vaccinated as unvaccinated would be confounding factors for woefully overestimating unvaccinated hospitalizations, not the other way around.

Also, why would the triple-vaxxed test less often than the double, who test more often than the single or unvaccinated? And why would the waning always continue in the same direction throughout the pandemic? As you can see from the U.K. Health Security Agency weekly reports, the efficacy of the shots constantly wanes with every new weekly report, a phenomenon that cannot be explained away by testing rates.

Clearly, this picture points to dangerous waning efficacy that plagues every cohort within a few months.

The bottom line is that during the final week of reporting in Scotland, just 12% of the deaths are among the unvaccinated, and that is including the 21-day grace period of counting the single-jabbed as unvaccinated. Nobody is suggesting that there is no efficacy for some people for a period of time against serious illness before the shots wane. But to suggest that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, to ignore the negative efficacy on infection which has been true across the board since last summer, and to obfuscate the concern of waning efficacy on critical illness even as they themselves demand boosters defies willing suspension of disbelief.

Unbelievably, PHS admits that the shots first suppress the immune system before they ramp up antibodies. But instead of using this as a strike against the shots, they use that is a strike against the unvaccinated and assert that it is a factor for why you can’t even compare hospitalization or death rates. “Individuals who have not completed their vaccine schedule may be more susceptible to a severe outcome and could result in higher COVID-19 case, hospitalization and death rates in the first and second dose vaccine groups,” claims PHS in the report.

But if that is true, that is the fault of the manufacturers who made a shot that first makes you vulnerable during an ongoing pandemic. It’s one thing to have a shot that makes you more vulnerable for a few weeks during the off-season of a virus. But to do so during the pandemic is akin to telling someone in a foxhole during a firefight that they will be safer in a bunker 100 yards ahead but must first run across the field to get there. The risk of making that run should be counted against the bunker option, not the foxhole.

In other words, as I wrote in my original piece on the Scottish data that was “fact-checked,” “You have to look in totality where we are headed rather than manipulating a snapshot of time.” You can’t just pull out one period of time of some efficacy for some people. You need to consider the following:

  • Vaccine injuries short term and long term, known and unknown;
  • Other safer treatment options for COVID itself;
  • A leaky vaccine that wanes in efficacy and runs the risk of enhancing the virus itself even while offering temporary protection for some;
  • The cost to the immune system of constantly boosting people to deal with the abovementioned concern of waning efficacy and enhancement.

The bottom line is that the social media guardians are looking at a snapshot of time. If they were to study the trajectory and progression of the virus and the vaccine throughout the year, they would recognize an unmistakable pattern of waning and then negative immunity. A large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine-Qatar found (table 3) that the Pfizer vaccine waned very quickly after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those in Qatar who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission and just 44.1% effective against severe illness. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months.

Swedish preprint study in October 2021 looked at 1.6 million people in Sweden to examine infection rates and critical illness rates by vaccination status. They found a sliding scale of efficacy that wanes with time, but eventually turns negative. Here is a presentation of fully adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection for various demographics after 210 days:

Clearly, it was known early on that the vaccine wanes and has the potential to go negative even with Delta, for which both natural infection and the vaccines offered better immunity. It stands to reason that this is certainly the case with Omicron, making it abundantly clear that the negative efficacy rate has more to do with potential Trojan horse antibodies than it does with vaccination-status bias of testing rates.

So what’s the solution? Go for a fourth and fifth shot? This week, Israeli researchers published a preprint study on the efficacy of the fourth shot, which found that after just one month, Pfizer’s shot is down to 30% efficacy and Moderna is down to 11%. At the same time, “Local and systemic adverse reactions were reported in 80% and 40%, respectively.” They conclude, “Low efficacy in preventing mild or asymptomatic Omicron infections and the infectious potential of breakthrough cases raise the urgency of next generation vaccine development.”

Remember, the FDA’s industry guidance for EUA status (p. 13) requires a 50% threshold of efficacy to even get emergency use authorization, much less full approval!

Thus, who is actually misreading or inappropriately using data here?

