donato fasano/Getty Images

Horowitz: Triumph of transhumanism: Are the COVID shots behaving like self-spreading, genetically altering software updates?

“We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.” Those are not the words of a raving lunatic professor, but of a multi-agency executive order from the Biden administration to empower all the tech, science, and health agencies to pursue the transhumanist agenda of genetically engineering human beings like computers. Thus, we no longer need to cite Klaus Schwab when warning of this sinister agenda; our own government is making it a priority. Or has it already done it with the COVID shots?

mRNA shots can pass down immune traits to offspring

We already know from one study that the mRNA shots can reverse-transcribe into the DNA, a point that nobody knew about when sighing up for the jab. We also know from a Swedish study that the spike protein is found in abundance in the cell nuclei and that the protein directly affects DNA repair in the nucleus by interfering with double-stranded DNA break repair. Now, a preprint study from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia indicates that the current mRNA lipid nanoparticle platform can pass down the acquired immune traits created from the spike-based therapeutic to our offspring! In other words, the known and still unknown deleterious effects of the jabs can potentially be transferred to people who never got the shots.

The Thomas Jefferson researchers studied the effects of a flu vaccine built on an mRNA LNP platform in the offspring of mice injected with it and came across a stunning discovery. “Interestingly, mice pre-exposed to the mRNA-LNP platform can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring, providing better protection against influenza.”

So, what does this mean in plain English? Dr. Ah Kahn Syed explains in his Substack that the findings show that “the RNA injected into the original mice was incorporated into the genome in the oocytes (female egg cell) of the maternal line of mice.” Specifically, they observed that “the effect of the RNA injected via lipid nanoparticles is persistent” in the second through fourth litters of mice, “provided the original injection was in the maternal line.”

Now, think about it. We already know that, much like a salt shaker, the lipid nanoparticles transport the code to every corner of the body, but particularly in the ovaries. Now we know that once in the ovaries, it gets into the egg cells and then becomes integrated into the genetic material of those cells that become offspring and can even do so for multiple generations. Much as genetic traits can be passed down for generations, this study, in conjunction with several others we already have seen, indicates that mRNA LNP shots can be expressed in the genome of offspring.

So, assuming the same dynamic plays out in humans with the COVID mRNA shots, which, based on this research, we must assume until proven otherwise, we have generations of people coded with this toxic spike without consent, as if they were computers getting a software upgrade.

Passing on the mRNA in the breast milk

In violation of every medical norm, these experimental shots were immediately pushed upon pregnant and nursing women. Just this week, a research letter published in JAMA by a pair of U.S. researchers discovered that “trace amounts of COVID vaccine mRNAs were detected in the breast milk of some lactating women.” In saying would have gotten any of us banned from social media for suggesting such a concern a few weeks ago, the researchers concluded: “These data demonstrate for the first time the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA to mammary cells and the potential ability of tissue EVs to package the vaccine mRNA that can be transported to distant cells.”

Seven of the 11 women who were part of the lactation study had mRNA particles in their breast milk. Both the Pfizer and Moderna shots were included in the sample.

Self-spreading vaccines

That the medical tyrants already have the technology to spread vaccines the way pathogens spread is old news. The question is whether the COVID shots are an example of this to some extent.

In October 2018, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a report providing a blueprint for "self-spreading vaccines," described as vaccines "genetically engineered to move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection."

Now, a new preprint study published by University of Colorado researchers indicates that antibodies have likely shed from vaccinated parents to unvaccinated children living in the same household. The researchers compared a group of children who never had the virus nor vaccination in households with unvaccinated parents to those with vaccinated parents and found much higher antibody levels from the shots in families with vaccinated parents.

While the notion of self-spreading vaccines sounds outlandish to some, in Pfizer's own clinical protocol (p. 67), the company seems to indicate that someone can be exposed to the “study intervention” (the vaccine) “by inhalation or skin contact.” So are we headed into an era where they can offer “software updates” to gene editing they inject in humans, have it get passed down into future generations, and even spread to those who try to avoid the life-altering interventions? That is clearly their intention.

In other words, they have destroyed the control group of the greatest experiment in human history by ensuring several ways that even those who never had the shots could potentially suffer the known and unknown effects of it for years to come. As we continue to suffer from these sudden mystery ailments, perhaps it might affect even those who never got the jabs, allowing pharma to claim lack of culpability, even though it’s likely possible to spread it to unborn and nursing children and possibly even those already born through intense prolonged contact.

Recently, the FDA advertised the new Omicron booster (only tested on mice) as an “antibody update” to “recharge your immunity” — as if you are a Tesla at the charging station. It’s understandable how many of us didn’t see this agenda coming and thought of it more as science fiction. But now they are quite unabashed and unashamed in communicating their plans. Will we wake up before we all suffer an even worse glitch in our prepared “software” updates?
Prostock Studio/Getty Images

Horowitz: Study shows shocking number of vaccine symptoms, yet authors applaud as safe

What is worse than promoting vaccines without human clinical trials, as our government is doing with the latest Pfizer and Moderna booster shots? Continuing to promote the old shots that already have human data confirming they are dangerous. Every week, more studies continue to hint at a magnitude of serious injury that shocks the conscience, yet the medical, scientific, and public policy establishments continue to promote them.

Saudi researchers just published a retrospective, cross-sectional study in Cureus tracking the adverse events of roughly 1,000 12- to 18-year-olds who received COVID shots between July 2021 and March 2022 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Their results demonstrate a lopsided cost-benefit analysis and hint at a cataclysmic level of injury, yet shockingly, in order to get published, they had to conclude, “Our findings might enhance public trust in the COVID-19 vaccine, which could speed up the immunization procedure.” That in itself is a political statement, not a technical funding of a study, but alas, this is the “scientific” world we now live in.

