Horowitz: The country the COVID cultists don’t want to discuss



It’s the dirty “I” word that shall not be named. And by that, I don’t mean ivermectin, but Israel.

During the lockdowns, the COVID cultists ignored the existence of Sweden as the ultimate control group on the greatest experiment on human civilization of all time. Now they don’t want to acknowledge the existence of Israel as the ultimate study group on the greatest experiment on the human body of all time.

Last September, Philip Dormitzer, the chief scientific officer at Pfizer, described Israel as “a sort of laboratory” to “see the effect” of his company’s vaccines. This was because, as he put it, Israel “immunized a very high proportion of the population very early — so it’s been a way that we can almost look ahead: What we see happening in Israel happens again in the US a couple months later.”

Well, now we have a full year of data from the most boosted country on earth and the only one to administer four doses. So what are the results?

What you are looking at is not just a case rate chart. This is an ICU admission chart. And this is the daily death chart:

It is true that Israel, with its younger population and lower obesity rate, has fared better than many other Western countries throughout the pandemic, but why is it experiencing its own worst wave now – much worse than before any of the shots were administered?

In other words, precisely after most of Israel’s population got the third shot and even many of the seniors got fourth shots is when they experienced their worst crisis ever – not just of mild infections but serious cases.

Israel's 4th booster shot is a roaring success pic.twitter.com/NmbZitx6NK
— Dr. Eli David (@Dr. Eli David) 1643828114

This would be disturbing enough if we were still dealing with the Delta variant, but presumably almost all the cases in Israel are from Omicron. How in the world is the most vaccinated country on earth – Pfizer’s private lab – worse off than ever before in the pandemic with the mildest variant? After all, a study from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospital system found that Omicron had a 74% lower ICU admission rate and a 91% lower mortality rate than Delta.

According to professor Yaakov Jerris, director of Ichilov Hospital’s coronavirus ward in Tel Aviv, “most of our severe cases are vaccinated.” “They had at least three injections,” Jerris told Channel 13 News in describing the typical COVID patient. “Between seventy and eighty percent of the serious cases are vaccinated. So, the vaccine has no significance regarding severe illness, which is why just twenty to twenty-five percent of our patients are unvaccinated.”

This explains why the vaccine is not blunting the trajectory of the wave, but could the vaccine perhaps explain why Israel appears to be getting it worse than other countries?

On the one hand, there have been a lot more overall cases of Omicron relative to the number of serious cases, but we should not be seeing these numbers of deaths and serious hospitalizations in the most vaccinated nation. Remember, this variant began in South Africa, a country with just 27% of the nation having gotten the shots, and barely any boosters in sight. Yet the country’s peak death rate per capita during the Omicron wave is about half that of Israel’s.

Covid deaths per capita in Israel are now twice the peak of the rate seen in South Africa.\n\nWhich is unprecedented.\n\nWhy is the relative performance deteriorating so much?pic.twitter.com/HMjNt8azjw
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1643525747

With the sky-high HIV rate in South Africa, I would sure bet that Israel is a much healthier country in general. Life expectancy in Israel is 83 (ranked #12 in the world), while in South Africa it is a morbid 65. So why is Israel having so much difficulty with what Hong Kong researchers found to be essentially an upper respiratory infection?

Is it that perhaps their problems are not despite the endless boostering but because of it? What if the problem for the vaccine is not Joe Rogan but its own track record? At this point, it’s hard to see how we are not experiencing some form of original antigenic sin, in which repeat boosters teach the body to respond improperly to a virus, particularly to one that is different from the original target of the vaccine, rendering the vaccine increasingly an off-target response to the pathogen before us.

I spoke with Dr. Dan Stock, an Indiana family physician who is an expert in functional medicine and immunology (he’s the doctor who gave a “viral” statement before a school board), to get his thoughts on why a leaky vaccine would potentially make people sicker from a respiratory virus. He explains how the sugar high of superficially high blood-based antibodies could actually harm the body’s effort to fight respiratory viruses, which tend to require more of a cytotoxic T cell response in the respiratory tract rather than generalized blood-based antibodies.

“One thing that can go wrong in a viral immune response is that to make antibodies, the immune system has to make fewer cytotoxic T cells, and therefore fightthe virus less effectively. In this case, the vaccine can tell the immune system to switch from a mostly cellular immune response with T cells to a mostly humoral immune response with antibodies. Then even if the antibodies are neutralizing and the proper type (not a given with experimental vaccines), the infection will go untreated and destroy tissue. ADE (antibody dependent disease enhancement) is characterized by much higher levels of antibody production than is seen with natural infection, and a much lower Tc response. It’s this second nuance of viral immune responses that misleads many to equate great antibody responses with immunity.”

So why did the vaccines appear to be effective on some level at first, but then wane, and why would Israel have more of a problem with waning immunity? This is where booster mania comes into play.

“Whatever the immune system is taught to do the first time it sees the pathogen’s components, it memorizes that response and gets better and better at doing that with each successive exposure to the virus, even if it’s wrong,” warns Stock. “With the failed RSV vaccine in the 1960s, Marek’s disease vaccine in chickens, and these COVID-19 vaccines, immune response appeared protective at first. Then, as the body gets better and better at responding the wrong way – constantly reinforced by boosters – all hell broke loose. The vaccine is likely to teach your broken immune system to react the wrong way, you’re stuck in ADE, and won’t see it until it’s too late. The hallmark of ADE is failing immune response against all strains of the pathogen as time goes on, as we saw with RSV and Dengue, and we’re seeing with COVID-19 vaccines.”

Thus, the more the virus changes, according to Stock, not only will this particular vaccine lose its efficacy, but it will go negative because the body won’t produce as many T cells in the parts of the body that are infected. Dr. Stock coauthored a more in-depth article explaining the concerns of original antigenic sin at Trial Site News several months ago.

Is this what is going on in Israel, and will this problem spread to the rest of the vaccinated Western world? Who knows? But if Israel was supposed to be the lab, and the experiment failed, why are we continuing it in the United States?

As Pfizer’s chief scientist warned, “What we see happening in Israel happens again in the US a couple months later.”

Horowitz: Is it time for unvaccinated passports?



If a suspicion that vaccine-free people are spreading a virus would necessitate and justify vaccine passports, then shouldn’t the reality of vaccinated people spreading the virus at higher rates necessitate and justify “unvaccinated passports”? After all, if the shots really work so amazingly against serious illness — a premise undermined by Scottish data — the vaccinated by definition cannot be harmed by the unvaccinated. On the other hand, if the vaccinated are really unnaturally spreading the virus at a higher rate, there is the potential for worse outcomes with some form of vaccine-mediated viral enhancement, as was observed with the unvaccinated chickens devastated by the chickens vaccinated with the leaky Marek’s disease shot.

While none of us support such apartheid in either direction, if this is really about “following the science,” the continuous granular data from the U.K. would justify “unvaccinated passport” requirements to live a functional life. This chart made by my friend Don Wolt from data culled from the U.K’s latest weekly vaccine surveillance report is worth a million shots:

The negative efficacy for the double-vaxxed was so appalling that the U.K. has jettisoned that data point and now only compares the rates of infection for the unvaxxed to the triple-vaxxed. But even the boosters have evidently already gone into negative efficacy territory. As you can see, for the first time, the rate of infection among the triple-vaxxed, even for the 18- to 29-year-old cohort, is now higher than that of the unvaccinated. The degree of negative efficacy for all the older groups continues to increase in each weekly report, demonstrating a troubling trend of the vaccine making people more vulnerable to infection even quicker than we saw with the double-vaxxed last year. Unlike with all the vaccine-free adult cohorts, the infection rate actually got worse in this week’s report in several age cohorts among the vaccinated.

Why're infection rates growing faster, since Omicron arrived, in boosted adults \u226550? In cohorts \u226540, why does infection rate growth increase with the length of time since the cohort became >50% boosted? Why is rate growth in the unvaxxed fairly consistent across age groups?pic.twitter.com/3KUPPOmitH
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1643486988

The latest numbers measure the infection rate from the last week in December through the first three weeks of January.

Here is the raw data from table 13 showing the negative efficacy even of the triple-vaxxed relative to the unvaccinated in the adult cohorts:

How are none of the public health officials concerned about this trend? They tried to claim that the two shots really needed a third dose in order to work. However, we are seeing the booster go negative on an even shorter timetable than the original doses. How can someone look at these numbers and not conclude that the shots are problematic? Why is there no concern that a shot that seems to make someone more likely to get the virus is also causing vaccine-mediated enhancement in the form of either antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE) or original antigenic sin?

Consider the fact that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was evidently shocked to find out, half a year after the shots were released, that they did not stop transmission. In an interview with the New York Times, Walensky describes the moment she realized the injection didn’t stop transmission as a “heart sink.” How could she not have known this was a non-sterilizing vaccine from the beginning? And if she didn’t know it failed to stop transmission, and now we see it goes negative over time – even after a booster – then how can we be sure she understands the concept of ADE and vaccine-mediated viral enhancement? With vaccines, a half a loaf is not better than no loaf; it’s often a poisonous loaf.

Moreover, notice how quick the CDC was to terminate the monoclonal antibodies based on the premise that they don’t work for Omicron, but somehow the vaccine-induced antibodies, which were even more outdated, would still work, even as the triple-vaxxed rack up greater infection rates.