The Israeli study also concluded that “most of these infected HCW [health care workers] were potentially infectious, with relatively high viral loads. Thus, the major objective for vaccinating HCW was not achieved.” Full stop. The biggest public policy debate is over the fact that somehow you not getting the shot affects other people. Here we see that even people with four shots were still infectious with high viral loads. To what degree the shot offers some degree of protection from serious illness for some people for some period of time should be a decision left to the people. Perhaps other people would like to choose therapeutics that offer protection that don’t run the risk of severe adverse reactions. But none of that should have bearings on another human being, and none of that should justify human rights violations.
This entire saga began with censorship of the work of others because the narrative assertions could not withstand peer review. Now we’ve come full-circle, in which the governments’ own data must be censored because the narrative assertions cannot withstand the scrutiny of their own data.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: GOP governors must ban shots for babies and toddlers


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | February 01, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-gop-governors-must-ban-shots-for-babies-and-toddlers-2656528942.html/

It’s utterly senseless. Pfizer is now asking to authorize a dangerous, outdated shot for babies and toddlers, for whom the virus does not pose a statistical risk and for a virus against which the shots have failed to show any benefit. Yet, just as taxes and death are a certainty in life, you can bank on the FDA never turning down any Pfizer request. This is where Republican governors must serve as the safety net for the people. They must actively oppose expanding the shots to the final control group against the greatest experiment on mankind.

In one of the most shocking and immoral moves since the beginning of the pandemic, Pfizer is submitting its request this week for emergency use authorization of its COVID shot for babies as young as 6 months old through 5 years old. They are quite literally pushing a shot with the hopes of ameliorating symptoms (not stopping transmission) of a virus that is a cold for young children and much less dangerous than RSV. But here’s the kicker: The trial they conducted showed that two doses failed to even produce positive results, and they are still working on a trial for a three-dose regimen. Plus, we have a new variant. So, what exactly are they seeking authorization for?

As other countries are already recommending against vaccinating those under 12, our government will likely approve this shot for babies and young children based on a failed trial. There was never any efficacy in the shot because no child in the trial got seriously ill to begin with. So, they chose a trial endpoint around levels of antibody titers. Putting aside for a moment the premise that higher antibody titers (as opposed to T cells) are necessarily a good thing and won’t cause original antigenic sin, their own trial failed to achieve these endpoints in 2- to 4-year-olds. Which is why Pfizer announced in December that it was beginning a trial on a three-dose regimen. So how can they seek authorization of the failed two-dose trial for what is essentially a new virus?

One of the precepts of the Nuremberg Code: “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.” There is no way pursuit of an already flawed vaccine can be justified on young children, even if it still had a degree of efficacy and wasn’t outdated. A recent study from the U.K. showed that even immunocompromised children were not at an elevated risk for severe COVID. The study of 1,527 immunocompromised children and young adults found “no increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.” None of those even more vulnerable children died.

While there likely have been a tiny number of severely ill children who have died of the virus, it’s extremely hard to tell how many of the recorded deaths were legitimately caused by the virus itself. A large COVID study conducted in Germany found just three pediatric COVID deaths out of a million. The same analyst found zero deaths occurred in children under 5.

Already among older children, no positive benefit was found in the vaccine, even when the vaccine was working better. An Israeli study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found ZERO deaths or severe illnesses BOTH in the vaccinated and in the control (unvaccinated) groups of 12- to 18-year-olds in a 29-day follow-up of their vaccination. Under what pretext could the government possibly justify COVID as an emergency in this age group, and based on what evidence does this vaccine address that “emergency?”

On the flip side, the CDC, in a study in published in JAMA just conceded that the VAERS data on myocarditis was indeed an accurate reflection of an increased risk of heart inflammation following the vaccines. “Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men,” concluded the CDC researchers. “This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.”

More broadly, over 22,600 vaccine deaths and over 1 million injuries have been reported to VAERS. We already know from previous studies that VAERS only captures 1% of adverse events, and no other shot has come with such a stigma against reporting it for harm, often at the threat of the physician losing his job. Medicare data seems to hint at a much broader cohort of vaccine casualties. The military’s epidemiological database also seems to indicate a very disturbing trend of neurological and cardiological disorders rising in association with the take-up of the vaccine.

How can this be foisted upon the youngest children — with no apparent benefit — when they concede, “Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases”?

There are no long-term cancer studies, there are no long-term studies on what this does to one’s immune system, and there are no long-term studies on autoimmune diseases, even though the VAERS data and the Pfizer surveillance data from early 2021 raises some concerns. Plus the vaccine is for a virus that is not a threat to children.

Think about it: Monoclonal antibodies can get their existing EUA pulled based on the arrival of a new variant, yet shots that have already proven to be outdated – and are associated with greater infection rates – can secure official full approval and then EUA for babies with a new variant that was never run through a clinical trial.