Would you trust a shot from which a majority of kids experienced at least minor symptoms and a measurable minority had to be hospitalized?

Let’s begin with the minor side effects:

Among participants who experienced COVID-19 vaccination adverse reactions (54.9%, No.= 554), 87.5% had pain at the site of injection, 84.5% reported fatigue, 69% had a headache, 67.5% had a fever, 39.7% had chills, and 19.1% had nausea and vomiting (Figure 1). Other adverse effects had been recorded by the participants such as menstrual disturbance, lymph node enlargement, muscle and bone aches, runny nose, red eye, flu, and drowsiness. Of note, 75.6% of the participants reported using medications to avoid or mitigate vaccination side effects.

Freeze frame right there. When is it normal for more than half of participants to experience flu or cold-like symptoms from a vaccine? The fact that so many experienced even minor symptoms from a novel therapeutic in itself should raise concerns about unknown long-term effects. Moreover, these are the symptoms that children would typically get anyway from COVID, and especially with Omicron, the symptoms would be no worse than those mentioned on this list – minus the menstrual disturbances.

So why should anyone risk getting the shot when it – up front – gives you the symptoms of COVID itself? This is especially poignant given that most children already got COVID and that there are questions about the shots impeding the natural immune response and ironically making one more likely to get COVID again.

There were also a couple of other important observations from the study’s results that are worth mentioning:

After adjustments, the incidence of headaches increased by about 5.6 times for those who got two shots when compared to participants who received a single dose. This indicates a dose dependency, which likely means that those getting multiple boosters, as our government continues to recommend, are going to be increasingly prone to adverse events.

They found a 2.4-fold increase in those reporting post-vaccination symptoms among those who already had the virus. This confirms what we have known for well over a year – that those whose systems are already primed by the virus are more prone to an inflammatory response. It was criminal from a cost-benefit analysis to administer and even mandate these shots on those with prior infection because not only did they not need to assume the risk of this novel therapy, but they were more prone to risk than anyone else.

Now let’s move on to serious side effects. Typically, we don’t tolerate more than an infinitesimal amount of serious adverse events in order for a product to remain on the market, much less for the government to fund, endorse, distribute, and even mandate it. About 1.265% of the people in the study sample were hospitalized, and about 4.85% needed to see a doctor. If you extrapolate for the entire U.S. population who received the vaccine, that would work out to be about 2.82 million people who needed hospitalization and over 10 million who needed to see a doctor. These numbers harmonize with many other estimates and calculations. German insurance data seemed to show somewhere between 4% and 5% of those vaccinated were sick enough to file a medical billing claim.

Also, nearly 7% of those who experienced symptoms had lasting effects for more than five days. That’s one heck of a disruption, which might explain the labor shortages in so many fields, such as aviation. And again, this is all before we factor in doses 3-5.

So far, the new booster from Moderna has shown no greater degree of efficacy than the old concoction. In fact, Japanese researchers have now found evidence that the COVID shots cause antibody dependent disease enhancement for Omicron after several months. That is to say that even though there might be slight efficacy for a few weeks, thereafter the efficacy actually goes negative because the suboptimal antibodies are strong enough to bind to the virus but not strong enough to neutralize, thereby creating a Trojan horse effect, guiding the virus into the body’s cells. A recent study of Pfizer’s 5- to 11-year-old shot by NIH researchers showed negative efficacy after 20 weeks. So we are offering children up-front flu-like symptoms with the risk of serious injury and death in return for long-term negative efficacy against a variant that is less virulent than the flu and for a broader virus than never threatened them!

It is simply astounding how these shots were ever approved, but it is now being done with malice. Biden himself said the pandemic is over, few people get seriously ill from Omicron, and most people already got the virus. So how could the government justify rushing more shots without human trials, or worse, with studies already showing negative efficacy, ubiquitous inflammatory responses, and appallingly high levels of serious injury?

Instead of pushing to recall the shots, the study authors conclude that the findings will “enhance” public trust in the vaccine. “Only 2.3% of the included teenagers needed admission to the hospital which indicates that fewer severe side effects were reported after receiving COVID-19 immunization,” wrote the authors. Well, I guess that is fewer than the 55% who experienced more minor symptoms, but that is a lot more than in the 1 in 100,000 we would usually expect.

Then again, if they are expecting the public to assume 100% of people will drop dead, then I guess the findings are reassuring. But if they were expecting safe vaccines, the findings will bring a very different sort of clarity.
peterschreiber/Getty Images

Horowitz: New study shows rejection of cornea transplants following COVID vaccination

It was one of the worst human rights violations of the COVID regime, and it’s still going on in most hospitals. Hospitals were de-listing people from organ transplant lists who would not get the COVID shots, no matter how much information came out on how the shots were unsafe and ineffective, particularly among the immunocompromised. From day one, the policy should have been the other way around – kidneys shouldn’t have been wasted on those who got the shots – and now we have the proof.

According to a study published by Japanese researchers last month in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, a number of patients receiving cornea transplants experienced rejections of the cornea tissue following the COVID vaccines. Cornea grafts are considered a much lower-risk transplant procedure than solid organ transplants and tend to have a much lower rejection rate. Which is why the researchers were surprised to find a total of 23 eyes from 21 patients who had undergone corneal graft procedures who experienced rejection anywhere from one day to six weeks following COVID vaccination. In some cases, the rejection occurred suddenly after being jabbed despite the cornea graft having held steady for many years.

Like so many other studies indicating concerning safety signals about the shot, don’t expect any follow-up to this analysis. If our government really cared about safety and science, it would immediately identify these cases of rejected corneal tissue and study them for spike protein and other tissue protein expression markers.

What this study demonstrates is that rather than accusing the unvaccinated recipients of potentially wasting a transplant, we should be studying whether vaccinated recipients might be at higher risk of wasting transplants and whether vaccinated donors run the risk of transferring to the recipients the spike protein through the grafted tissue or in solid organs.

