Report: Biden administration wants to change how COVID hospitalizations are counted



The Biden administration is reportedly changing the way COVID-19 hospitalizations are counted in a way that critics have been demanding for months.

According to Politico, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are asking hospitals to change how they report COVID-19 patients. The federal government now wants hospitals to distinguish between people who go to the hospital because they have COVID-19 from those who are admitted to the hospital for other reasons, like a broken leg, and then test positive for the virus.

Changing the way COVID-19 hospitalizations are reported could have a cascading effect on the federal government's response to the pandemic. Masking requirements, social distancing guidelines, and other coronavirus restrictions are enacted by public health officials who use case counts and hospitalizations as key metrics to gauge the severity of the virus.

Since the surge of cases caused by the Omicron variant, hospitalizations have come to be seen as a more reliable measure of severe disease. Counting coronavirus cases relies upon accurate testing, and people generally only get tested if they experience symptoms or if they've come into contact with someone who had the virus, while deaths are a lagging indicator.

The goal of the Biden administration is to have national data present a more accurate count of Americans who have been hospitalized because of COVID-19.

"While the guidance and intent of the hospital data collection is to capture people who are admitted for Covid (vs with Covid), in practice the data reported varies by entity,” an HHS official told Politico. "Some entities may be able to delineate ... but we do not do this in the national dataset.”

The Biden administration is reportedly conducting a national review of hospitalization data to determine how many people went to the hospital for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge and how many people went for unrelated reasons but tested positive afterward. In one CDC report made public last week, a hospital in California found that 80% of its COVID-19 patients came to the hospital because of the virus while 20% were admitted "primarily for non–COVID-19 conditions."

Lower hospitalization rates would erase the stated reasons for COVID-19 policies that Americans have grown weary of after two years of the pandemic. The initial "two weeks to slow the spread" campaign led by former President Donald Trump and White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci in March 2020 was intended to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. In a world where hospitals are not overburdened and vaccines are readily available, there's little need for pandemic restrictions.

Critics of the Biden administration have argued for months that reported COVID-19 hospitalizations were inflated by the way they were counted. Some people who test positive for the virus in the hospital experienced only mild symptoms and were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Many have called for the CDC to change how hospitalizations are counted and revoke the pandemic guidelines.

Several states are already taking action to return to normal as Omicron cases have fallen. Democratic governors in Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey this week announced they will lift statewide mask requirements in schools in March. But the federal government has been slow to update its guidelines on masking and other policies.

On Feb. 2, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told reporters that hospitalization rates and death rates are the metrics the federal government will use to determine when it is time to lift pandemic measures like masking.

"We will continue to reevaluate, and we know people are anxious," Walensky said.

'Conservative Review' podcast host Daniel Horowitz is one strike away from a permanent Twitter ban



Blaze podcast host Daniel Horowitz of "Conservative Review" said Monday that his Twitter account has been temporarily locked after he tweeted about patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were fully vaccinated.

In an op-ed, Horowitz wrote that a tweet he sent "around 3 p.m. Eastern on Friday afternoon" was flagged as "misleading" by Twitter and taken down.

The offending tweet discussed how a family told Horowitz that one of their own who has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 has nevertheless been hospitalized with a coronavirus infection and is "getting crappy treatment" at the hospital.

"[Gov. Larry Hogan] stop lying about the statistics. 72% of covid deaths in the UK were vaccinated from weeks 49-52," Horowitz tweeted.

Twitter is OUT OF CONTROL. Just threw Daniel Horowitz in the Gulag for posting verifiably FACTUAL DATA. \nHe\u2019s in the clink for 7 days for THIS?\n@Twitter @RMConservativepic.twitter.com/KpZneU6AL9
— Shannon Joy (@Shannon Joy) 1641740165

Horowitz explained to TheBlaze that his tweet was responding to a claim made by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who said last week that a small minority of his state's unvaccinated population is "overwhelming hospitals."

Twitter labeled the tweet "Misleading" and prevented other users from replying to, sharing, or liking the tweet.

Horowitz wrote that his account was temporarily suspended "without warning or notice for cause" shortly after the tweet was flagged and taken down.

Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The social media platform has strict rules prohibiting users from sharing "false or misleading information about COVID-19 which may lead to harm."

"When Tweets include misleading information about COVID-19, we may place a label on those Tweets that includes corrective information about that claim," Twitter's Help Center states. "In cases where we determine there is potential for harm associated with the misleading claim, we will disable the ability for others to Retweet, Quote Tweet, or engage in other ways to prevent the spread of the misleading information." Such tweets will cause one strike against a user's account.

According to Twitter, tweets that will earn a label include, "False or misleading information that misrepresent the protective effect of vaccines, to make claims contrary to health authorities. Claims that misrepresent research or statistical findings pertaining to the severity of the disease, prevalence of the virus, or effectiveness of widely accepted preventative measures, treatments, or vaccines."

In his op-ed, Horowitz elaborated on his tweet and argued that Maryland's governor is wrong to solely blame the unvaccinated for a surge in coronavirus hospitalizations while data suggests that even people who are fully vaccinated can still be infected and hospitalized with COVID-19.

The notion that everyone in the hospital with COVID is unvaccinated was always an illogical proposition. Take Maryland, for example. According to Maryland’s COVID dashboard, nearly every senior alive has at least one shot, and over 92.5% of all those above 18 have at least one shot. Even if the unvaccinated still compose a relatively disproportionate share of the hospitalizations, there are simply not enough of them to go around to “flood the hospitals.” You can still say there is a degree of efficacy for some people for serious illness (pre-Omicron) without fully lying to people and exaggerating to the point that they believe almost nobody with the shots gets clinically ill.

The data cited in his deleted tweet included raw data from the latest U.K. Health Security Agency vaccine surveillance report that shows during weeks 49-52 of 2021 (December), a significant number of COVID-19 positive people who died had received at least one vaccine dose.

"If you add up all of the unvaccinated deaths reported following 60 days from a positive COVID test within that window (928) and divide it by all the total deaths (3,718), you get 24.95% of the deaths being unvaccinated. In other words, 75% of the deaths recorded during that period were indeed vaccinated, nearly all of them double-vaccinated," Horowitz wrote. "So, if anything, I do apologize for the misinformation in the tweet where I said the vaccinated accounted for 72% of the deaths. It was actually slightly higher.

"Obviously, given the age-stratified vaccination rates, this still shows some degree of efficacy against mortality for the shots," he argued. "For example, 83% of all deaths among those ages 80+ were vaccinated, but almost everyone in that age cohort is vaccinated. None of us discount that fact. But that is a very different story from saying that the overwhelming majority of deaths in raw numbers are among the unvaccinated."

Horowitz told TheBlaze his account has been locked for seven days. According to Twitter's Help Center, that means there are at least four strikes against his account. A fifth strike levied for violating Twitter's COVID-19 misinformation policy will result in a permanent suspension.

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.

Report: Fully vaccinated make up 30%-40% of COVID hospitalizations in Maryland counties — and the number is 'increasing rapidly'



Health data coming out of Maryland is reportedly leading to growing concerns about the waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, especially against the Delta variant.

What are the details?

While the data still shows that the majority of state residents hospitalized with the virus are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated individuals are starting to account for a larger share.

"Infections, illness, and hospitalizations are increasing rapidly among fully vaccinated people, according to data from the Maryland Department of Health and new research," WBAL-TV reported on Tuesday.

The outlet said the trend has led some public health experts to argue "it's time to reframe thinking" about the message on vaccines to note that they won't necessarily keep you from getting sick, but they will increase your chance of survival.

"Over the past three months in Anne Arundel County, about 30% of the people hospitalized with COVID-19 are fully vaccinated," the report stated. "There's a similar timeframe and trend in neighboring Howard County, where health officials said roughly 30% to 40% of people hospitalized with COVID-19 are fully vaccinated."

Data: More vaccinated people among hospitalized Marylanders www.youtube.com

Anne Arundel County Health Officer Dr. Nilesh Kalyanaraman blamed the trend on waning vaccine efficacy alongside the rise of the Delta variant.

"Because Delta spreads more easily and causes more severe disease, we do see some hospitalizations," Kalyanaraman explained.

A national trend developing among the vaccinated?