As such, for a governors to merely take a neutral stance while allowing this travesty to plague the children of their states is unacceptable. Governors have a responsibility to direct their respective health departments to conduct the proper oversight that the FDA has abdicated and demand a moratorium on shots for children until a proper cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. At a minimum, they should join together in a lawsuit to enjoin the EUA because Pfizer has failed to prove the shots meet the eligibility thresholds in the EUA statute.

Moreover, Republican governors and legislators have an obligation to treat Pfizer like Planned Parenthood and cut all political ties with the company’s lobbying groups. Bio-medical fascism and the breach of informed consent is a greater pro-life cause than opposition to abortion right now, because its practitioners are encouraging all children to get something with only a potential downside. It is the equivalent of forcing abortions upon us, not just permitting them.

The final precept of the Nuremberg Code reads as follows: “During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.” If after everything we have learned, they won’t even discontinue this experiment on babies, then we truly have learned nothing since that dark era of history.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: The danger of the momentum behind N95 respirators


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | January 20, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-danger-of-the-momentum-behind-n95-respirators/

Were the cloth masks just for psychological training purposes to get us to the main course of obsequious servitude to the gods of Fauci?

It took nearly two years, but the “public health experts” are finally admitting what industrial hygienists knew from day one: Masks do not work against airborne viruses. Yet rather than immediately remove these draconian restrictions – including masking 2-year-olds on airplanes and schoolchildren for hours on end in many states – they are seamlessly gliding into the new position of promoting N95 respirators. Following the inveterate patterns of the past two years, they use the failure of their first position to their advantage to further panic people into blindly following their next recommendation … until that becomes a mandate as well.

On Jan. 2, former FDA administrator Scott Gottlieb, the media’s go-to “expert” on all things pandemic, admitted what we all knew since 2020 but that got us banned from social media for saying so. “Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection, that’s the bottom line,” said Gottlieb on Meet the Press. “This is an airborne illness. We now understand that, and a cloth mask is not going to protect you from a virus that spreads through airborne transmission.”

Well, some of us knew that early on in the pandemic.

Two days later, the New York Times ran an article telling people where to get N95s, states began mailing out N95 variations, and the CDC put out a new message, which between the lines, gives the impression that if you are not wearing an N95, you don’t really have protection. The Biden administration plans to distribute millions of them to local pharmacies. But is there really any evidence that the same people who were wrong about masks are now suddenly connected to God’s word when it comes to respirators? And who says it is safe for people to wear something like that for long periods of time, which until now required rigorous testing, medical exams, and training?

Yes, N95s, unlike masks, actually meet the standard for PPE in hazardous environments. But for which sort of hazard? Not an airborne respiratory virus. Stephen Petty, a certified industrial hygienist and hazardous exposure expert, sent me a copy of an N95 usage label made by 3M that he enlarged into an infographic. It turns out the company’s own disclosure blows up the myth of using an N95 for viral protection.

The label confirms what everyone understood prior to the mask mania of COVID: Neither masks nor N95 respirators can stop aerosols, certainly not viral ones, which are much smaller than bacteria. What’s truly revealing is that the label recommends against relying on them for source protection even against asbestos particles, which are on average 5 microns – 50 times larger than SARS-CoV-2 virions.

A large randomized controlled trial published just months before the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 — before masking became a political and social control tool — showed no benefit to N95s over surgical masks in terms of protection against the flu. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” concluded the authors of the large trial, published in JAMA on Sept. 3, 2019.

Also, remember, that most people are not wearing sealed N95s. They wear the respirators loosely on their faces as they do surgical masks. Also, many of them are the Chinese version KN95s. Even the CDC admits, “About 60% of KN95 respirators NIOSH evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 did not meet the requirements that they intended to meet.”

The same study (Shah et.al.) that found just 10% and 12% reduction in aerosols for cloth and blue surgical masks respectively, actually found that KN95s worn improperly with 3mm gaps between the face and the respirator, as most people wear them, only offer 3.4% filtration efficiency – less than the cloth masks.

And remember, these studies are all conducted in labs, not in the real world, where no study has shown a statistically significant benefit to masks, and the basic epidemiological data has disproven the efficacy for two years.

Take Austria, for example, where they have been mandating N95 respirators in stores. Can you spot the efficacy?