Although the paper has not yet identified a likely mechanism of action causing rejections in eye tissue, Dr. Richard Urso, an ocular specialist, told me he is not surprised that the mRNA expressing the spike would be able to find and inflame tissue that is typically protected from the immune system. “We’re seeing inflammatory markers in tissues that usually don’t receive this protein because the lipid nanoparticles can spread it anywhere in the body. These particles are particularly adept at crossing tight junctions and can deliver the mRNA to parts of the body like the brain and eye. One thing about blood vessels around the eye is that they are covered by pericytes that are full of ACE2 receptors, which makes sense that it would trigger all the pathways for inflammation including natural killer cells.”

ACE2 is the primary receptor the spike protein uses to enter the cells. However, those infected with COVID naturally, although still at risk for ACE2 binding in many parts of the body, are still protected, for the most part, in places like the heart and brain that are hard to penetrate. “The eye and brain are typically protected from immune system overactions because of the tight junctions,” observes Urso, who worked with these tissues in scientific labs for years.

According to Urso, this is also why he suspects one is much more likely to suffer myocarditis from the spike protein expressed through the shots than through natural infection. It’s all about the lipid nanoparticles serving as lifeboats for the spike to interject itself into every tight junction of the body. “The critical piece of evidence in why myocarditis is so much worse among the vaccinated than those with infections is because the heart has tight junctions and they are loosened during exercise, which is why the LNPs can then pass through and attach to the lining of the heart. The LNPs allow the spike to get to places where the virus cannot go. That’s why you see such difference between the level of troponin between those affected by the wild-type disease and those who get the vaccine.”

Perhaps this is why elite athletes who engage in vigorous exercise are constantly on the hook for sudden heart problems, given that the loosening of the junctions allows the LNPs to pass with a greater load of mRNA-coded spike.

Now imagine tainting the entire pool of organ and tissue donors with this spike protein. And yet, the unvaccinated are the ones vilified and excluded from donations? A U.K. study found 13 solid organ donors who likely died from vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia stemming from the AstraZeneca shots just during two of the early months of vaccination in 2021. So what happened when 10 of their organs were given to recipients? "There were seven major thrombotic or hemorrhagic postoperative complications in six recipients resulting in the loss of three transplants.” One of the patients died within a day of cardiac arrest.

When this is all over and the dust settles, it will become clear that treating the unvaccinated as spreaders of disease was the greatest blood libel of all time in order to cover up the true threats of the vaccine itself.
FatCamera/Getty Images

Horowitz: Do the COVID shots erase natural immunity?

Why is it that years into this pandemic, the cases continue to proliferate and people seem to get the virus multiple times? A new study might shed light on this question, revealing a disturbing business model of the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their product is always in demand because it serves as the arsonist while pretending to be the medical equivalent of a firefighter.

A new study published as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that not only did the Pfizer shots turn negative after five months during the Omicron wave, making a vaccinated individual more likely to get the virus, but they actually erased the immunity provided by prior infection, thereby ensuring that injected people can get COVID again. In a one-of-a-kind observational study of over 273,000 children, the study divided the groups into four camps: unvaccinated children with prior infection, unvaccinated children with no prior infection, vaccinated children with prior infection, and vaccinated children with no prior infection. What were the results?

Shockingly, the authors conclude, “The rapid decline in protection against omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination.”

Except their study should demonstrate the exact opposite conclusion. Take a look at these two figures side by side:

The figure on the left (C) shows the gradual waning of immunity among unvaccinated children with prior infection. The figure on the right shows a precipitous waning of immunity among children who got COVID but then got vaccinated. Among those infected in November 2021 in the vaccine group, their level of protection went down to zero within a half-year, even though they already had the virus!

The authors suggest this is reason to constantly get boosters, but that would only make sense if boosters offered temporary protection but retained the protection accorded from prior infection. Clearly, this data shows that it slides the protection from natural infection backward, as was previously hypothesized from other academic papers.

Then again, if you look at their first two figures (A and B), they appear to show negative efficacy after five months for those without prior infection and just a slightly slower decline into negative territory among the vaccinated children who already had prior infection. In other words, either way – previously infected or not – the vaccine makes the children worse off.

This study lends credence to the findings of an NIH paper from earlier this year showing that only 40% of people with a previous infection in the vaccinated group produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to 93% in the placebo group. The possible inhibition of N-antibodies, which are more comprehensive than the S(spike)-antibodies, might be a possible culprit for this negative efficacy even after having already been infected with the virus.

Another explanation might be original antigenic sin, which is the priming of the body to respond to new variants with an antigen to the old strain. A study from Stanford published in Cell earlier this year might shed light on this phenomenon. Researchers observed a decreased immune response to new variants among those vaccinated for the original strain because the shots are teaching the body to respond improperly. “We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses,” observed the Stanford pathologists. They note that the extent to which this causes original antigenic sin “will be an important topic of ongoing study.”

Important indeed! Just as with Pfizer’s oral therapeutic, Paxlovid, the more you use it, the more you need to use it! Behold the beauty of negative efficacy, rebounding of the virus, erasing natural immunity, and the promise of endless doses to stanch the bleeding.

Imagine that these shots are still being foisted upon children. Even the U.K. government quietly suspended the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet we still have some cities in America requiring them for school.

What is further astounding is that even if the shots did work to prevent COVID, the upper bounds of illness severity most children present with is no worse than even the minor symptoms from the vaccine. Even putting aside the risk of serious injury, such as heart inflammation, the CDC’s own research shows that a massive percentage of toddlers who got the shots suffered what can only be described as flu-like symptoms. An unfathomable 50%-60% of children 6 months to two years of age experienced systemic reactions to one or both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna. This means they experienced some sort of illness beyond just pain at the injection site.