While the Maryland data is currently being framed as an outlier, there are indicators that it's part of a national trend.

Public health experts and mainstream media figures for weeks have inundated the American public with the line that unvaccinated individuals presently account for nearly all of the COVID-19 hospitalizations, usually citing a figure between 95% and 98%.

But, as TheBlaze's Daniel Horowitz pointed out earlier this month, those figures were pulled from a ranged 6-month analysis produced by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When looking more closely at the month-by-month figures, one can see that the percentage share of hospitalizations among fully vaccinated people has been steadily ticking upward since the start of the year.

In June alone, fully vaccinated people made up 16% of the nation's COVID-19 hospitalizations.

"Given the rapid acceleration of waning immunity, inquiring minds would like to know what that number will look like heading into September," Horowitz noted.

'Good reasons to get vaccinated'

Though acknowledging the new data as concerning, health experts in Maryland are still encouraging residents to get vaccinated as a way to boost their immune response against the virus.

"It's critical to get your vaccine to decrease your chance of getting hospitalized," Kalyanaraman told WABL. "And also it turns out, long-COVID, those lingering symptoms, are much less likely to happen in the vaccinated as well, so there are a lot of good reasons to get vaccinated."

Horowitz: CDC now admits 23% of hospitalizations in June — pre-leakage — were vaccinated



"Nearly everyone dying of the virus now is unvaccinated."

That has been the trope of anyone who has a platform or a modicum of power in America the past few months. And indeed, that is what we would expect from a vaccine that is as effective as the ones our government has traditionally endorsed. The problem is that a new CDC analysis, when coupled with Israel's experience of waning immunity, demonstrates that this statement is already untrue and will only become more obvious in the coming weeks.

"Population-based hospitalization rates show that unvaccinated adults aged ≥18 years are 17 times more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults," concluded CDC researchers in a new analysis of COVID hospitalizations from Jan. 1 to June 30. That sounds very compelling, but when you look at their chart on page 23, it offers a very different perspective and is an ominous sign for the coming weeks.

Throughout the past two months, politicians have repeated the line ad nauseum that 97% of the people in the hospital are unvaccinated. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who oversees one of the 13 states studied by CDC, claimed that 100% of all deaths in June were among the unvaccinated. But this analysis from the CDC states that instead, 76.6% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated, and that was in June before this wave got really bad. Given the rapid acceleration of waning immunity, inquiring minds would like to know what that number will look like heading into September.

As a stagnant percent of efficacy against critical illness (they've already given up on stopping transmission), this would not be a bad record for the vaccines. But given what we already know from Israel, our government needs to be honest with us about where things stand now.

Israel has already concluded that there is a "significant increase of the risk of infection in individuals who received their last vaccine dose since at least 146 days ago, particularly among patients older than 60." The CDC in this study also recognized that older people — who are both more vulnerable and were vaccinated earlier — composed a greater share of the vaccinated hospitalizations. So again, what is the true percentage of hospitalizations that are from vaccinated individuals, especially among seniors, as it stands now? Unlike in Israel and the U.K., our government refuses to publish that data, other than exaggerate with anecdotal numbers that are already contradicted by their own data from June.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as of earlier this week, "the percentage who have been fully vaccinated ranges between 7% and 40%, doctors say, depending on the time period measured." If I were a betting man, I'd say the time period means the more recent it is, the higher the percentage of vaccinated.

Another important point to keep in mind is that the CDC has instructed vaccinated people not to get tested in most circumstances. As such, there is a massive differential between the number of mild cases that are picked up incidentally in the hospitals among those who are unvaccinated (but automatically tested when they come in for surgeries or other ailments) and those who are vaccinated. Keep in mind that during a period of prolific spread, it is very likely that people coming to the hospital for non-COVID issues will either pick up the virus there or have just gotten over it but can still test positive.

It's also important to note that although the CDC found a much higher hospitalization rate among the unvaccinated, once they were hospitalized, the number and proportion of fully vaccinated persons admitted to the ICU or who died were similar to unvaccinated persons. Furthermore, "Median length of stay was significantly longer in fully vaccinated persons (median 5 days (IQR 3–8) v. 4 days (IQR 2–9), respectively." That might be due to the vaccinated cohort being more weighted toward older people, but again, these are the people who needed the vaccine the most.

