Horowitz: TN legislature bans vaccine passports and protects doctors who speak out against shots



Well, it took 19 months, and it's only one state so far, but we finally have a red state that is living up to its reputation. Over the weekend, the Tennessee legislature passed an omnibus COVID freedom bill that places the state on a completely different path to dealing with this virus from the rest of the country – one rooted in science, compassion, liberty, and health care freedom.

The more the vaccines fail and other treatments rise, the more our federal government and most states continue to mandate the shots and clamp down on safe alternative treatments. The Tennessee legislature has passed a catch-all bill that will do just the opposite. While no bill is perfect, HB 9077/SB9014 will include many of the provisions we need to right the ship on COVID, and certainly much more than any other state has done so far. It is the first state to pass these provisions through a legislative body. The bill now awaits the signature of Governor Bill Lee.

Here are the main provisions:

  • All governmental and private entities would be barred from requiring proof of having taken COVID shots. They also couldn't take adverse actions or deny employment based on vaccination status. In other words, Tennessee is applying existing anti-discrimination law that is rigorously enforced in every other realm to the issue and time where it is needed most. The only exceptions are those who are signed on as federal contractors and have already signed their lives away to the federal government.
  • Authorizes unemployment benefits for those who quit their jobs due to any requirement.
  • Provides a cause of action for anyone injured by the vaccine as a result of an employer asking the individual to receive it.
  • Except in a few circumstances, this bill completely bars any local governmental entity or schools from requiring someone to wear a mask or taking adverse action against people for not covering their faces. Anyone injured as a result of a mask mandate can sue in court. Masks can be required under "severe conditions," but just for 14 days, and medical exemptions must be accepted. The original House bill also banned even private entities from implanting a mandate, but the Senate took it out.
  • Removes any authority of a local health entity or official, mayor, governmental entity, or school to quarantine a person or private business due to COVID-19 for simple exposure to the virus.
  • Prohibits any health care provider from vaccinating a child without parental consent.
  • Prohibits all use of state funding to go toward implementation of any federal COVID countermeasure.
  • Allows any doctor to prescribe the monoclonal antibodies for any patient they believe needs it.
  • State medical boards are prohibited from taking any punitive action against a physician for the recommendations they make about coronavirus treatment, mitigation, or prevention — including vaccination.
  • All hospitals required to allow a loved one to see dying patients before they die.
  • As a separate provision from COVID policy, all school board members must now run on partisan ballot lines so that sneaky liberals can't win in red counties.

The conference report on the bill was adopted 58-22 by the House and 25-6 in the Senate. The Senate, which is full of liberal Republicans, watered down an even better series of bills from the House; however, one House conservative told me they plan to hit this issue even harder in about 60 days when they return for their regular 2022 session.

In other words, Tennessee is finally acting as red as California is blue – at least to a degree. Now, imagine the effect on the national landscape if half the country, especially all the other GOP supermajority states, followed suit. Freedom would reign supreme in America. This was one of the rare circumstances when leadership actually worked together with the rank-and-file conservatives rather than working together with the special interests to fight the majority of their constituents. House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (who is also the Senate leader) deserve credit for getting this done so swiftly after months of inaction from Governor Bill Lee.

Unfortunately, we can't have nice things. Contrast the Tennessee legislature to its counterpart in Florida. There they enjoy the presence of the nation's most effective governor, yet they won't even ride his coattails and stand up against Biden with him leading the way. The legislature has thus far rejected Gov. DeSantis' call for bill that bars vaccine mandates in the state.

BREAKING: Florida’s Legislative RINO “leaders” just gave a massive middle finger to @GovRonDeSantisThey just anno… https://t.co/iJLqGioCsH

— Rep. Anthony Sabatini (@AnthonySabatini) 1635446905.0

State legislatures in red states are the last thing standing between us and becoming like Australia. The entirety of the grassroots focus needs to be on pressuring legislatures and governors to act. The federal government is not only a lost cause, but a malignant force against our life, liberty, and property. If the federal government can promulgate unconstitutional human rights abuses without even passing them through Congress, then you better believe we have the power, indeed the duty, to pass countermeasures out of the legislative bodies closest to the people.

Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs



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.

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.

Horowitz: As vaccinated COVID hospitalizations soar, government blocks the one option that works



Any thinking person should be asking why our government is not doing more to make the monoclonal antibodies more available as people get sick with this virus at record levels. Over the past few weeks, I've been inundated with emails from people who say the testing requirements and limited hours of operations made them lose critical days in the battle against the illness. When you know the answer to this riddle, you will then comprehend why the same players are vociferously against any form of preventive and early outpatient treatment.

Until now, any discussion of treatment methods was dismissed by the trite argument, "Just get vaccinated and you will be fine." That canard never properly addressed those who can't get the vaccine, nor did it explain why there was a complete blackout on treatment even before the vaccines were widely available in January. However, now, with surging hospitalization rates among the vaccinated population, especially those most at risk of dying from this virus, the entire argument — and indeed strategy behind a vaccine-centric focus — is obsolete and needlessly killing thousands of people.