Furthermore, more than 15% of children 3-5 experienced a “health impact” from the second dose of Moderna, and anywhere from 5%-18% of children couldn’t go to school the next day, depending on the type and dose of shot. About 2% required medical care. Remember, this is for children and for Omicron, at a time when most already got the virus, but now the shot will give them up front COVID-like symptoms, possibly erase their prior immunity, thereby making them get the virus again, and exposing a certain percentage to life-altering adverse effects.

Could anyone possibly have manufactured a more Orwellian counterproductive vaccine if they tried on purpose?

FG Trade/Getty Images

Horowitz: Report from UK government flagged lack of safety data on vaccine for pregnant and nursing women

Think of the number of pregnant and nursing women in the military, health care, education, and many other professions who were forced to get shots that the U.K. government admitted at the time should not have been given. The “fact checkers” are sputtering about minutiae of the timing of this document, but the reality is that the establishment pressured and even forced some pregnant and nursing women to get a shot that even they admitted at the time had no reliable data, and although they now say it’s safe, the reality paints a very different picture.

Last week, Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management at Queen Mary University of London, among other U.K. researchers, posted a link to a report titled, “Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech,” in which researchers clearly recommend against vaccinating pregnant and nursing women. The report was originally posted in December 2020, but like many CDC reports, this U.K. government paper has been updated a few times, the most recent of which was Aug. 16, 2022. The money quote from the paper is as follows:

The U.K. media immediately pounced on those drawing attention to this report, asserting that it’s really an old report from December 2020 and has only had minor updates since then. And of course, in the ensuing year or so, the vaccines have been proven to be pristine for everyone, including nursing and pregnant women. But the noise around the date of publication obfuscates the main point: that at the time they forced many pregnant and nursing women to get the shot, the government knew the shots were not proven safe for those cohorts. Moreover, the question remains why this document has indeed been updated many times – however minor those updates may have been – yet this paragraph has never been changed and still remains on the website, even as militaries, health care facilities, and regular doctors continue to pressure and even force pregnant women to get the shots.

In response to those drawing attention to this report, whoever runs this government website posted an updated text block clarifying that this document was from December 2020 and that the government’s recommendation on vaccination has not changed.

Yet they still list the most recent update to this page as August 16, rather than September 2, which is when this box was inserted.

This is the same cat-and-mouse game the U.S. government has played every time researchers point to damaging statements from their own websites; they seek to tamper with the website and then dispatch their media allies (that we now know worked directly with them) to label it as misinformation.

However, in this case we need not haggle over the semantics of the U.K. government’s current recommendation vs. the timing of their post raising concerns about vaccinating nursing and pregnant women. We can simply open our eyes to what we are seeing epidemiologically throughout the world. It is now a proven fact that these shots can potentially cause thousands of categories of injuries and that there is a causal relationship with excess deaths and severe adverse events. While it’s not proven yet that they cause specific fetal-maternal issues, the correlations are too strong to ignore, especially when we usually take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach with new therapeutics administered to pregnant women – even those that aren’t associated with so many injuries to non-pregnant women.

Nowhere is this violation of the Nuremberg Code with reproductive health more apparent than with a recent study published by the Israeli government. Israel’s Ministry of Health tasked Prof. Mati Berkowitz, a leading Israeli expert on pharmacology and toxicology, to put together a group of experts to examine vaccine injury from Dec. 2021 through May 2022. After the results were concealed for two months, among many of the report’s findings was that for 90% of those who experienced menstrual irregularities from the shot, they lasted for at least three months.

Researchers further established causality between the menstrual irregularities and the timing of the shot, because a number of Israelis who experienced the problem after the first dose suffered from a relapse right after the second dose.

Israeli health reporter Yaffa Shir-Raz translated parts of the report in Hebrew. Here is the money quote:

Studies carried out on the above-mentioned subject noted short-term abnormalities (up to a few days) in the menstrual cycle. However, over 90% of the reports detailing the characteristics of the duration of this adverse event indicate long-term changes (emphasis in the original. Y.S). Over 60% indicate duration of over 3 months.

Steve Kirsch has an exhaustive report on the Israeli government’s cover-up of the report and how officials dragged their feet reporting this to the public, then distorted the magnitude of the findings by misusing denominators from the study period.

Now, does this alone mean the shots are necessarily causing maternal-fetal problems? Not proven, but when you put it together with the VAERS reports of nearly 5,000 miscarriages and 11,300 reports of vaginal hemorrhaging, the sudden decline in birth rates in numerous countries perfectly coinciding with nine months from the period of vaccine take-up, the sudden rise in stillbirths over a similar time period, the studies showing decreased sperm count and motility, and that the pro-inflammatory lipid nanoparticles deposit in the ovaries and testes, it is immoral to continue with this until the vaccine is definitively ruled out as a cause. Long-term suspension of menstrual cycles is nothing to scoff at.

In a leaked video of the video meeting of the committee experts, Prof. Berkowitz says, in reference to the long-lasting side effects:

Here we will need to think about this medico-legally. Why? Because for not a few side-effects, we said, “OK, it exists and there’s a report, but please get vaccinated.” So we need to think about how to write it and present it in the correct way, so they won’t come afterwards with lawsuits: “Wait a second, you said it would go away and it’s OK to get vaccinated, now look what happened to me.”

Fortunately for Pfizer, the voices of those victims are drowned out because there are no lawsuits. Pfizer and Moderna are completely exempt, even as they get billions in taxpayer funding, free marketing and distribution, and government-sponsored censorship on their behalf. This is why they can continue injecting them into the most sensitive demographics without any accountability.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Horowitz: What is the conservative plan to deal with Biden’s Fourth Reich?

The time has come for a coalition of governors, attorneys general, and state legislators to demonstrate the power of broad-based federalism to interpose against extreme federal tyranny.