If it is the position of our government, like in Israel, that everyone will need a booster, then it raises the obvious question: Who says that it will even work as well for the next five months as the first one did, and what is the cost-benefit analysis, given the widespread side effects of the shots and the fact that there are other early treatments available that are being suppressed? Meaning, now that vaccines do not stop symptomatic illness and their protection against critical illness wears off over time, we need to revisit the four most important questions:

1) What is the true extent of the side effects from the vaccine? Just in the VAERS system alone, there is a 98-fold greater risk of dying from the COVID vaccine than from the flu vaccine, and the FDA admits in its approval letter (p. 6) that VAERS "will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks" like myocarditis and pericarditis.

2) Once we know the vaccine wears off, why is there no concern about the leaky vaccine creating viral immune escape and allowing the virus to become stronger and more durable, inducing a vicious cycle of mass vaccination and antibody dependent disease enhancement reinforcing each other with each subsequent booster? This is what happened with the leaky chicken vaccine that induced Marek's disease, in which the vaccinated chickens were temporarily spared from serious symptoms but carried a much greater viral load, compared to those who weren't vaccinated. With Israel having vaccinated 80% of its adults, 25% of whom have been given boosters, they now have the highest case per capita rate in the world. How is this not a concern about some form of vaccine-induced viral immune escape?

Israel now has the highest current case rate in the entire world.Oddly, Israel was also the first country to vacc… https://t.co/DLxUkgABUR

— PLC (@Humble_Analysis) 1630437327.0

3) We are already seeing people hospitalized for COVID in Israel after the third shot, and data suggests that, just like with the first shot, people are actually more vulnerable to the virus in the week or so after getting the booster before it kicks in. Why are we not concerned about boosting during a period when the virus is circulating prolifically?

4) Given the censorship of dozens of potentially lifesaving preventive and early treatments with a much better safety record – from monoclonal antibodies on down – isn't that a better route to pursue?

On that last point, it's important to keep in mind that the "vaccine" is the one form of preventive that is being sanctioned. So, by definition, those who don't have it will be hospitalized more because they have zero options outside the hospital. Were we to even up the score with safer and more effective treatments, we'd be seeing a very different split in the hospital numbers. Then again, those who are vaccinated also need early treatment.

Those who say that nearly every COVID death at this point is avoidable are 100% correct. If we would allow and even guide all primary care doctors into prescribing early and often for their patients, the virus would have been done a long time ago.

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?

Horowitz: The censorship of ivermectin is the biggest story of COVID



Last week, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister launched a $1 million grant to convince "hesitant" communities to get themselves vaccinated with one of the experimental shots on the market. But if people are hesitant about an experimental gene therapy that has already racked up a record number of serious adverse events on the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), why not spend the money persuading people to get ivermectin, a safe and effective early and prophylactic COVID treatment that has been approved by the FDA and the WHO for other uses for years?

In a recent video clip from one of his forums, Pallister was asked by a caller about another kind of hesitancy – not hesitancy to vaccinate, but "hesitancy to talk about ivermectin" and other early treatments. The caller cited the evidence about this drug, which "does no harm" and causes no risk to try it. The female caller completed her thought by asking him, "Are we doing anything with that, and if not, why not?"

What does a Canadian Premier look like when completely controlled by the CCP and Big Pharma? @BrianPallister 1v3rme… https://t.co/LefgXGqwXH

— Mr. & Mrs. Fred Fredderson (@FredFredderson1) 1622044181.0

As if to illustrate the caller's point, Pallister responded to her question about hesitancy to talk about ivermectin by ... refusing to talk about ivermectin! Like a programmed robot, Pallister blinked his eyes during her question, then proceeded to answer by discussing more about the vaccine! "We're pursuing domestic research that we hope can lead to better vaccine availability in the future, perhaps not during this wave, but when we need boosters in coming years," answered the Manitoban premier. He then quickly finished the discussion, put on his mask (even though he is vaccinated), and concluded the session.

This video embodies the criminal behavior of the political class in censoring lifesaving, cheap treatments like ivermectin. Even in vaccine-crazed Israel, they found in a small study of 30 patients that all of them recovered with the use of ivermectin, 29 of them within 3-5 days. In India, which was a hot spot until recently, much of the country began using ivermectin. Delhi saw a 99% decline in cases after beginning universal use of ivermectin. While cases were going down everywhere after reaching some level of immunity, a 99% reduction from April 24 to June 7 is remarkable and much steeper than anywhere else in the world following a big wave.

A similar dynamic played out in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is now 98% off its peak of COVID cases in late April. India's overall reduction since its peak five weeks ago was 76%, more in line with what we saw in the U.S. and Europe, once the peak wave passed and a modicum of herd immunity kicked in.

India is carpet-bombing Covid with ivermectin, with a production now increased to 77 million pills/month.Brazil i… https://t.co/W18nNghX85

— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1622793757.0

Despite Fauci warning about the Indian "Delta" variant being more deadly and continuing to push vaccines as the only solution, in reality, India's death rate from COVID — even after achieving what appears to be herd immunity — is just one-seventh of our COVID death rate and that of other European countries! India's death rate is even lower than Israel's and fairly close to that of Finland, which largely escaped the worst of the virus so far.

And no, the secret sauce is not the vaccine, because fewer than 15% of Indians have received at least one dose, while over 50% of Americans and 60% of British citizens have already had one shot.

India's Covid cases continue going down, and meet the UK's, coming up.India has extremely low coverage of vaccine… https://t.co/ngyluCxGxl

— Gareth Hawker (@GarethHawker) 1623138530.0

The secret sauce is natural immunity, which is much stronger than the vaccine, along with arming people with early, cheap treatments to obtain that natural immunity as risk-free as possible.

In a remarkable contrast from the legal establishment in the U.S., the Indian Bar Association served Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, an Indian pediatrician who is the chief scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), with a legal notice for spreading disinformation about ivermectin. Dr. Swaminathan recently tweeted that the WHO advises against use of ivermectin outside clinical trials:

Latest update to @WHO #COVID19 treatment guidelines on ivermectin. Only to be used in clinical trials, evidence for… https://t.co/uGRO5L1djY

— Soumya Swaminathan (@doctorsoumya) 1617224508.0

Some Indian states have taken this guidance to heart. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the newly elected governor, M.K. Stalin, excluded ivermectin from the treatment protocol and opted instead for the expensive and ineffective remdesivir. The result? Just the opposite of Delhi. The virus continued to peak for an extra month and only recently began to recede at a much slower rate.

The state of Goa, which is also in the south, began offering ivermectin to all adults on May 11. The 87% drop in four weeks is remarkable.

Ditto for Karnataka, another southern state neighboring Tamil Nadu, that sanctioned the use of ivermectin.

In Uttarakhand, another ivermectin state in the north, cases dropped by 95% since the peak.

The point is that, while herd immunity seems to be the major factor, the states that used ivermectin seemed to experience an earlier peak and a steeper decline in cases than those that shunned ivermectin. The troubling question is what these curves would have looked like had the WHO recommended ivermectin before the virus began to spread and if it had used at the first sign of trouble with the same religious fervor as vaccines, remdesivir, and masks. We will never know, but we can surmise that the curves would have been milder based on the results we are seeing from those countries that used it once they were in a world of trouble.

Mexico experienced a sharp increase in cases during the winter, but enjoyed much success in the regions that used ivermectin. Last month, Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum held a press conference where she claimed a study showed ivermectin decreased the likelihood of hospitalization in her large metropolis by between 52% and 76%.

The question everyone needs to answer is this: With all of the adverse reporting from the experimental vaccines, why do the global authorities continue to push them like candy without further study, when they refuse to greenlight ivermectin, with 29 randomized controlled trials vouching for its efficacy with no side effects and 4 billion doses dispensed over decades?

Following the money trail will be very instructive in answering this question. Why would GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, pay for Google AdWords to warn against ivermectin? Why are Big Pharma and Big Government censoring EVERY alternative treatment, including the ironclad research behind preemptively bulking up one's vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc levels? Those questions provide the answer to the censorship of ivermectin. According to GAVI's website, the "Gates Foundation pledged US$ 750 million to set up Gavi in 1999" and "the Foundation is a key Gavi partner in vaccine market shaping."

Well, boxing out all alternative treatments is one way to engage in "vaccine market shaping." There's nothing quite like a market with just one show in town.

Indeed, the Wuhan lab is not the biggest story of COVID. It's the global genocide that is taking place at the hands of those who claim to care most about COVID, yet ensure that any effective treatment is not made available to the public.

Horowitz: CDC applying tighter definition to COVID hospitalization — for those who are vaccinated



Over the past year, any living organism that passed through a hospital and tested positive for the virus was counted as a COVID hospitalization, or subsequently as a COVID death. This held true regardless of the symptoms exhibited by the patient and even if the individual already had natural immunity to the virus. Now that the reputation of the vaccines is on the line, the CDC is currently redefining classification of COVID hospitalizations, according to a new email correspondence obtained by TheBlaze.

On May 28, the CDC published a report on breakthrough cases, tabulating the number of known cases and hospitalizations among those who received all the recommended doses of one of the approved vaccines. The CDC found a total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections and broke down the outcomes as follows:

"Based on preliminary data, 2,725 (27%) vaccine breakthrough infections were asymptomatic, 995 (10%) patients were known to be hospitalized, and 160 (2%) patients died. Among the 995 hospitalized patients, 289 (29%) were asymptomatic or hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19. The median age of patients who died was 82 years (interquartile range = 71–89 years); 28 (18%) decedents were asymptomatic or died from a cause unrelated to COVID-19."

After an entire year of lumping all COVID hospitalizations and deaths into one pile without attempting to discern whether they really had serious symptoms or whether they truly died of the virus, suddenly the CDC is differentiating between these categories. A woman who goes by the name Emma Woodhouse on Twitter emailed a press inquiry to the CDC asking about the nature of those designated as having been hospitalized or deceased "from a cause unrelated to COVID-19." She asked the authors of the report whether the asymptomatic category in the report is distinct from "hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19" or whether "hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19" and "or died from a cause unrelated to COVID-19" is another way of saying (or definition for) "asymptomatic".

Woodhouse posted on her Twitter the response from the lead researcher for the CDC's Vaccine Breakthrough Team, who confirmed that these were indeed two distinct categories:

Lead researcher for CDC's Vaccine Breakthrough Team has confirmed that fully-vaxed patients who are hospitalized &… https://t.co/9ZSyUq5ij5

— Emma Woodhouse 😁 (@EWoodhouse7) 1623031058.0

Thus, the CDC took the liberty to designate anyone who was asymptomatic or, in their view, was clearly in the hospital for other reasons, as definitively not COVID-related hospitalizations or deaths. Woodhouse demonstrated the dichotomy between designations for those vaccinated vs. those unvaccinated in the following graphic:

6/ To be clear, I agree with the approach in the left image, as a starting point for reporting ALL data - not just… https://t.co/4OVqJgM6IL

— Emma Woodhouse 😁 (@EWoodhouse7) 1623032286.0

The CDC has spent an entire year guiding state health departments to code every case of someone who tests positive for the virus and then subsequently goes to the hospital or dies as an official COVID hospitalization or death. Now, when it comes to the political science of vaccine promotion, they are suddenly willing to align the case count with the true science of coding deaths.

Over the weekend, Alameda County, California, was in the news after the county's health department announced that 25% of its previously reported 1,634 COVID deaths were not really caused by the virus. It's hard to believe that there is anything unique about Alameda County. This over-counting is likely endemic of every county and is particularly evident now that the virus is in very low circulation.

When it comes to the vaccine, we are now observing the prudent way to track and quarantine a virus, based on severity of symptoms, not PCR tests, especially for a virus that for most people does not present with serious symptoms.

To illustrate the absurdity of the tyranny of quarantine by PCR test, Jon Rahm was leading the Memorial golf tournament by six strokes, but was forced to pull out after testing positive for the virus. He was criticized in the media for not having been vaccinated, but as the CDC shows, one can easily get an asymptomatic case post-vaccination (just like pre-vaccination), and yet the public health agency doesn't consider it a threat!

Perhaps the vaccines solved the pandemic after all, just not in the way they were intended to.