To begin with, the vaccine never stopped transmission — indeed, the virus is spreading more than ever in highly vaccinated areas. However, we were promised it would protect from serious illness. Well, a friend of my wife in Houston — a cancer survivor — was mugged by reality last week when she came down with the virus after receiving the Pfizer shots in March. She was getting sicker, and thankfully I got her connected with one of the few competent doctors who treats the virus outpatient. She also got the monoclonal antibodies (after being forced to get a prescription for it in Texas), which she never heard of until I told her about the treatment. She was able to avoid the hospital, but thousands of vaccinated and unvaccinated — who do not have access to the amazing doctors I've come to know — aren't so lucky.

On July 7, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan accused the unvaccinated of spreading the virus, announced an unverifiable statistic that 100% of the COVID deaths were among the unvaccinated, and then proceeded to offer people false hope. "If you have not gotten your vaccine, the virus and its variants are a dangerous threat to you," Hogan said. Well, fast-forward two months, and now the truth comes out that already in June, vaccinated people were getting seriously ill from the virus. According to WBAL, "Illness and hospitalizations are increasing rapidly among fully vaccinated people." Over the past few months, about 30% of hospitalized patients in Anne Arundel County were fully vaccinated, and the numbers have been running between 30% and 40% in neighboring Howard County.

The critical point here is not the exact number, but the trend. Every day this goes on, more of the earlier-vaccinated people experience a complete waning of the injection-induced antibodies. A volunteer ambulance service in the northwest Baltimore area said that "the number of requests for monoclonal antibodies … has skyrocketed" and that "the majority of patients who have come for monoclonal antibody infusions have been fully vaccinated" (emphasis added).

Now, suddenly Gov. Hogan is pushing booster shots for the elderly and immunocompromised. But those were the people for whom the vaccine was needed most. And nobody will answer the simple question as to how a booster of a vaccine for an already-evolved virus will work for even a few months this time.

West Virginia's liberal Republican governor, Jim Justice, who spent the past few months shaming people for not getting vaccinated, has now conceded that vaccinated hospitalizations are increasing much quicker over the past eight weeks.

We are already seeing this in other countries as well, following in Israel's path, where the majority of those hospitalized with COVID are fully vaccinated. In Ireland, a total of 54% are fully vaccinated.

Worst of all, COVID deaths are beginning to seep back into nursing homes, despite nearly all the residents being vaccinated. They are being misled with a false sense of security and no proactive treatment or preventives to protect them.

Now that the vaccines are no longer working and the mass vaccination appears to have made the virus worse through a leaky vaccine syndrome known as "the imperfect vaccine hypothesis," why are we all not uniting behind early treatment? Notice how no other governor aside from Ron DeSantis is even promoting the monoclonal antibodies, much less making them more accessible and telling everyone to get treated on day one. I can't tell you how many emails I get from my show listeners who complain they can't access the monoclonal treatments for various reasons in some states. Why would our government not make sure every American is as inundated with information about the monoclonals as they are with information about the vaccines that are already obsolete?

There are no good answers to this question that do not reveal a very dark and sinister motivation. But the answer is likely related to why the government-medical establishment has declared war on all early treatments and has refused to approve outpatient antibiotics and steroids for treatment, much less ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and several dozen other promising therapeutics. By ensuring that there is zero approved outpatient treatment, our government has trapped nearly every American who has not been infected – vaccinated and unvaccinated – into a death trap in the overrun hospitals. And that seems to be exactly where they want us.

Horowitz: The government’s dark and senseless war on ALL early treatments



It's not just about hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Our government-medical establishment cartel is opposed to any and every known useful tool of pre-emptive, early, and late treatment for COVID, and it will be opposed to anything that comes out in the future. Put aside any preconceived notions about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which have already been slandered in the media. Let's pick a new drug that most people likely have never heard of: fenofibrate.

The government has already admitted that the vaccine efficacy is waning, vaccinated people are beginning to die of the virus, and we are in need of, at minimum, parallel solutions. In comes the Jerusalem Post earlier this week with a headline, "$15 drug gets COVID patients off oxygen support in under week – study." The outlet reports on an Israeli study showing 14 of 15 patients on oxygen were cured within a week after being given fenofibrate, a very cheap, safe, and effective FDA-approved drug commonly used for people with high cholesterol and designed to reduce triglycerides. There have been over 11 million prescriptions filled annually.

The trial tested the drug against the most common dangerous effect of COVID-19 – the cytokine storm that causes the hyper-inflammatory response in the lungs. "We know these kinds of patients deteriorate really fast, develop a cytokine storm in five to seven days and that it can take weeks to treat them and for them to get better," said Hebrew University Prof. Yaakov Nahmias, who carried out the study. "We gave these patients fenofibrate and the study shows inflammation dropped incredibly fast. They did not seem to develop a cytokine storm at all."

Given that in our hospitals, the medical establishment has failed to advance treatment one iota beyond the failed remdesivir and low-dose dexamethasone cocktail in a year and a half, the obvious question is why our government wouldn't jump on this lifesaving treatment that already has such a robust safety profile, much better than that of the vaccines. Well, it's the same reason our government and establishment refuse to endorse – and even restrict – dozens of other similar cheap, effective, and safe repurposed drugs.