Many conservative commentators have finally woken up to smell the stench of the Fourth Reich following Biden’s speech targeting political opposition, reminiscent of the authoritarian language of past dictators. However, they should have been awake since March 2020, when our government declared de facto martial law on our lives, liberty, and property and used our bodies as lab rats with an ever-growing list of experimental therapies. They should have awoken from their slumber after Americans were targeted with solitary confinement and disproportionate punishment for zero or nebulous crimes at the Capitol on January 6, after months of killing, rioting, and looting by BLM with impunity.

If Biden’s speech is really to be a turning point in this one-sided cold war that is heating up, conservatives should resolve to use the power they already wield over Republican governors and demand united action for states to protect constitutional rights from this thuggish Biden administration and national security deep state apparatus that threatens our liberties more than any foreign enemy in our history. Rather than making idle promises of winning back the House with RINOs or winning back the presidency years from now when it’s too late, we should be demanding action now from 20 or so GOP trifecta-controlled state governments. If they fail to take action now, then the entire point of federal elections with divided government is moot.

What would a coalition of federalism look like? A group of prominent governors, attorneys general, and state legislative speakers and majority leaders would initiate a declaration in one state – let’s call it the “Miami Declaration,” for example. The declaration would lay out a list of grievances and examples of the federal government violating the rights of the individual: from medical freedom and bodily autonomy to privacy infringement, collusion with big tech against First Amendment rights, and using federal agencies to persecute political opponents. The declaration would pronounce these states to be constitutional sanctuaries that protect all constitutional rights, including against the federal government. Here are just a few ideas that should be contained in the declaration:

  • Criminalize the enforcement of any federal COVID mandate – whether by a federal, state, or private actor – within the boundaries of the states. This would include so-called federal lands within the state.
  • Block federal agents from entering the states to target political opposition.
  • Order all education and health care institutions within the state to stop complying with recent edicts on transgenderism or COVID with the threat of severe fines.
  • Block the distribution of any new vaccines that have not been properly studied.
  • Create a commission to study who is responsible for the COVID response and the botched therapeutics, along with an audit of what other therapeutics are in the pipeline that violate bioethical norms.
  • Nullify onerous federal regulations on energy and mineral exploration and production within the coalition of states so that states can begin protecting their residents from the coming nuclear winter on energy use.
  • Impose severe penalties on tech companies that censor political opponents of the regime until they come clean on the scope of collaboration with the federal government against these individuals.
  • Provide legal and financial backing to those political dissidents being targeted by the federal government primarily for their political views.
  • Suspend all training and cooperation between state and local law enforcement and the federal alphabet soup agencies.

Although Republicans are in the minority in Washington, Democrats still need 10 GOP votes to pass the two remaining bills of this fiscal year that intersect with many of the aforementioned policies and grievances. Republicans, if they really shared our values, would refuse to pass the FY 2023 budget continuing resolution and National Defense Authorization Act unless the federal tyranny is defunded in the relevant agency budgets.

Even if Republicans refuse to block funding for the vaccines, Paxlovid, and Ukraine – most likely because they agree with Democrats on those issues – they should at least withhold support until the extra funding for the IRS is kept out of the bill. Fighting overzealous taxation, especially when it is politically targeted, was always a universal value of the Republican Party. The IRS waited until Friday afternoon before the holiday weekend to admit that information from 120,000 form 990-T filers was inadvertently posted online due to “a human coding error.” These means the names, contact information, and financial information of about 120,000 people who have IRAs in non-security assets were breached. Does anyone really trust that the IRS is telling us the whole truth?

From now until the election, Republicans will seek to distract us with flaccid promises of deliverance in the future. The best way to verify their sincerity is by demanding that they actually use the power they currently hold to counter deeply destructive and unpopular policies from this regime.
Sergio Yoneda/Getty Images

Horowitz: COVID vaccines vs. ivermectin: Night vs. day and the Rosetta stone of the motivations behind COVID fascism

Under what sort of circumstance would you approve a variant of a shot based on a study of eight mice? Well, for one, it would have to be an emergency. It would also have to be a variant of a therapeutic that already has an impeccable record of safety … you know, like ivermectin. In reality, the more the virus is becoming less of an emergency and the more the original vaccines turn out to be dangerous and ineffective beyond belief, the more the medical and government establishment lowers the standards for additional vaccines, while continuing to declare war on proven therapeutics like ivermectin.

Imagine people dying in the thousands with no treatment, and the establishment refuses to use a broad-spectrum anti-inflammatory that doctors all over the world have witnessed helping restore people’s blood oxygen level during a cytokine storm. No! This cannot be used despite winning a Nobel Prize and being designated as an essential drug because we didn’t have large randomized controlled trials vouching for its efficacy (even though its safety was already established). Well, evidently, RCTs are only for drugs already proven safe, not for gene therapies already proven unsafe. Those can be approved simply based on mice tests for a variant that is not an emergency under anyone’s definition.

Just consider what we know about the existing shots. The one-of-a-kind study of all-cause severe adverse events of interest co-written by British Medical Journal editor Peter Doshi has been published in Vaccine, and its results are as revealing as they are shocking. The authors found a straight-up negative cost-benefit analysis among the participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials. Specifically, Dr. Doshi and his colleagues found that the Pfizer shot was associated with an increased risk of serious “adverse events of special interest” of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 per 10,000 for Moderna.

An adverse event of special interest is defined as death, life-threatening injury at the time of the event, inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability/incapacity, among several other criteria. The average between the two shots works out to 1 in 800 people, which would total approximately 448,000 people in the U.S. and 10.6 million globally, based on vaccination rates. But keep in mind, the follow-up period for trial participants was short because the participants were then unblinded and vaccinated. The long-term severe adverse events and sudden deaths are likely even higher. Also, this analysis doesn’t factor in all the people who subsequently got boosters. This shot is clearly dose-dependent, increasing the risk of death or injury with every dose.