Studies find California child hospitalizations from COVID-19 were 'grossly inflated' by at least 40% — findings 'likely' to be the same across US



The reported number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in California was "grossly inflated," potentially leading policymakers and parents to believe kids were at higher risk from the virus than they actually are, according to two new studies.

"Hospital Pediatrics," a journal of medicine for pediatric care, published two research papers Wednesday that found child hospitalizations for COVID-19 were over-counted by at least 40% in the state, and researchers believe it's likely national numbers were similarly inflated. New York magazine reported commentary from Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleague Amy Beck, an associate professor of pediatrics, that explained the studies' findings.

"Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of clearly distinguishing between children hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 found on universal testing versus those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease," they wrote. The reported hospitalization rates "greatly overestimate the true burden of COVID-19 disease in children." In an interview, Gandhi told New York magazine "there is no reason to think these findings would be exclusive to California. This sort of retrospective chart review will likely reveal the same findings across the country."

New York magazine summarized the key findings from the two studies:

In one study, conducted at a children's hospital in Northern California, among the 117 pediatric SARS-CoV2-positive patients hospitalized between May 10, 2020, and February 10, 2021, the authors concluded that 53 of them (or 45 percent) "were unlikely to be caused by SARS-CoV-2." The reasons for hospital admission for these "unlikely" patients included surgeries, cancer treatment, a psychiatric episode, urologic issues, and various infections such as cellulitis, among other diagnoses. The study also found that 46 (or 39.3 percent) of patients coded as SARS-CoV2 positive were asymptomatic. In other words, despite patients' testing positive for the virus as part of the hospital's universal screening, COVID-19 symptoms were absent, therefore it was not the reason for the hospitalization. Any instance where the link between a positive SARS-CoV2 test and cause of admission was uncertain the authors erred toward giving a "likely" categorization.

In the second study, at the fifth-largest children's hospital in the country, out of 146 records listing patients as positive for SARS-CoV-2 from May 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020, the authors classified 58 (40 percent) as having "incidental" diagnosis, meaning there was no documentation of COVID-19 symptoms prior to hospitalization. Like the first study, and as has been typical around the nation, this hospital implemented universal testing of inpatients for SARS-CoV-2. An example of incidentally SARS-CoV-2-positive patients are those who came to the hospital because of fractures. Patients who may have had COVID-19 symptoms but who had a clearly documented alternative reason for them, such as a child with abdominal pain and fever found to be related to an abdominal abscess, were also deemed to have incidental diagnosis. The study categorized 68 patients, or 47 percent, as "potentially symptomatic," which was defined as when "COVID-19 was not the primary reason for admission for these patients, and COVID-19 alone did not directly require hospitalization without the concomitant condition." Examples of these patients were those with acute appendicitis, since that condition includes gastrointestinal symptoms that may also present in COVID-19.

There are two important implications of these findings. The first is that policies that disproportionally affect children, like school closures or the cancellation of youth sports or summer camps, were implemented after reports greatly overstated the risk of children being hospitalized from COVID-19.

"Children have suffered tremendously due to policies that have kept schools and recreational facilities closed to them, and the burden has been greatest on children who are low-income and English-language learners," the researchers noted in their commentary. New York magazine pointed out "the hospitalization numbers for children were already extremely low relative to adults — at the pandemic's peak this winter, it was roughly ten times lower than for 18-to-49-year-olds and 77 times lower than those age 65 and up." If 40% of those hospitalizations were reported inaccurately, the actual rates are "vanishingly small," and those policies implemented to protect children may have done far more harm than good.

The second implication relates to the Food and Drug Administration's "emergency use authorization" for COVID-19 vaccines for children. If the studies' findings show that COVID-19 "poses a dramatically lower incidence of pediatric hospitalizations than the data have shown thus far," then the need for an emergency authorization of vaccines for kids to protect them from going to the hospital is perhaps less than previously thought.

Stefan Baral, an infectious diseases epidemiologist and physician at Johns Hopkins, told New York magazine the studies' findings "reinforce the importance of going through a meaningful process to understand the risks to children" from the vaccines.

The FDA on Monday approved Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 12-15 under its emergency use authorization, finding that the vaccine is safe and effective for individuals 12 and older.