However, the bigger question is whether this drug, like so many other proposed repurposed antiviral, anti-inflammatory, antihistamines, anti-coagulants, and androgen blockers, is so effective even at the late stage of illness, why not use it at the first sign of trouble, outpatient, when you can avoid hospitalization and suffering and have an even greater chance of it working to avoid the inflammatory reaction to begin with?

Well, there is already a study out on outpatient efficacy, and American doctors – the few who still care to save lives – have been treating people with fenofibrate outpatient, along with other drugs, with a great deal of success. Earlier this month, researchers from the U.K. and Italy published a study in the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal finding that the drug may be able to reduce infection – much less severe disease – by 70%.

"Our data indicates that fenofibrate may have the potential to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and also virus spread," said co-author Dr. Elisa Vicenzi of the San Raffaele Scientific Institute. "Given that fenofibrate is an oral drug which is very cheap and available worldwide, together with its extensive history of clinical use and its good safety profile, our data has global implications."

Thus, one can make the argument, as is the case with ivermectin and nasal irrigation with a 1% Betadine solution, that not only are these cheap repurposed drugs lifesavers, but they do a much better job stopping the spread – something everyone agrees the vaccines have failed at.

Of course, the naysayers will suggest that the Israeli study sample size was too small and the European one was only a lab study. But the promising mechanisms of action of fenofibrate and other cholesterol drugs like atorvastatin have been known for months and have been successfully used by American doctors. Why has the NIH failed to conduct greater studies on this and dozens of other cheap drugs for a fraction of what was spent on the ineffective remdesivir?

The medical establishment is acting as if this is still March 2020, but the reality is that there are many American doctors who have already saved thousands of people with these safe, cheap, repurposed drugs for well over a year. One such doctor is Ryan Cole, a brilliant Mayo Clinic-trained pathologist and owner of the largest independent medical diagnostic lab in Idaho. He has been using fenofibrate along with ivermectin and several other therapeutics with perfect success. To him, the mechanism of action of this drug against COVID is particularly important.

"COVID appears to cause metabolic lung changes with accumulation of fats in the air sacs of the lungs," observed the pathologist, who has lived and breathed this virus for 18 months. "Those with buildup of these fats tended to have poorer outcomes. Fibrates break down the accumulation of these fats in the lungs and secondarily decrease the damaging cytokine levels in patients taking these medications. This decrease of cytokines would appear to thereby decrease the potential secondary lung fibrosis in those who suffer the severe pulmonary sequelae of COVID."

Cole also noted that fenofibrate also has antiviral qualities because it "bends/destabilizes and distorts the receptor binding domain of the spike protein and inhibits the virus' ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor. It appears in these lab studies to be effective against all variants. Observational reports from numerous colleagues report a shortening of the severity and length of the disease course when this commonly used medicine in North America, with an excellent safety record, is added to other early treatment protocol medications."

So why wouldn't the government jump on this and quickly commence more studies?

Cole continues: "Pending large trials under way, and based on observational data, mechanisms of action, and a strong safety record, it makes sense in the face of a quickly spreading variant to consider this medication as an additional tool in the armamentarium of early treatments to help doctors alleviate the severity of COVID in their patients."

Other doctors have been treating COVID for months with atorvastatin, a statin-based drug targeting high cholesterol. It is hands-down the most prescribed drug in America today. An analysis from UC San Diego Health of more than 10,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients across the country found that those using statins prior to infection were associated with a more than 40% reduction in in-hospital death and a greater than 25% reduction in the risk of developing a severe outcome.

One point that naysayers fail to understand is that nobody is suggesting that any one therapeutic is 100% effective all the time for everyone. Treatment for any ailment usually involves multi-drug cocktails. Thus, several of these over-the-counter and prescription drugs, plus supplements and vitamins, have a near 100% outcome for any doctor I've spoken to who actually uses them early on in the viral stage. One thing is certain: Zero outpatient treatment has 0% efficacy.

Thus, the beef the FDA and NIH have with these doctors is not with ivermectin alone, just like it wasn't about hydroxychloroquine. Their beef is with anything that works.

Just to give a small sample of what's being used with success that is backed by pathology and clinical studies, there are hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fenofibrate, atorvastatin, famotidine, fluvoxamine, nitazoxanide, colchicine, budesonide, celecoxib, and multiple androgen blockers. For many, it's also appropriate to prescribe an antibiotic like azithromycin or doxycycline. Then there are solid over-the-counter supplements and medicines, such as aspirin, NAC, quercetin, melatonin, and curcumin that all have great data behind them, not to mention the full panel of vitamins (beginning with vitamin D) and zinc. Plus, there is amazing data behind doing regular nasal and oral rinses with a 1% Betadine solution, which has been proven to lower the risk of hospitalization 19-fold.

The key is to hit hard, hit early, and hit with a multi-pronged approach. Why has this been completely obstructed from 99% of COVID patients for well over a year? Isn't it time for a second opinion?