The notion that children can properly wear a form-fitted N95 that effectively seals is both absurd and dangerous. And anything else will absolutely not work. There’s clearly an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy. The only thing that might possibly work will cause danger, which is why the federal government has long mandated very specific criteria for wearing respirators.

“While some misrepresent N95s as masks, they are actually respirators and will require one to follow the OSHA requirements for respirators under the Respiratory Protection Standard (RPS) 29 CFR 1910.134 (e.g., written program, medical clearance, initial fit testing, annual fit testing, no facial hair, worker training),” said Petty in an interview with TheBlaze. Stephen Petty has served as an expert witness in hundreds of industrial hazardous exposure court cases and now serves as a witness for those bringing lawsuits against irresponsible mask mandates. Here is a list of OSHA requirements, per Petty’s presentation, that would have to be met for usage of N95 respirators:

There’s a good reason why these requirements were put in place by OSHA. To the extent one actually properly seals an N95 respirator to the face (which few will do), it causes significant medical concerns. Here are some findings from an extremely exhaustive qualitative and substantive evaluation of 65 mask studies by German researchers:

In nine of the 11 scientific papers (82%), we found a combined onset of N95 respiratory protection and carbon dioxide rise when wearing a mask. We found a similar result for the decrease in oxygen saturation and respiratory impairment with synchronous evidence in six of the nine relevant studies (67%). N95 masks were associated with headaches in six of the 10 studies (60%). For oxygen deprivation under N95 respiratory protectors, we found a common occurrence in eight of 11 primary studies (72%).

Thus, to the extent anyone could achieve a meaningful degree of efficacy against virus particles with a respirator – something yet to be proven – it will come at a terrible cost. Even with regular masks, before our public health officials lost their minds (and hearts), it was understood that they are not harm-free. Here is a write-up from the Missoula, Montana, city health department recommending against the use of masks during wildfire season in Montana:

Masks are uncomfortable (they are more comfortable when they are leaky – but then they do not provide protection). They increase resistance to airflow. This may make breathing more difficult and lead to physiological stress, such as increased respiratory and heart rates. Masks can also contribute to heat stress. Because of this, mask use by those with cardiac and respiratory diseases can be dangerous, and should only be done under a doctor’s supervision. Even healthy adults may find that the increased effort required for breathing makes it uncomfortable to wear a mask for more than short periods of time. Breathing resistance increases with respirator efficiency.

The Montana Department of Health emphatically writes in bolded letters that N95s that seal are the only things that might help against smoke particles (which are around 1 micron, 10 times larger than most viral virions), but warns of health risks. “Note that respirator masks should be a last resort, as they are difficult to fit correctly, decrease oxygen intake, are hot, and can easily leak when worn improperly.” They go on to add, “People who are not physically fit may experience difficulty going about daily tasks due to reduced oxygen intake. It is more important to have enough oxygen than to have clean air – if you are using a respirator and feel faint, nauseous, or have trouble breathing, take the mask off.”

On the Washington Department of Health’s website guidance for wildfires, it is made clear that “masks are not approved for children” and that “it is harder to breathe through a mask, so take breaks often if you work outside.” The Sacramento County Department of Health Services states, “N95 respirator can make it more difficult for the wearer to breathe due to carbon dioxide buildup, which reduces the intake of oxygen, increased breathing rates, and heart rates.”

Just a year ago, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky swatted down the idea of wearing N95s. “They’re very hard to breathe in when you wear them properly,” Walensky said. “They’re very hard to tolerate when you wear them for long periods of time.”

Thus, whether we are talking about masks or N95s, it’s quite evident that they are either unsafe or ineffective. They can often be both unsafe and ineffective, but they can never be effective without being unsafe, unless worn by the right person with the right training in limited environments for short periods of time.

And this is just the scope of physical harm. One speech therapist in Palm Beach County is seeing a 364% increase in referrals from pediatricians for babies and toddlers with speech delays. “It’s very important that kids do see your face to learn, so they’re watching your mouth,” said a clinic director and speech-language pathologist at the Speech and Learning Institute in North Palm Beach.

How our governments can mandate something this immoral and illogical on our bodies indefinitely without due process, evidentiary standards, or a constitutional interest balancing test is astounding. Every state needs a constitutional amendment explicitly banning this from ever happening again. Biden promised 100 days of mask-wearing, but we are now approaching a full year without any end in sight.Just remember, if a government can criminalize our breathing without due process, what can it not do to us without recourse?

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: