Ildo Frazao/Getty Images

Horowitz: FDA allows pharmacists to practice medicine while banning doctors from practicing

A pharmacist can now practice medicine, but a doctor will lose his license for treating COVID patients and vaccine injuries.

In 2021, we witnessed one of the most remarkable dynamics unfold in the history of American medicine. An order came down through the corporate pharmacy cartel to start illegally practicing medicine by denying prescriptions written by doctors to treat COVID patients who lacked any other options. It wasn’t just ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but doctors had prescriptions for antibiotics, steroids, and nebulizer treatments denied because “there are no treatments for COVID.”

Never mind the fact that having no approved treatments was all the more reason to prescribe off-label to treat thrombosis and pulmonary inflammation, the latter of which we deal with all the time in asthma, COPD, and pneumonia with some of the drugs these brave doctors were prescribing.

Fast-forward to July 2022, and the FDA approved on Wednesday any pharmacist to “prescribe” Pfizer’s Paxlovid on the spot without a prescription! Suddenly, the establishment finds a sense of urgency to get people treatment early when it comes to greasing the skids of Pfizer.

The juxtaposition of banning doctors from prescribing long-standing approved and safe drugs with allowing pharmacists to prescribe novel and experimental drugs is astounding. Say what you want about drugs like hydroxychloroquine, but if you wanted to venture into the uncharted waters of pharmacists prescribing (not just dispensing) drugs, a drug like that would be a good candidate. But to start this precedent with Paxlovid?

There are no long-term safety studies on this drug. It is mixed with a heavy-duty AIDS drug – ritonavir – which has an FDA black box warning for potential death when prescribed with several fairly common drugs that seniors might be taking. Worse, Paxlovid is contraindicated with 33 common classes of drugs, many of which most seniors vulnerable to COVID are already taking, including statins and steroids. Most seniors are on some form of statin.

Furthermore, the drug’s efficacy, especially for the current variants, is particularly dubious given that it now has a common “rebound” effect, in which symptoms come back even worse, as in the case of Dr. Fauci himself. There is also a common complaint of “Paxlovid mouth,” in which people have a lingering metallic taste in their mouths for a long time after taking the drug. Finally, there are growing concerns based on studies that Paxlovid is creating mutations in the virus. So, if we are seeing these problems up front, can you imagine what we don’t know about its long-term safety profile?

To take a drug like this and allow pharmacists to prescribe it while empowering the same pharmacists to block doctors’ prescriptions of budesonide and azithromycin is simply astounding. Consider the fact that so many vulnerable people have contraindications with Paxlovid. Some might suggest, “Well, aren’t pharmacists who are versed in pharmacology even more astute to contraindications?” However, those touting this talking point are forgetting that if most people have a contraindication, what do you think the pharmacist is going doing about it? Either they are overlooking it, or they are unilaterally making the decision to take the patient off the other drugs for that week. That is a decision that requires a knowledge of the patient, pathophysiology of the other ailments, and a risk-benefit analysis against COVID. That can only be done by a doctor. Pharmacists can now illegally practice medicine, but doctors are blocked from doing so.

The lesson of this juxtaposition is clear. If a certain product becomes part of the “spirit of the age,” all laws, prudence, science, and medical norms are thrown out the window in order to promote the new idol – be it Pfizer’s shot or therapeutic. This is why they are now allowing Pfizer to produce endless products without proper control groups or even clinical trials and foist them upon babies. However, if a product might challenge the idol of the age, then no law, social norm, or medical norm will stop them from banning the drug. Hence, a Nobel Prize-winning wonder drug can’t even be prescribed by a doctor, but a new, risky half-AIDS drug can be prescribed by a pharmacist.

We witnessed this trend throughout the mass vaccination regime in the pharmacies. I had pharmacists admit to me they were vaccinating age cohorts for initial doses or boosters before they were officially approved. Again, these are novel products that, at a minimum, are associated with over 1 million adverse events composing over 14,000 categories of injury on VAERS. Just myocarditis alone has over 40,000 reports, and CDC researchers admitted in JAMA that it’s “likely” underreported. Yet that was totally OK. No shots are turned down. Say what you want about the off-label drugs the patriot doctors are using, but they are definitely safe and are not associated with myocarditis, paralysis, and autoimmune disorders.

The upshot of this decision is that big pharma gets what it wants all the time. The FDA is completely compromised. As Dr. Pierre Kory, co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, told me, “We must start advocating for a pathway for repurposed medicines to be evaluated and approved by independent experts who are free of any ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This would dramatically increase the number and efficacy of treatment options for not only COVID, but many other diseases.”

Horowitz: Gov’t watchdog reports internal allegations of political interference in science at NIH/CDC/FDA



"Respondents from CDC and FDA told us they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because they feared retaliation." While these words from a brand-new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report are not earth-shattering to anyone paying attention over the past two years, they are a bombshell coming from a government agency.

The GAO just released a report on political interference in scientific decisions, based on interviews with employees of the four HHS agencies most responsible for the coronavirus response. The findings were derived from personal interviews as well as tips offered to a confidential hotline set up for the investigation. The investigators’ conclusion, which they conveyed in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees and committees overseeing HHS, was that these agencies “do not have procedures that define political interference in scientific decision-making or describe how it should be reported and addressed.”

The four agencies subject to the GAO investigation were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).

The GAO investigators revealed to Congress that "a few respondents from CDC and FDA stated they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings." What were the consequences? "Some of these respondents believed that this potential political interference may have resulted in the politically motivated alteration of public health guidance or delayed publication of COVID-19-related scientific findings."

Oh, so you mean political science, cronyism, and fear of retaliation explain why dangerous novel vaccines and therapeutics got immediate approval as standard of care (and even used for mandates) despite sketchy data and no established safety profile, while dozens of promising already-FDA-approved off-label drugs were ignored or denigrated – all for politics? Yeah, no kidding.

The reason this is so earth-shattering is not that pay-for-play is new to government agencies, such as the EPA or the DOD, for example, where outside cronies use politics and money to corrupt good public policy all the time. It’s that our very lives, liberty, and bodily integrity have now been pegged to the whims of “science.” Thus, the agencies tasked with studying that science are not only run by political science, but have zero procedures in place to root out the inevitable political control of that science, which results in nothing short of life-and-death decisions.

Moreover, these agencies suffer from a particular moral hazard in the sense that the very corporations most likely to corrupt the science and poison the bodies of the people pay the bills and salaries of these agencies. Prior to 1992, the FDA was prohibited from accepting fees from drug companies. Following the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allowed it to collect fees, “user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug approval process,” according to the FDA’s website. How “important” is this role? By 2017, Big Pharma paid 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget. Much of the agency’s funding comes from the “nonprofit” CDC Foundation authorized in that 1992 bill, which is funded by companies like Pfizer and Merck. Science magazine reported in 2018 that nearly half the doctors and scientists on the FDA’s various advisory committees received funding from Big Pharma companies to get their drugs approved.

Private emails released via FOIA revealed several months ago that the CDC Foundation worked with Facebook, Merck, the WHO, and other pharma entities on an “Alliance for Advancing Health Online” initiative to control the narrative. So whether it’s issues of off-label early treatments, vaccine safety and efficacy, science about asymptomatic transmission, or the threat of COVID to children, every morsel of information put out by the HHS agencies is influenced and controlled by pharma and Big Tech to steer a specific outcome that will always benefit Big Pharma.

Gee, is it any wonder why the FDA has just approved a failed and toxic drug like remdesivir even for babies and toddlers as standard of care for $3,000, while refusing to offer even tacit approval for existing, fully approved drugs like fluvoxamine, budesonide, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin? They didn’t even complete the study on remdesivir for babies, and it won’t be finished until next year! In fact, even this week, the FDA continued to horse around with the Nobel Prize-winning ivermectin, while approving Merck’s true horse drug Molnupiravir, which is so dangerous that even the media has attacked it.

Hold your horses, y'all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn't authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19\u00a0\u2026
— U.S. FDA (@U.S. FDA) 1650979144

Oh, and now HHS can work with the DHS’ new “Disinformation Governing Board” to enforce Big Pharma fascism on behalf of their benefactors.

This is not your grandfather’s bureaucratic pay-for-play scheme. This affects the lives and bodies of hundreds of millions of people. There used to be a limit to how much they were willing to bend life science for political science and greed. Now, there is no limit.

There’s a reason why the pharma fascists and the biomedical tyrants need this degree of control, collusion, subsidization, and censorship to succeed in their plot. At a recent Canadian parliamentary committee hearing, the president of Astra Zeneca Canada could not answer why the company vigorously lobbied governments for complete exemption from all liability.

"Indemnification clauses" protect manufacturers of #vaccines from liability. Today at the Foreign Affairs Committee the President of @AstraZenecaCA could not answer basic questions about why indemnification clauses were asked for and how they apply. #cdnpoli #COVID19pic.twitter.com/VO0xIi3a6i
— Garnett Genuis (@Garnett Genuis) 1650914059

I think we know the answer. They can’t afford accountability and liability, and they can get away with ensuring they will never be held responsible. The only immunity the shots convey is for the manufacturers. Who is going to hold them responsible? Can you name the number of Republicans running for office this year on the promise to alter the powers of HHS and its relationship with Big Pharma? You won’t need more than one hand to count the names.

Horowitz: COVID supplemental bill is Senate GOP’s final leverage point to fight pharma fascism



Even after Republicans squandered their leverage for the remainder of the fiscal year by approving the omnibus, they still had one more leverage point. The Biden administration was requesting a supplemental spending bill for yet more COVID funding because, evidently, Pfizer’s $54 billion in revenue is not enough. Rather than using the bill as a hostage to ban COVID fascism, compensate those injured by the shots, and establish investigations and oversight of the vaccines and COVID policies, Republicans agreed to more unconditional funding of the same entities responsible for this horror.

Over the past two years, our government has bankrupted us into oblivion – with $5.8 trillion of fiscal bills and trillions more in Federal Reserve monetary manipulation – over funding the pandemic response, which has been destructive in all its policies. Recently, the San Francisco Federal Reserve identified “the combination of direct fiscal support introduced to counteract the economic devastation caused by the pandemic" as one of the major culprits for inflation. Rather than banning lockdowns, mandates, and dangerous shots and instead funding early treatment, Republicans participated in all this spending. Now they think it’s not enough. But the policies undergirded by these expenditures are even worse than the fiscal impact.

Earlier this week, Republicans agreed to a deal to spend another $10 billion on the pandemic, with $5 billion of the funding going into the coffers of Pfizer, Moderna, and Merck to fund their drugs and therapeutics. While negotiators, led by Mitt Romney, claim the money is reprogrammed from unspent accounts, everyone should be asking why the Big Pharma giants need more money. In what way have the shots, Paxlovid, molnupiravir, and remdesivir been shown to slow the pandemic? Why was no funding allocated for researching off-patent, off-label drugs?

Folks, even in the most conservative estimate, the number of people injured by the shots is huge. Earlier this year, the Israeli Health Ministry conducted a survey of those who received boosters and found that 4.5% of them reported neurological side effects, 0.5% reported Bell’s palsy, and 0.3% reported being hospitalized. And this was just in the first 30 days after receiving a shot, with no effort to study long-term effects. If you extrapolate those numbers for 550 million doses administered here in the U.S., that is a cataclysmic number of people who need help.

Now that CDC researchers have agreed that myocarditis entries in VAERS are likely underreported – not overreported – there is no reason to believe the other entries aren’t also a minimum reflection of the scope of safety concerns. How can Republicans agree to throw more money at this injection campaign without banning the shots for children, creating stronger oversight, and helping pay for vaccine injury – given that the manufacturers are exempt?

You can catch an intimate glimpse into the relationship between the two parties from the way this deal was forged. The White House asked for $15 billion, which would include $5 billion in vaccine promotion for the world. Republicans rejected the foreign funding, but agreed to everything domestically. The White House badly wanted this new funding, and Republicans could have used this enormous leverage to finally break open the conversation on the underlying policies of this pandemic response. Instead they agreed to fund the corrupt status quo. Even if they want to spend more money on the Pfizerocracy, Republicans could have pushed for the following conditions:

  • A portion of the funding to be spent researching efficacy of existing safe off-patent drugs on the market.
  • A commission on the origins of the virus and what went wrong with our response.
  • A better monitoring system for people to submit claims of vaccine injury and receive reparations.
  • A provision ensuring that doctors are free to treat COVID patients using their medical judgement and clinical experience.
  • A ban on all mandates.
  • Research into the apparent negative efficacy of the shots and what went wrong with the clinical trials.

At a minimum, Republicans could have demanded a termination of the mask mandate on 2-year-olds on airplanes in return for giving Pfizer and Moderna more Monopoly money. That issue has become near consensus among the public, and even some Senate Democrats agreed to pass a bill ending the national airplane mandate. It passed the Senate 57-40 in March. Why not demand that it be attached to this bill as leverage against Biden and Pelosi?

Ultimately, because Biden announced the termination of Title 42 at the border, Republicans finally grew a backbone and have demanded that the continuation of Title 42 border removals be included in the bill. So that is at least something to celebrate. But why did it take a non-COVID-related issue for them to grow a backbone?

That Republicans can’t speak with moral clarity against the lockdowns, masks, mass vaccination campaign, and war on early treatment – even after two years of being mugged by reality – doesn’t bode well for us on the other side of the much-anticipated electoral victory in November.

Horowitz: How Big Pharma uses clinical trial gatekeeping to censor cures and cost lives



One would think the media learned their lesson after trumpeting a study dinging hydroxychloroquine funded by a porn star and then later retracted due to fraud. But the damage was already done, so instead, the media learned they can get away with promoting narrative-driven studies without any balance or circumspection.

Fast-forward nearly two years, and they are again frenetically promoting a study plastered on the front page of the New England Journal of Medicine website suggesting ivermectin doesn’t work against COVID, based on the “largest” randomized controlled trial, known as “The TOGETHER trial.” They know that this paper is so riddled with problems that anything else that is not narrative-protected would have been rejected on these grounds. But they also know that those issues are wonky and don’t fit on the bumper sticker and that the damage from the headline alone that this contrived paper was designed to elicit will already have been done, just as with hydroxychloroquine and anything else in the future that will threaten the Big Pharma greed and government control agenda.

Others have already thoroughly debunked the veracity of this study. You can read two comprehensive lists of flaws in the study here and here. However, these fatal flaws of the study are undergirded by a more fundamental problem in medical academia and research that will continue to plague medicine and cost lives well beyond COVID for years to come. It’s important to understand why Big Pharma created a self-fulfilling standard – brainwashing the public, media, and doctors into thinking that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are everything in medicine and that they completely trump cohort studies or meta-analysis as the gold standard of evidence.

First, only Big Pharma and Big Government (sorry for the redundancy) can afford large randomized controlled trials. This invariably allows them to be the gatekeepers of all evidence so that no competitors can break into the market. Also, randomized controlled trials, while definitely wielding certain strengths over others in the pool of scientific methods, can also be manipulated or fabricated more than other methods, and the smallest mistakes or deviations from protocol can make these trials worthless. The degree of transparency required to ensure that no such fraud took place is something that will never be demanded of the “cool kids” by the high-impact journals that are managed and funded by the same players involved in pharma (and media, tech, and government).

Thus, they have a brilliant marketing strategy whereby only large RCTs they control and published in journals like Lancet, NEJM, or JAMA and the like can make the cut. It’s no surprise that in the disclosure form of the study’s authors, they reveal they have taken money from all of the players that have manufactured or promoted the vaccines, remdesivir, Paxlovid, and molnupiravir – and trashed every other therapeutic approach.

Guess who funded the authors?pic.twitter.com/bjUy8ourT0
— Kevin McKernan \ud83d\ude42 (@Kevin McKernan \ud83d\ude42) 1648704318

Also, the TOGETHER trial appears to be funded by the Gates Foundation.

Really? I mean, there was no independent third party available to fund it who isn’t the biggest champion of the shots and hater of alternatives?

Isn’t it interesting how all of the studies published by scientists with no relationship to the competitors of ivermectin are the ones that seem to show benefit, while those with the ties to the pharma giants all show ivermectin, despite its 20 mechanisms of action, has absolutely zero efficacy?

It’s therefore not surprising to see the magical dichotomy between numerous other types of studies, smaller RCTs, or those published in non-vaunted journals showing drastically different results from ivermectin. C19early.com, a website that aggregates all of the studies on COVID therapeutics, did a pooled meta-analysis of 81 studies from 782 scientists of 128,000 patients showing together an 83%, 63%, and 42% improvement for preventives, early treatment, and late treatment respectively. There is a 56% improvement among the 33 RCTs conducted. But even excluding 27 of those studies that pharma/media allies bizarrely contested or that were low-powered, they found the same results with the remaining 54 studies.

Let’s not forget that even the Malaysian JAMA trial, which the media recently used to suggest that ivermectin failed a primary outcome, showed a 70% reduction in mortality – with slight under-powering (91% confidence instead of industry standard 95%) – among comorbid patients of whom 66% were already diagnosed with COVID lung on radiography. It should be noted that in the JAMA trial, patients in the trial arm were given the full five-day course and told to take it with food, which helps the drug absorb into the system, both of which did not happen in the NEJM TOGETHER trial.

All of these studies harmonize with the clinical experience of a number of doctors around the world who have nothing to gain and everything to lose but have seen remarkable turnarounds even among patients on ventilators. Likewise, consumers, despite being told this drug is for horses, are willing to crawl over glass to get hold of it, a degree of desperation they clearly are not showing for pharma’s choice therapeutics of remdesivir, molnupiravir, or Paxlovid.

Also, we know that government officials knew very early on that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine work against this virus. A letter written by a DARPA researcher to the DOD inspector general, obtained by Project Veritas, flatly stated, “Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.” Major Mike Murphy, a DARPA researcher in the now unclassified letter dated Aug. 13, 2021, added, “Of note, chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloroquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon (identified May 2020 as curative).”

Again, large randomized controlled trials have their place, but they are just one piece of the puzzle of the preponderance of evidence and are actually the most prone to fraud, when we know these same forces clearly fabricated the vaccine trials (anyone remember 90%+ effective and safer than any other vaccine?).

The gold standard of academic research methodology is the Cochrane Library. In 2014, the Library published an analysis comparing the quality of RCTs to other observational studies. The finding flies in the face of the idolatrous dogma pervading every corner of academia, medicine, and media. “We have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions,” concluded the authors.

There are times when other methods can be more revealing, or at least more transparent. There have been many retrospective cohort studies conducted on either health risks for severe COVID outcomes or treatment options for COVID. The research is often done by reviewing medical databases and comparing outcomes of patients who, for example, were given a certain steroid or antibiotic vs. others who had not and tracking their outcomes. Other papers studied outcomes of those with low vitamin D levels or high vitamin D levels upon entry to the hospital. This method allows the researchers to use massive sample sizes and easily analyze and adjust for confounders.

The databases are available to everyone, and the data was originally published for other purposes with no intent of it being used for something that became extremely political and even a cultural flashpoint. Analysts will debate the interpretation and different confounders, but the actual data being used is transparent. With the RCTs, on the other hand, the authors can pull out any data they want and start running with it, and the entire analysis and debate hinges on their honesty.

Or, for example, you could have a prospective observational cohort study that is not randomized or blinded, such as the massive Itajai, Brazil, study of 113,000 people in the trial group using ivermectin. It allowed researchers to more cheaply use a massive sample, all of the most detailed information about everyone uploaded online for all to see, and this was done in cooperation with Brazil’s very tightly controlled government-run health care system. Given that it’s not randomized, everyone screams about confounders, but the reality is that in that study, the sicker people joined the ivermectin arm. All of the data is transparent, and one could follow each outcome of every patient with every permutation of medical status and clinical diagnosis. No such data is available from the RCTs of the heavy hitters.

Trying to contrive reality in a man-made trial, as opposed to studying reality, makes any deviation from protocol a fatal flaw to the outcome. For example, one of the main problems with the NEJM TOGETHER study is that researchers did not confirm the exclusion of ivermectin use from the placebo arm. In that part of Brazil, ivermectin was very popular and available over the counter during that time.

They didn't check for ivermectin use in the exclusion criteria, in a region with 9x increased use of ivermectin, where it was available OTC, and recommended by the government.https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?utm_source=twitter&s=w\u00a0\u2026
— Alexandros Marinos (@Alexandros Marinos) 1648704837

This concern is magnified by the fact that 60% of the original placebo group appears not to have followed protocol, which is, independently, a fatal flaw of a study and might demonstrate there was a lot of crossover.

/4\nFinally, as an obvious nail in the coffin, if patients were randomly assigned, and the placebo was inert, and they had no reason to suspect they weren't getting the treatment they wished, there wouldn't be this ENORMOUS drop-out gap with only 40% adhering to placebo (WTF?):pic.twitter.com/N8v1HgMqb2
— Chris "Early Treatment" Martenson, PhD (@Chris "Early Treatment" Martenson, PhD) 1648732221

Whereas with the Itajai study published in Cureus, the study designers weren’t pretending to blind and randomize the participants and instead offered people ivermectin openly. 113,000 accepted. Just a minority, 13,000, declined. So, it’s much more likely that these people in the control arm didn’t go on their own and use ivermectin anyway.

A lot of people have been raising concerns about seemingly contradictory and fraudulent data points in the TOGETHER study. And it certainly seems suspicious why the other arm of this trial – fluvoxamine – was published last August, but it took an extra seven months to publish the ivermectin arm even though the two arms ended around the same time. Then, the study’s broad findings were teased out in three phases to maximize the news cycle.

It should be noted, however, that this fatally flawed study has been used to drive not one but three separate waves of "ivermectin doesn't work" publicity in the press.\n\nFirst in August when they published a single slide:pic.twitter.com/hnHk9dZ0e1
— Alexandros Marinos (@Alexandros Marinos) 1648705358

Very scientific and academic in nature! No politics whatsoever!

Again, people vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. The fact that so many people heard of miraculous recoveries from their friends and relatives and were willing to even overpay or order ivermectin from India demonstrates a degree of evidentiary power that cannot be quantified in any study. The fact that families would engage in expensive legal battles over ivermectin with loved ones in hospitals coupled with all the other positive studies (coincidently all published before the war on ivermectin began in government and media) stands in sharp contrast to all the recent ones published in high-impact journals. How do you square the contradiction? It would be one thing if those trials suggested a more modest degree of efficacy. But none whatsoever? Really? With 20 mechanisms of action as an antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anti-coagulant?

A thinking person would understand which side is more likely to engage in bias, has more opportunity to do so, and has more to gain. With this background, you can easily understand the tyranny of the large randomized controlled trial subterfuge of Big Pharma and that this has been used for years to promote bad drugs and box out potentially better ones.

Remember, the asymmetry of standards, media coverage, and censorship that has been applied to the Big Pharma drugs vs. dozens of other cheap drugs and supplements demonstrates that this is not just about one or two drugs, but a standard that will be used in the future to prevent countless lives from being saved.

Last week, Dr. Pierre Kory presented this chart from C19Early.com at a COVID summit in Paris, which is worth 1 trillion printed words…or dollars!

It just happens to be that the only drugs that have been approved are the ones that are the costliest.

Indeed, this is not just about ivermectin or COVID treatment. Anyone who cares about science, medicine, human compassion, and decreased human suffering headed forward should be very suspicious about the way “evidenced-based medicine” has been used as a cudgel to advance an agenda that is antithetical to science, medicine, and compassion.

Horowitz: The stifling of COVID treatment: The case study of aspirin



The war on all information that might help COVID patients survive wasn’t just limited to prescription drugs. There has been a complete blackout on over-the-counter supplements and common medicines that the public is very familiar with and that are readily available, which together could have reduced the mortality burden. A new study published in the heavy-hitting Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrates that it is criminal how to this day our government has failed to advise people on the simple use of aspirin at first sign of COVID.

Like many other people, Advil is my first go-to medication when I feel feverish. Yet when I thought I had COVID in July 2020 (I ultimately didn’t), even this non-doctor was familiar with the already robust academic literature behind the use of aspirin for COVID. So, I went out to the pharmacy and bought some aspirin. Now, a new study published in JAMA by George Washington University researchers shows a modest decrease in mortality just from this well-known over-the-counter drug even in those already hospitalized. Imagine if everyone had been instructed to have it on hand at the first sign of trouble.

The very large retrospective cohort study shows a 13.5% decrease in mortality among hospitalized patients who were administered a baby aspirin per day. The benefit observed was even higher among those with comorbidities. Additionally, and not surprisingly, the study found a 29% decrease in incidence of pulmonary embolism, which is a very common factor landing COVID patients in the ICU. The analysis looked at 112,269 hospitalized patients across 64 different U.S. health systems from January through September 2021. No extra incidence of adverse events was observed in the treatment group.

A separate smaller study conducted by the same lead author published last April of patients in 2020 found an even greater benefit, possibly because the original strain was less aggressive. In the underpowered study, aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of mechanical ventilation by 44 percent, ICU admission by 43 percent, and in-hospital mortality by 47 percent.

It is criminal that it has taken two years to get out this information. Moreover, these significant but relatively modest results were among those already hospitalized, and the dosage was just 80mg. Most of the doctors who aggressively treated COVID recommend taking aspirin from day one outpatient at the first sign of trouble. One could likely assume that the outcomes would be even better with the higher dose and earlier use before the micro-clotting set in with many hospitalized patients. Dr. Peter McCullough, a well-published cardiologist and internist who developed one of the earliest treatment protocols, noted that daily aspirin was part of his protocol for COVID patients already in 2020.

Chow et al, ANCHOR Investigators, ASA modest late impact. In "McCullough Protocol" since 2020 but much better to start in first three days of illness before microthrombi induced hypoxemia develops. Our dose has been 325 mg given very high UTXA2/B2 found in preclinical studies.pic.twitter.com/cUwSxhl8Gw
— Peter McCullough, MD MPH (@Peter McCullough, MD MPH) 1648217958

McCullough also told me that “the fact that aspirin did anything with inpatient mortality given that 98% of those in the study already received Lovenox, a strong blood thinner, speaks to the possibility of early aspirin at home having a much greater chance at beneficial outcomes.”

It should not have taken nearly two years for this information to be published in a high-impact journal, and even then, there are no signs of anyone in the medical establishment or NIH recommending its use.

Although acute COVID seemed to cause severe pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis, it was observed early on in the pandemic that many people ultimately died from blood clotting. This is why Dr. Pierre Kory, co-founder of the FLCCC, tells me, “Aspirin was a part of our early treatment protocol from day one.”

Dr. Bryan Tyson, who treated thousands at his urgent care in El Centro, California, used aspirin at the first stages of the pandemic and advised patients to take it for a while. “We started using full aspirin outpatient on our high-risk patients for 30-60 days depending on risk factors, and we never had a patient develop a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis or heart attacks,” said one of America’s most prolific COVID doctors. “We knew the spike protein was thrombotic, so we were more apt to use the full dose of aspirin.” Tyson, who is running for Congress in CA-25, believes it is criminal negligence for the medical professional not to pre-emptively treat the thrombosis, which can loom early in the disease and persist for quite some time afterwards.

This demonstrates that the war on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had nothing to do with something inherent in those drugs. We have witnessed the same blackout on non-prescription treatments such as NAC, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, Pepcid, and betadine nasal/oral rinse. Imagine a multipronged approach, with several of these plus some anti-inflammatory prescriptions early on. Well, that’s why Dr. Tyson had such an amazing success rate treating 7,000 patients.

Most of these treatments were downright attacked. Right as some of the studies were coming out about aspirin, the entire media bizarrely conducted a coordinated attack on Oct. 12, 2021, when the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force reversed decades of protocol and recommended against using aspirin to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Suddenly, anything that may be used for COVID turns into poison overnight!

The media has also savagely attacked the use of betadine nasal rinse, which studies have shown has tremendous benefit for killing the viral load early on.

Thus, whether it’s broadly beneficial supplements and vitamins, cheap over-the-counter medications, safe prescription drugs, or experimental drugs used specifically for respiratory distress, nothing that actually might work need apply for approval. After all, they can only have an emergency if the public is kept in the dark on how to deal with it on their own.

Horowitz: Ivermectin being confiscated by customs while Chinese fentanyl pours through the mail



Never before have drugs as safe as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin been deliberately demonized to the point that pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions. So countless Americans who were desperate for COVID treatment turned to Indian vendors for relief. Now, I’m getting numerous complaints from podcast listeners that they are having their packages confiscated by customs and the FDA. Meanwhile, Chinese fentanyl pours through the mail and other lethal drugs come over our border in plain sight, as even dark red states relax restrictions on marijuana. Welcome to a perfect morally bankrupt America.

Some of us never thought our government was capable of getting tough on border security, but one listener sent me a notice from the FDA’s Division of Northern Border Imports at a Chicago airport showing that her package is being held at customs. No, there are no illicit drugs. The package contained ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc. All three are being held – even the zinc!

In the Notice of FDA Action, the inspection officials hide behind the fact that Section 801(a) of the FD&C Act gives them authority to go after products made by foreign facilities that aren’t proven to meet their standards. However, we all know that this has nothing to do with concern that somehow the products have manufacturing faults or impurities, but rather a back-door means of banning the FDA-approved ivermectin (and anything else that happens to work to treat COVID).

Federal courts have ruled in the past that the FDA can’t effectively use an import alert to change the rules of admissibility for a range of products without prior notice. For example, in 1992, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled (Benten v. Kessler) that an import alert banning previously admissible abortifacient drugs constituted a substantive rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Although officials don’t claim to ban ivermectin in this notice, that is clearly their intent based on their laser-beam focus on this drug.

And speaking of enforcement priorities, perhaps their time would be better spent on searching imports of Chinese fentanyl, you know, the drug that is killing tens of thousands of people per year. The fentanyl comes in the mail and also comes from the Mexican cartels, which get shipments from China. The open-borders mass migration being induced by the Biden administration is the perfect ploy for the cartels to get their poison into our country. Isn’t that a more pressing issue?

It is shocking that government is attacking a drug that already is considered a safe, essential, and wonderous medicine, with FDA approval for years. It’s the last candidate to choose to begin an unprecedented and illegal war against long-standing medicines.

Once a drug is approved and particularly safe, we don’t even need data on efficacy as long as there’s informed consent. Even so, 53 studies from 48 independent teams in 22 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation against SARS-CoV-2. Even if one wants to quibble with relying on a few of them alone, the preponderance of evidence, in conjunction with understanding its 20 mechanisms of action against SARS-CoV-2, makes it incontrovertibly effective to some degree, and certainly in conjunction with other anti-inflammatories and supplements.

Just last week, University of Miami researchers published a retrospective study in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases of mortality outcomes among COVID patients treated with ivermectin versus those treated with remdesivir. The results showed a 69% reduction in mortality for those using ivermectin as compared to remdesivir, with a very high confidence interval. Incidentally, 69% is the exact reduction in mortality indicated in the Malaysian randomized controlled trial published in JAMA that Big Pharma tried to use to discredit ivermectin (by pursuing a random and impossible mid-level end-point). The outcome was slightly underpowered (at 91% confidence interval instead of the standard 95%), but again, the preponderance of evidence shows it works. And what about remdesivir? How is that even still on the market?

So, while ivermectin is treated worse than fentanyl, blocked at the ports, and shunned by pharmacies, Biden is now issuing an order that people can test for COVID and automatically get Pfizer’s and Merck’s drugs at the pharmacy. Let’s get this straight: One of the best drugs on the market with full approval for years is criminalized — with pharmacies having the ability to block it — yet two very new emergency-approval drugs with dangerous mechanisms of action, no independent proven efficacy beyond the manufactures’ own propaganda, and numerous contraindications with the very people for whom it is approved (high risk) can now be administered by a pharmacist — without a doctor? Our government has now made doctors into drug cartels and pharmacists into doctors, enabling Walgreens to block safe drugs and illegally administer dangerous and novel drugs without a doctor’s prescription!

There is no question that the war on off-label drugs is being waged by Big Pharma, which controls the global governments and the media. This news comes at a time when Dr. Tess Lawrie released a film showing how one researcher for the World Health Organization made a complete U-turn on support for ivermectin, leaving no doubt that strings are being pulled from the top.

What’s the GOP response? While there are numerous bills circulating in legislative bodies, very few of them have been signed into law. In South Dakota, with a 32-3 GOP majority in the Senate, a 62-8 majority in the house, and Kristi Noem as governor, the bill to ensure doctors can safely prescribe ivermectin was defeated. Yet South Dakota voters will have the opportunity to allow recreational marijuana in the state via a ballot referendum in November. Alabama is another allegedly conservative state that has allowed a recreational marijuana bill to pass out of a Senate committee, while completely failing to take action on a bill ensuring doctors are not punished for prescribing an FDA-approved drug.

The fact that the war on safe, effective, and established treatments is occurring precisely during the period of the most liberal deregulation of substances previously regarded as dangerous, as well as the expedited use of novel and emergency therapies, should tell you everything you need to know about the state of medicine in this country.

Horowitz: US spent $1 billion on failed remdesivir – cash that could have helped save lives



Why in the world would our government reject nearly every cheap, safe repurposed drug with literature showing efficacy against COVID while embracing an expensive drug that was so toxic to the kidneys that it had to be pulled from an Ebola trial? Well, now we have a billion reasons.

There is no doctor in the hospital who will look you in the eye and tell you that remdesivir works. Yet, despite its risk of causing organ failure, our government has refused to suspend its status as standard of care, much less take it off the market, over a year and a half after it was approved and clearly netted no positive results. Why? Follow the money. Modern Healthcare reported last week that hospitals spent $1 billion on Gilead’s remdesivir, more than on any other drug during the pandemic. As the article notes, this is the first time in a decade that AbbVie's rheumatoid arthritis biologic Humira did not top the list for most money spent on a hospital drug.

However, this is not really about the hospitals. It’s about the government paying off the pharma lobbyists who own them. After all, most of the pandemic hospital payments came from some form of government program allocations. According to a document obtained by STAT News, the Biden administration misallocated $7 billion in congressionally earmarked funds intended to help hospital staffing and supply and repurposed the funding to pay off the drug manufacturers for the vaccines and failed therapeutics. In total, $16.7 billion has been siphoned off for the drug companies since the beginning of the pandemic.

Thus, the next time someone asks you why cheap, safe, repurposed drugs with decades-long safety profiles were rejected to accommodate new dangerous drugs, don’t act surprised or attempt to explain the malfeasance using science and medicine. The NIH admits that remdesivir could cause liver toxicity and kidney failure. The WHO recommends against using the drug, and a study published in JAMA showed it increased hospital stays. Now, they are attempting to take their road show to outpatients.

Last week, the FDA announced approval of remdesivir for pediatric use as well as for the elderly for “mild to moderate COVID,” even outpatient. Bizarrely, even for outpatient use, they are still using the intravenous version of the drug, which should raise concerns as to why an oral treatment has not come on the market for the past 18 months. What do they know that we don’t?

Also, remember, unlike ivermectin, which has 20 mechanisms of action spanning through the inflammatory and blood-clotting stages of the disease, remdesivir cannot work once the inflammatory reaction occurs. In what universe of science and medicine would remdesivir become the standard of care for a billion dollars while ivermectin and numerous other common repurposed drugs that cause no serious side effects are essentially criminalized? And let’s never forget that remdesivir was developed by UNC Chapel Hill in the same lab that originally applied for the gain-of-function research on ACE-2 binding of coronavirus spike proteins.

But remdesivir isn’t the only scandalous drug on the block. In fact, the approval and payoff of big pharma have been corrupt and concerning with regard to every COVID drug on the market. Take Merck’s molnupiravir, for example. The drug is potentially mutagenic, carcinogenic, and showed no meaningful efficacy even in early stages of COVID during the second half of the trial. On the printed label for the drug, the FDA issued the following warning on reproductive health:

So, we have zero proof of efficacy, no long-term trials, no cancer studies, but they already know you must use contraception for three months after taking the drug! As CNBC reported last year, molnupiravir was found to be lethal to embryos in pregnant rats, in addition to causing birth defects and reducing fetal body weight. In the dog trials, it also caused birth defects and interfered with bone growth of young pups. Last month, the New York Times reported on a University of North Carolina study that found mutations in hamsters after they were administered the drug. The authors suggest that studies are needed to tell whether these “mutations in host DNA could contribute to the development of cancer, or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus or through incorporation into sperm precursor cells.”

Again, our government is spending billions of dollars on this, while banning cheap, safe drugs. Oh, and molnupiravir was never tested against the current dominant variant. Just like with remdesivir, try defending the government’s approval of molnupiravir juxtaposed to its war against hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

What about Pfizer’s Paxlovid? That drug for sure smells like a rose because it was made by Pfizer, and everything the company makes is at least “90%” effective, right? Well, because it’s mixed with AIDS drug ritonavir, it is contraindicated with 32 entire classes of drugs, many of which are universal to those at risk for COVID because of other underlying conditions. It also comes with the following FDA warning:

Think about the gravity of this situation: Why would we ignore a drug like ivermectin that is so safe and has 20 mechanisms of action, to the benefit of an expensive drug that is still being studied, is contraindicated with so many common drugs, and only has one front-end mechanism of action that is unlikely to work beyond the first three days of symptoms?

In a letter to the Lancet, a group of British doctors recently warned that “the use of ritonavir was complicated by high pill burden, poor tolerability, and drug interactions.” Specifically, they point to “interactions that might lead to life-threatening adverse events” in those who take “statins, steroids, sedative hypnotics, anticoagulants, and antiarrhythmic therapies, many of which are prescribed separately in older populations (aged ≥70 years) at the greatest risk of complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Thus, typically, you need multi-drug therapy to deal with a complicated case of COVID, yet we are going to sacrifice those drugs for Pfizer’s drug that couldn’t work after 72 hours?

And let’s not forget, just like with the vaccines, remdesivir, and molnupiravir, there are no trials on its use against Omicron. It’s true that a computer model study did show efficacy of Paxlovid as a protease binder against Omicron, but guess what? That same study concluded, “Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity and may be the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant.” Plus, ivermectin can be used later in the disease because of its anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulant properties.

We now know from a letter written by a DARPA researcher to the DOD inspector general, obtained by Project Veritas, that our government knew early on that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have auspicious mechanisms of action against SARS-CoV-2. “Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response,” wrote Major Mike Murphy, a DARPA researcher in the now unclassified letter dated Aug. 13, 2021. “Of note, chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloroquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon (identified May 2020 as curative).”

How many lives could have been saved if a fraction of the funding placed into the shots, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and Paxlovid were instead used to research the best combination and dosage of cheap repurposed drugs? That is the billion-dollar question we will never have the answer to without a Nuremberg trial 2.0.

Horowitz: Chasing our own tails has become the new pandemic



As for those of you who are left, I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight. They will run as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall, even though no one is pursuing them. ~ Leviticus 26:36

The hospitals throughout America are stressed and stretched thin. No, unlike during other times of the pandemic, there is not a flood of people coming in with blood clotting and respiratory distress. According to doctors throughout the country, they are stressed from endless testing of a mild virus, which creates logistically consuming quarantines and strains due to all of the staff who must quarantine, not to mention all those fired for not getting the shot that doesn’t work. Thus, the entirety of the strain on the hospitals now is coming from the response to the virus, not the virus itself. When will we finally flatten the curve of fear?

Within several weeks, it became apparent from South Africa and some European countries that barely anyone got clinically ill from Omicron. Yet, of course, in America, everything must always be different, or so we are told. Mask mandates are being brought back, the panic levels are through the roof, and the establishment is doubling and tripling down on the vaccines that quite literally don’t stop the virus. But now, two years into this virus, some media sources are finally reporting the truth about the COVID hospitalization numbers.

“I have not intubated a single COVID patient during this Omicron surge,” said Dr. Jeanne Noble, an associate professor of emergency medicine at UCSF, in an email to SFGate. “We have a total of 5 patients with COVID on ventilators across our 4 hospitals. An average of 1.25 intubated COVID patients per hospital is a good news story."

So what is the problem in the hospitals? Fearful patients who aren’t sick, quarantining doctors for a cold, and likely all of the staff members fired for not getting the shots that clearly failed to stop this spread. We are chasing our tails! SFGate reports that Dr. Noble determined 70% of all patients in the hospital for COVID were really there for other reasons but got ensnared in the universal testing regime. "The real COVID crisis that our hospitals are facing is a severe staffing shortage that is compromising the quality of our care," Noble said. Even the vast majority of those who do come in for COVID “need no medical care and are quickly discharged home with reassurance."

Noble credits the high vaccination rates for the lack of critical illness, but South Africa will forever serve as a control group against this theory, given that the country did not see a surge in seriously ill patients despite a low vaccination rate. Clearly, the variant is milder.

Further south in Los Angeles, two-thirds of the COVID patients were detected through mass testing but were presenting to the hospital for other reasons.

As other countries experience mild illness even among seniors, so many of the public health officials are attempting to suggest that somehow in America even children are getting seriously ill from Omicron, which makes no sense. It turns out that they are in the hospitals for routine seasonal viruses but test positive for COVID, revealing an irony known to any hospital worker — that we have long lived with winter pathogens for years that have hospitalized children in greater numbers than COVID. Yet to this day, many children are forced to wear masks for hours a day.

Fox5 reports that in San Diego, “Pediatric hospitalizations are on the rise, but not from COVID.”

“The kids are doing OK with the Omicron variant,” said Dr. John Bradley, director of infectious diseases at Rady Children’s Hospital.

“COVID isn’t the problem,” Dr. Bradley said. “It’s all the other viruses we’re seeing every year like RSV, and we’re beginning to see influenza, but there’s no kids admitted in the hospital COVID-pneumonia, period.”

Over on the East Coast in New Jersey, just 49% of the COVID hospital numbers can be considered as there “primarily because of their COVID diagnosis.” What about the children? Just 27 of the 82 children with COVID in the hospital are there for COVID as the primary diagnosis, with no word as to how many are in respiratory distress.

This insanity is beautifully depicted by Phil Kerpen’s tally of overall hospital numbers. While the number of COVID “patients” has grown by 74,000 since a month ago, the number of total admissions is down by nearly 8,000. In other words, there is absolutely no surge on the hospitals.

Nope. https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1480692722189148160\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/Qyugd0n2b0
— Phil Kerpen (@Phil Kerpen) 1641860164

It would be like counting cold cases in the hospital every winter.

Just how much has Omicron attenuated vs. Delta? A new preprint study of 52,000 COVID patients treated in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care system in December found that Omicron had a 52% lower hospitalization rate, a 74% reduction in the odds of being treated in the ICU, and a 70% shorter average hospital stay. “Zero cases with Omicron variant infection received mechanical ventilation, as compared to 11 cases with Delta variant infections throughout the period of follow-up,” observed the research team, which included staff of the CDC.

Any sane country would react to Omicron by living life normally and just treating outpatient the people who need treatment. Instead, officials are doubling down on firing staff, panicking over a cold, and denying treatment for the few who still need it. Now, the Biden administration has ordered insurance companies to cover even more testing while denying coverage of ivermectin!

What the circuitous cycle of testing, fear, mandates, and hospital staff shortages demonstrates is that to the extent there is an emergency, it’s the urgency to end the emergency declarations.

Horowitz: The treatment nihilism of our government continues unabated



The calls have become all too familiar. People who know that I’m friends with a bunch of top-notch doctors who actually treat COVID call up desperately searching for someone who will help. Last week, I got a call from a family member of a 47-year-old diabetic who suffers from epilepsy and hypertension who was in a Maryland hospital on BiPAP with a blood oxygen level of 83. This man kept away from people for two years and got three shots, but they failed him, and now he was getting nothing but the dangerous remdesivir. Oh, and the monoclonal antibodies are not available. This man now suffers the fate of hundreds of thousands of other people who are victims of therapeutic nihilism.

Just how much does the federal government want to choke off all forms of outpatient treatment for COVID, despite the evidence of so many affective therapeutics? As they make the monoclonal antibody treatments scarcer by the day, the NIH has now manipulated its own website to cover up its original position on ivermectin.

In October, I referred people to the NIH’s chart 2E, which placed ivermectin and nitazoxanide on the same footing as remdesivir in potential antiviral agents against COVID. At the time, I noted that while the NIH admitted in the chart that remdesivir (a big money-maker for hospitals) has the potential to cause kidney failure and liver toxicity, ivermectin and nitazoxanide were given the distinction of “generally well tolerated,” which is a term used to describe a near-perfect drug. I warned people to screenshot it (available on the Wayback Machine), lest the NIH remove or modify the page.

Well, it turns out that after many of us exposed the agency’s own position on ivermectin, it indeed removed the page, and instead, the URL takes you to an updated chart “2F” with changes. Updated on Dec. 16, the new chart specifically says that remdesivir is approved and the other two drugs are not. Additionally, it removes the status of “generally well tolerated” from ivermectin and nitazoxanide.

Here is a screenshot of the old 2E chart of side effects of ivermectin and nitazoxanide.

Now here is the updated version without the “generally well tolerated” status.

Remember, the original chart was updated on July 8, 2021, well into the pandemic. Nothing has changed since July other than ivermectin becoming mainstream in public knowledge. The approval status was the same then as it is now, and there is zero evidence of more side effects. In fact, millions of doses have been administered without incident, and certainly much more safely than remdesivir. Even if one were to suggest that the NIH is dinging ivermectin based on its own lies and rumors about people getting sick from overdosing on the horse paste (because government has made it hard to get the human pills), how could officials possibly take the distinction away from nitazoxanide? It’s too rare and expensive for people to use, and there is little evidence people used it, much less had adverse reactions to this very safe drug.

Keep in mind that remdesivir is not even a fully approved FDA drug, while the other two have been approved for years with stellar safety profiles. The market category for remdesivir is still listed on the FDA National Drug Code Directory as “Unapproved Drug Other” and shows end marketing dates of 9/20/23 and 8/31/22. Both nitazoxanide and ivermectin, on the other hand, are categorized as FDA-approved drugs.

Indeed, it would be quite illuminating to get hold of FOIA documents of correspondence leading up to these changes.

Just as with hydroxychloroquine in 2020, Big Pharma and the media-government complex waged a blood libel against a long-standing safe drug, as if somehow people were dropping dead from it when it was never observed in any prior data dating back decades. In September, New Mexico health officials claimed two people in the state died of ivermectin overdoses. We all knew at the time that it made no sense, but the damage was already done. Now TrialSiteNews reports that New Mexico Human Services Secretary Dr. David Scrase admitted in a Dec. 1 online press briefing that the two people indeed died of natural causes, according to the coroner.

“Now, Scrase has acknowledged that his repeated, what he called ‘offhand,’ assertions were groundless,” reports TrialSite. “Two deaths were not caused by ivermectin, a long-used generic drug that was emerging as a covid treatment. Instead, he said that the pair died because they ‘actually just delayed their care with covid.’”

TheNew York Times and many other large media outlets enthusiastically jumped on these false assertions, yet none of them have corrected the record. To this day, the government and media continue to conflate animal and human ivermectin, ironically driving more people into the animal version because they are illegally choking off the FDA-approved drug, which is listed among the WHO’s most essential medicines. All the while, none of these people or entities involved in the war on treatments seem to have a problem with remdesivir.

There is simply no satisfying answer as to why anyone in their right mind would think the cost-benefit analysis of remdesivir is better than ivermectin in any way. Also, when was the last time the government ever attacked doctors for prescribing a safe FDA-approved drug? Then again, this is not about ivermectin. Our government/media/pharma cabal opposes any and all cheap treatments for COVID the minute they become popular and refuse to even tell people to take aspirin to prevent blood clotting. In fact, they have already attacked aspirin, along with betadine nasal rinse, which has amazing data behind it.

Even if one somehow thinks that the 60+ ivermectin studies are not enough, fluvoxamine has solid data behind it from randomized controlled trials published in two of the top journals. A large, double-blinded randomized controlled trial published in the Lancet recently showed fluvoxamine reduced COVID-19 mortality rates by up to 91% and hospitalizations by two-thirds. A smaller clinical trial published in JAMA showed that zero COVID patients in the fluvoxamine group deteriorated during the course of treatment. Yet there is not the shadow of an intent by the federal government to even study this drug at a time when they concede both the shots and the monoclonal antibodies have waned. Florida is the only state that is promoting this as a treatment.

Dr. Brian Tyson, an urgent care doctor who has treated 7,000 COVID patients in Southern California, told me that pharmacies will give doctors trouble even over filling nebulized budesonide or antibiotics for COVID patients. “They are denying hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, Singulair, budesonide, Zithromax, and colchicine because they claim that there is no indication for COVID-19,” said Tyson in an interview with TheBlaze.

The problem is that, especially with the monoclonal antibody supply dried up, there are no “approved” treatments and there haven’t been for nearly two years. However, as Tyson says, “COVID-19 is not the problem; the symptoms from COVID-19 are the problem, and we absolutely have ways of treating or pre-empting those symptoms.”

“By blocking these prescriptions, there is no way to prevent the cytokine storm that leads to respiratory failure,” warned Tyson. “Withholding these drugs without any alternatives available should be considered malpractice on the part of these pharmacies who illegally practice medicine. We are seeing inflammation, thrombosis, and secondary pneumonias that need to be treated, and having to fight with a pharmacy over FDA-approved drugs is negligence that leads to loss of life or needless hospitalizations.”

Indeed, the FDA itself has made it clear that prescribing off-label is most appropriate when there are no other treatments available. The FDA has given clear guidance that physicians can always prescribe off-label FDA-approved drugs "when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient." In fact, the FDA has made it clear that there is a particularly strong rationale for prescribing off-label if there is no "approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition."

Clearly, the goal was never to flatten the hospitalization curve. The politicians and the hospital administrators (if not the doctors on the floor) are enjoying full hospitals and the power and money they bring in. Everyone knows the best way to clear the hospitals is to treat early and outpatient, when the virus is much easier to control.

Tyson likes to point out that it’s not a matter of any one drug that’s a magic pill, but multi-drug therapy that makes early treatment close to 100% effective. “We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explained in an interview last year. “We saw blood clots, so we used anti-coagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications. … It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.” This is why Dr. Tyson never lost a patient who came to him within the first week … out of 7,000. Why is nobody in power interested in discussing with him what he is doing right and trying to replicate it?

The utter insanity of the therapeutic nihilism was perhaps best summed up in a tweet Dr. Tyson wrote a few months ago before he was banned from Twitter. Yes, the doctor who likely treated more COVID patients than anyone in the country was banned from speaking. Here is how he summed up the pandemic:

If you see inflammation, use anti-inflammatories
If you see blood clots, treat blood clots
If you see pneumonia, treat pneumonia
If you see hypoxemia, treat hypoxemia
If you know it’s viral, use antivirals
If you do nothing, quit practicing!!!

Fully vaccinated Dana White contracts COVID-19, takes same treatment as Joe Rogan, 'feeling like a million bucks' in less than 24 hours



Dana White revealed he contracted COVID-19 during the Thanksgiving holiday, but he is already feeling better after being administered the same coronavirus treatment that Joe Rogan took when he was infected.

The UFC president appeared on "The Jim Rome Podcast" on Wednesday, where he provided a health update. White believes he contracted COVID-19 after going to his family's Thanksgiving celebration in Maine.

"We just went up to my place in Maine, and for Thanksgiving, it’s tradition, we go up there, and somebody had it, and we get back, and we all tested positive for COVID," White told host Jim Rome. "Literally the whole family and my family up in Maine, too."

White returned home on Saturday, but on Sunday, he noticed that he didn't have his sense of smell – a symptom of the illness.

"I cold plunge and steam every day," White explains. "So I get out of the cold plunge and steam, and I spray the eucalyptus and I was like, 'What the hell?' I couldn’t smell anything. So I opened the bottle and start sniffing the bottle of eucalyptus, and I'm like, 'Yeah, I got no smell.' I said, 'You know what this means.'"

"I literally got out of the steam and got on my phone and called Joe Rogan," White said.

“I get up, 9 o’clock Monday morning, and I get tested. He said get monoclonal antibodies in you as soon as possible, so I did," White said of Rogan's advice. "By noon, I had the monoclonal antibodies in me. Then he told me to do a NAD drip. I did that right after."

"I get up Tuesday getting ready to shave," he continued. "Cleaning my razor, I could smell the alcohol. My taste and smell were back by the next day by 11 o’clock. Then I took a dose of ivermectin. Then yesterday I did a vitamin drip, and today I’m doing another NAD drip."

"Could not feel better. I’m feeling like a million bucks," White exclaimed. "I’m doing two-a-day workouts for the next 10 days while I have COVID and I’m in quarantine. I got my smell and taste back in less than 24 hours."

Rome asked White, 52, why he consulted Rogan first before a doctor.

"Listen, I’m vaccinated," White responded. "It’s not like I’m some crazy anti-vax conspiracy theorist or some of that stuff but Rogan is a very brilliant guy. Very smart guy who talks to the best and the brightest out there, and I’m not a believer in the narrative."

"But at the end of the day, this is a free country. Cause what happens when you get this stuff, they tell you stay home for the next 10 days until you don’t test positive. That doesn’t seem smart to me. Just like when we went through COVID, I believe in finding solutions to problems and answers.”

"Rogan has worked with over 30 or 40 people that have done this and he swears by it, and he’s a good friend of mine that I’ve known for over 20 years. So yeah, I believe in what he’s saying. I believe the things he explained to me on how this thing works made sense to me," White said.

"If you got COVID, I would urge you to do this," White told Rome. "Not only did I believe in it before I did it, now I've actually done it. I'm on day three of COVID. Day three of COVID, smell and taste is back. I could not feel better and I'm doing two-a-day workouts while I'm going through COVID."

"I’m attacking this thing with the methods that Rogan has learned from some very smart people," he added. "I’m going to keep testing every two days until I’m negative and then I’m going to get back to work ASAP."

White said he and his family are currently in isolation. He hopes to attend the Ultimate Fighting Championship's next event on Saturday – UFC Vegas 44 at the UFC Apex in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"If I test negative, then absolutely, positively I’ll be there," he said. "I’m going to do the exact protocol that’s supposed to be done to make sure I’m clean and can go and be around people again. As soon as that’s 100% clear, then I’ll be back to work."

Previously, All-Pro Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers consulted Rogan on COVID-19 treatments after he tested positive for coronavirus. After subscribing to the same treatment that Rogan was prescribed, Rodgers was activated off the reserve/COVID-19 list, just 10 days after he tested positive for coronavirus — the earliest he was eligible to return.

On Oct. 28, the unvaccinated Rogan tested positive for COVID-19 and "immediately threw the kitchen sink at it." His treatment consisted of "all kinds of meds, monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak, prednisone, everything."

By Sept. 1, he said, "I actually feel pretty f***ing good."

On Sept. 3, Rogan, 54, tested negative for COVID-19.