Yet, to this day, this shot is still mandated on the military, health care workers, and many others, including pregnant women and schoolchildren in some circumstances. Now, as it becomes clear the virus has attenuated and the shots don’t work and are dangerous, the establishment is approving new versions of the same technology – with the extremely pro-inflammatory lipid nanoparticles and spike protein – just based on mice studies.

In contrast, let’s take a look at two new studies that came out concerning use of ivermectin for this virus. Brazilian doctors published the second half of their massive observational study on ivermectin use in Itajaí, a city in Santa Catarina, Brazil. It is the largest study of any COVID therapeutic, involving 113,844 who used ivermectin prophylactically and 45,716 who did not. The first half of the study, published late last year, found the relative risk reduction in mortality rate among those high-risk people taking ivermectin was 71% among those with type 2 diabetes and 67% among those with hypertension. The absolute risk reduction was also even greater among older people who are most at risk. This was the most transparent study done on COVID treatment because all information about every single patient was uploaded online for researchers to scrutinize.

This week, the same researchers published part two of the same study in Cureus, which evaluated whether the regular use and the total amount of ivermectin used provided greater benefit, meaning researchers wanted to ascertain the degree of dose dependency of ivermectin in combating COVID. They divided the ivermectin group into two sub-groups: those who took a total of 60mg during the study period (defined as irregular users) and those who took a cumulative total of 180mg (defined as regular users). The results were astounding and proved a clear dose dependency.

The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001) (emphasis added).

Again, this was a massive study sample with the most transparent data and crosstabs of any study. Moreover, although it wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, the fact that it was unblinded helped researchers see that the higher-risk people actually chose to take ivermectin, and the more regular usage of it within the ivermectin cohort. “Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin,” concluded the researchers. “This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.”

One of the lead authors, endocrinologist Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, has treated thousands of patients with an ivermectin and nitazoxanide-based protocol and has not lost a single patient. Yet rather than being treated like a hero, he has been accused of crimes against humanity. TrialSiteNews reports that Dr. Cadegiani’s clinic and private residence were raided by police who were searching for documents related to research from one of his other treatment regimens.

Again, behold the contrast between the treatment of safe, off-patent drugs and novel, expensive therapies. The latter are mandated, while the former are nearly criminalized.

Even the NIH has ivermectin listed on its website as a proposed COVID treatment and notes that it is “widely used and is generally well-tolerated” and “may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein attachment to the human cell membrane,” while having “anti-inflammatory properties…beneficial in people w/COVID-19.”

Which brings us to the second ivermectin study published this week, which focuses on severely ill patients in respiratory distress. Like Dr. Cadegiani, Dr. Jackie Stone, a family medicine physician based in Harare, Zimbabwe, barreled head-first into treating COVID from day one, conducted studies on her patient outcomes, and is being punished for her work. She co-authored a paper in Biologics showing a 62% normalization rate of blood oxygen levels of 34 severely ill COVID patients within 24 hours after being treated with ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc. While 34 is not a large sample size, one cannot miss the unmistakable sudden surge in the pulse oximeter of those who took ivermectin during the critical hours of the cytokine storm eating away at the lungs.

As the authors note: “All but two of the 34 patients in this study had increases in SpO2 within the first 48 h after the first dose of IVM. This overall increase in SpO2 continued throughout the entire observation period. Because SpO2 values that are at best stable and typically decreasing for several days after onset of disease symptoms are a well-established norm for moderate and severe COVID-19 patients under standard care,…these sharp, rapid SpO2 increases for all but two of the 34 patients in this study are noteworthy.”

Dr. Stone’s reward for her devotion to her patients? She is facing criminal charges in court. So what is going on?

Even if one wants to scoff at these studies and believe the pharma-contrived studies that ivermectin has less efficacy, nobody could deny the fact that it is safe. So, what is there to lose? How could one square the mentality of rushing into a known dangerous shot even for children and pregnant women based on mice trials, but treating one of the safest drugs like poison?

The questions answer themselves.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Horowitz: The monkeypox vaccines are openly unproven with major safety problems, but that’s the new normal

We swore we wouldn’t do it again. But while the COVID vaccination drive is still “evolving like an iphone” full of injuries, the establishment has already jabbed thousands with monkeypox vaccines that the CDC admits have problems and are unproven. A sudden unprecedented spread of a pathogen and a mysterious pre-prepared response with vaccines? Hmmm … where have we seen this rodeo before?

Let’s put aside the peculiarity that officials approved a vaccine for monkeypox out of nowhere in 2019, Bill Gates warned about a smallpox outbreak last year, they held a tabletop simulation of a monkeypox outbreak in March 2021 presupposing an outbreak in May 2022 (exactly on target), the Wuhan lab seemed to engage in gain-of-function research on monkeypox fairly recently, and a few months later the FDA approved a drug for smallpox, which in itself raises many questions. Americans are somewhat familiar with the main COVID vaccines on the market, but what about the two monkeypox vaccines being administered?

A dangerous shot on the market for two decades and going

The less-used vaccine is the live-virus smallpox shot, ACAM2000. The Strategic National Stockpile ordered 100 million doses in the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, and it was fully licensed in 2007. It is presumed to have efficacy for monkeypox, but there is neither evidence nor randomized controlled trials showing that it works for this particular wave of monkeypox. What is shocking, however, is that in plain sight, the CDC conceded in its own recommendation report published June 3 that ACAM has an appalling level of risk for myocarditis.

Primary vaccination with ACAM2000 is contraindicated in persons with the following conditions: serious allergy to a vaccine component, history of atopic dermatitis or other exfoliative skin condition,**** an immunocompromising condition (e.g., due to a disease or therapeutics),†††† pregnancy, breastfeeding, and known underlying heart disease (e.g., coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathy).

Oh, so you mean not everything with the label “vaccine” is a gift from God worthy of dehumanizing people over its use and denying them basic rights? That’s a heck of a lot of people. But what sort of heart problems? Earlier on, they blithely toss in this nugget: “Because ACAM2000 is replication-competent, there is a risk for serious adverse events (e.g., progressive vaccinia and eczema vaccinatum) with it; myopericarditis also occurs with ACAM2000 (estimated rate of 5.7 per 1,000 primary vaccinees based on clinical trial data), but the underlying mechanism is unknown (7,8).”

Say again?! 5.7 per 1,000 people is a rate of 1 in 175 people! That’s a huge percentage, and it demonstrates it’s not just a problem for people with pre-existing heart conditions but for anyone. Here is an interview Fauci gave in 2003 about the smallpox vaccine, something that probably shatters the image so many people had about it.

He was discussing Dick Cheney’s idea to pre-emptively vaccinate everyone against smallpox out of the contrived fear that al Qaeda would somehow release it. He divulged shocking information.

Since smallpox, as effective a vaccine as it is, has some rare but nonetheless potentially very serious toxic side effects — if you’re immunosuppressed, it could be deadly, if you’re one of those people who have this strange myocarditis associated with it. … If you all of a sudden vaccinated the whole country again, you would wind up — given the unlikelihood that you’re going to have a bioterror smallpox attack that would not allow you to then vaccinate around the people who were infected — I think the weight of the waiting, getting a stockpile, is infinitely better than just feeling better about vaccinating everybody. And I presented it in a very articulate, simple way. The vice president is a very smart guy, you know. He got it, and Scooter got it, and Carol got it. So then we decided that we would not globally vaccinate the entire country.

He added: “And by the way, the country would not have accepted being vaccinated. So we knew that; it was sort of like a failsafe, and I said, ‘Mr. Vice President, by the way, even when you’re offering it to the first responders, many of them didn’t want to take it.’ So this idea about kind of saying everybody should take it, it didn’t make any sense. So he listened to the data; he listened to the data.”

And then our government did this exact same thing in real life with COVID, to the point that officials are now demanding everyone get shots every few months, including children, to even attend school in some cities.

The ACAM shot is so dangerous that even Johns Hopkins researchers recently called for a full review of the shot and also warned that it could spread to other people in a household of recipients. How could something like this even be on the market with 100 million doses in supply, and what does it tell us about the safety standard of the vaccine enterprise in general?

Back to the current recommendations on monkeypox, the CDC adds the following tidbit on ACAM2000 and the COVID shots: “Because of the documented risk for myocarditis after receipt of both ACAM2000 and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (12) and the unknown risk for myocarditis after JYNNEOS, persons might consider waiting 4 weeks after orthopoxvirus vaccination (either JYNNEOS or ACAM2000) before receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, particularly adolescent or young adult males.”

So, the myocarditis risk from the COVID shots is bad enough that they mention it in relation to the monkeypox vaccine, but as a stand-alone it can be mandated with the threat of losing medical care or your livelihood?

A rushed, unproven, and dangerous shot given full licensure. Why and to what end?

The more common vaccine they are using now is the one they magically approved with full licensure in 2019 specifically for monkeypox – the JYNNEOS vaccine – which is a based on a live virus but supposedly not replication-competent in humans. Well, guess what? As the CDC admitted, there are no studies on myocarditis. You know why? Because just like the new COVID kids’ shots and variant shot, which are being approved based on simple antibody levels, JYNNEOS was approved without any clinical trials, just based on immune-bridging! Full approval – not just EUA.

So, don’t get hung up exclusively on the EUA being the public policy problem; the FDA and the CDC are the problem, because they are now at a point where they will fully approve something without fulfilling the obligations of the Nuremberg Code.

Let’s return to the same June FDA/CDC recommendation document:

So, they are saying they replaced ACAM, which was too dangerous to be used widespread, with JYNNEOS, a new vaccine for which they have “low certainty” that it causes “fewer serious adverse events” and “fewer events of myopericarditis” than the appalling levels of ACAM2000? In the next paragraph, they describe JYNNEOS boosters and divulge they have a “very low” level of certainty about their rate of myocarditis. Yet they approved it unanimously without question. Do the American people even know about this and do they realize officials and manufacturers are all immune to liability?

It gets worse. On the actual FDA label of the JYNNEOS vaccine (p. 6), it reveals that 1.2% of all recipients in a trial experienced “cardiac adverse events of special interest”! The number was as high as 2.1% for those who already had the smallpox vaccine at some time in their lives.

That number is outlandish, yet it still might be “lower” than the ACAM2000 shot!

Furthermore, as Dr. Meryl Nass observed, in the FDA review document (p. 162), it reveals that other studies not included on the licensing label revealed that between 11% and 18% of participants experienced increased troponin levels, a possible sign of heart damage. Also, on p. 191, it shows that side effects were so common that 8% of those participants who were HIV positive could not get their second JYNNEOS shot due to side effects from the first dose.

Furthermore, just like with the COVID shots, animal trials performed by Bavarian Nordic showed that the JYNNEOS shot did not prevent transmission even at peak immunity. We all know that non-sterilizing vaccines run the risk of negative efficacy and viral immune escape.

Still, all 9,000 monkeypox vaccination appointments in NYC were filled within two hours. How many of them have been informed of any of these risks?

Of course, the label states plainly, “Safety and effectiveness of JYNNEOS have not been established in individuals less than 18 years of age.” Yet it has now been approved on an emergency basis for kids! Meanwhile, HHS released 442,000 more doses of JYNNEOS to states.

Do we even know what this vaccine is capable of doing? Remember, Fauci himself once told Mark Zuckerberg that you have to be careful to make sure you are not spreading the actual pathogen with the vaccine and that is why you need a large trial. The WHO is admitting that everyone using them is essentially a part of a clinical trial, in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Why would they foist these vaccines upon society and risk viral immune escape when there is an obvious solution of simply 15 days of no orgies to flatten the curve? And why would they have rushed to fully approve a vaccine without proper trials in 2019 when there was no emergency or even trace of a monkeypox pandemic? And how was it fully approved with the label reading as follows: “JYNNEOS has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of male fertility in animals.”

The fact that we are replaying the scene of the COVID horror movie with the next pathogen and vaccine before the old one is even over with demonstrates that our political system still has not internalized the Great Reset.
Prostock-Studio/Getty Images

Horowitz: German insurance claims hint at millions of unreported vaccine injuries

What if 1 in 23 individuals jabbed with the COVID bioproduct experienced an adverse reaction strong enough to trigger an insurance claim? Now consider the fact that 5.31 billion people in the world received at least one jab, with hundreds of millions receiving three or four jabs, and you will realize we are in uncharted waters in human history.

According to data from Techniker Krankenkasse, the largest German medical insurance company, there were a total of 437,593 insurance claims billed under the four diagnostic codes for vaccine injury in 2021. To put those numbers in perspective, the total numbers billed for a vaccine injury code in the two preceding years was 13,777 and 15,044, respectively. As the Daily Skeptic notes, given that TK insures 11 million people, that means 1 in 23, or 4.3%, had a medical treatment billed for vaccine injury. And that assumes all 11 million were vaccinated. The background vaccination rate in Germany is 78%, although most of the unvaccinated are children, so the rate of injury per vaccinated person is likely even higher (5.1%).

Putting aside confounding factors, but just to provide a rough estimate to open your mind to the scope of this problem, a 4.3% clinical level injury rate, if extrapolated for the 223 million vaccinated in the United Sates, would equal approximately 9.6 million injured Americans. While that number sounds unconscionable, remember that this data harmonizes almost perfectly with the Israeli health ministry survey that found a 4.5% rate of neurological side effects just from those who received booster shots (not total doses, which is likely more).

However, this data, and the extrapolation for the U.S. population, is even more credible when you look at the VAERS data. The total number of reported hospitalizations, urgent care visits, or doctor’s visits reported to VAERS (just for the U.S.) for the COVID shots as of Aug. 5 is 337,579.

An underreporting factor of roughly 28 would get you 9.6 million clinical-level injuries. Leading VAERS expert Dr. Jessica Rose estimated, using independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass General study, an underreporting factor as high as 41 for serious adverse events in VAERS.

Obviously, vaccine injury billing codes, VAERS data for doctor visits, and the Israeli health ministry survey are not the exact same data point, but they all seem to coalesce around a rate of several percentage points of injury beyond the typical mild symptoms one would expect to experience from the shot. Moreover, we can actually independently verify the German billing data more precisely by using the same diagnostic codes for vaccine injury in the U.S. military. The four codes tabulated in the German TK billing data for 2021 are the following:

  • T.88.0: Infection following immunisation
  • T.88.1: Other complications after immunisation
  • U.12.9: Adverse effects after Covid-19 immunisation
  • Y.59.9: Complications due to vaccines or biological substances

I asked a source in the military with access to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) system to pull equivalent data on vaccine injury. While some of these codes did not come up, here is the data for T50.B95, “Adverse Effect of Other Viral Vaccine.”

The rate of increase is 11.6-fold, not as dramatic as the 30-fold increase in Germany, but this is just one code. Also, it’s likely that the military population would have a higher baseline background rate of reported adverse effects annually than a civilian population because they receive many more vaccines every year per capita.

When using ICD codes to extrapolate the scope of vaccine injury, keep in mind that these numbers likely substantially understate the total adverse events. Most doctors worship the vaccine with religious fervor, and there is a virulent stigma against implicating the vaccine for a particular malady or injury. So the fact that medical billing codes are hinting at this degree of cataclysmic injury is astounding. Moreover, there are no billing codes for death, which is clearly being underreported.

That the shots are still even being made available, much less coerced upon the public in many circumstances, represents the greatest violation of the Nuremberg Code of all time. It’s not even the fact that they are experimenting on all of humanity. The data is in and the shots have affirmatively been proven dangerous. They are no longer even experimental.

In a shocking letter, the incoming president of the Australian Medical Professionals Society, Christopher Neil, made it clear that Australian doctors must not be gagged in speaking out and offering informed consent. “Indeed, now 17 months later and after numerous forms of pressure to take up the COVID-19 injectables in various age categories, a tremendous amount of data is available to more fully and accurately inform clinicians about these products,” wrote Dr. Neil to the Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and members of Parliament. “This literature includes over one thousand peer reviewed studies reporting of the harms being seen around the world, up to December 2021.”

Neil observes the obvious – that the degree of adverse event reporting is sky-high. “To be clear, the TGA has received more Adverse Event reports in 2021 through June 2022 for the COVID-19 vaccines, than they have been seen for all other vaccines in the preceding 50-year period.”

If you just take the data from VAERS and the EudraVigilance system of the European Medicines Agency, there were a total of 76,253 dead and 6,033,218 injured, as of mid-July. That in itself is mind-blowing, but if you adjust for an underreporting factor of 41, that would total nearly 1.9 million deaths and 247 million injuries! Amazingly, yet sickeningly, 247 million injuries would equal 4.6% of all the people jabbed on this third rock from the sun – nearly exactly the extrapolated rate of injury from the German medical billing data!

Some are asking whether Steve Deace and I were overly dramatic in calling this the Fourth Reich and demanding a Nuremberg trial. But as the days pass and the sheer horror of this becomes apparent, the public will want to know why there was no demand to abide by the Nuremberg Code from day one.