As such, what will it take to finally start investigating the correlation between the shots and some form of viral enhancement? Everyone knows that the testing ground for the vaccines is Israel. Ninety percent of the people there are double-vaxxed, 80% are triple-vaxxed, and unlike in any other country, 500,000 people are quadruple-vaxxed. So how are they doing? Israel now has more recorded cases so far in January than all of 2021 combined. Even if the country ramped up its testing rates, we should not be seeing such results. The Israelis now have the highest per capita infection rate in the world. The country with the most vaccines is the country with the most cases. Compare theses results to low-vaccinated South Africa:

27% of South Africans fully vaccinated. Israel among most vaccinated countries in the world. Onto 4th jab. Something\u2019s up pic.twitter.com/zuXcVrOlyH
— Mark Dolan (@Mark Dolan) 1643208439

Israel does test at a high rate, but so does India, which has a much lower vaccination rate:

Another complex question:\n\nComparing Omicron in India vs Israel, currently exhibiting identical test positivity, are we looking at the difference of impact between natural immunity vs vaccine immunity?pic.twitter.com/1S8N7Ly7NF
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1643212224

What is particularly disturbing is that Israel also has a pretty high rate of ICU admissions for something as mild as Omicron. Israel’s COVID ICU admission rate per 1 million people is now higher than during the winter 2021 peak, which was during a more virulent strain and with very few people vaccinated. Here is a comparison to the U.K. and Denmark, two countries that experienced a prolific Omicron wave this month:

Some of those Covid trends are completely baffling...pic.twitter.com/osiRsVSNRG
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1643193387

No wonder Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted to CNBC that the shots seem “to produce not very durable immune protection so it’s going to be coming again and again.” But what we are seeing from the canary in the coal mine country is not just a lack of durability, but a clear warning of negative efficacy. Why is nobody demanding a suspension of all the shots until a full investigation is made to see if this is causing ADE, as Fauci himself cautioned Mark Zuckerberg during a March 2020 interview?

Our current situation-pic.twitter.com/eVgE6Blgr8
— Dr. Lynn Fynn (Fan Account) (@Dr. Lynn Fynn (Fan Account)) 1643376851

Now consider the fact that after everything we know about the safety and efficacy of these shots, and clearly everything we know Fauci himself understands about imperfect vaccines, he is nonetheless pushing this shot on babies and toddlers – three doses’ worth!

Two years into this circuitous cycle of failure, it’s time for the very people complaining about the failure to stop wagging their fingers, ascribing blame, and dictating the next failed course of action. It’s time for them to look in the mirror.

Horowitz: The very concerning data from Scotland



“The vaccines are incredibly safe. They protect us against Omicron; they protect us against Delta; they protect us against COVID." Those were the words of fully vaccinated CDC Director Rochelle Walensky while testifying before the Senate Health Committee with two masks on her face on Jan. 11.

Scottish data shows that the COVID-19 age-standardized case rate is highest among the two-dose vaccinated and lowest among unvaccinated! It further shows this trend of negative efficacy for the double-vaccinated persisting for hospitalizations and deaths. Something is very wrong here, and together with other data points, it raises concerning questions about the negative effect of waning antibodies, constant boosting, and the consequences of a leaky vaccine with narrow-spectrum suboptimal antibodies against an ever-evolving virus.

Every Wednesday, Public Health Scotland (PHS) has been publishing a weekly report on COVID data juxtaposed to vaccination rates. Table 14 of this week’s “Public Health Scotland COVID-19 & Winter Statistical Report” lays bare in plain English (and math) a rate of negative efficacy for the vaccine:

As you can see, while the overall Omicron wave seems to be receding in Scotland, age-standardized case rates per 100,000 people were the lowest in the unvaccinated cohort every week for the past four weeks. Thus, it’s not just the fact that the unvaccinated accounted for only 11.5% of cases the past two weeks, but even adjusted for age-stratified vaccination rates (PHS already does the math for you) the unvaccinated had the lowest infection rate out of the four cohorts – especially during the peak of Omicron. Furthermore, we see that even the triple-vaccinated clearly have no efficacy against infection, although they have some degree less negative efficacy than the double-vaccinated.

Here is a linear presentation of the depth of the Omicron wave by vaccination status, where you can see that the unvaccinated had the shallowest wave:

This also coincides with the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency of the entire United Kingdom. This data now shows higher rates of infection among the triple-vaccinated in all but the youngest people.

Triple-Jabbed Over-30s Have Higher Infection Rates Than the Unvaccinated, UKHSA Data Show https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/20/triple-jabbed-over-30s-have-higher-infection-rates-than-the-unvaccinated-ukhsa-data-show/\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/z5TnXT0sA7
— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@Andrew Bostom, MD, MS) 1642700314

Full stop right here. Any public policy measure – from vaccine passports to discrimination – cannot be justified under the science, even if one’s conscience is OK with apartheid. In fact, clearly this shows that, especially with Omicron, the vaccinated are the super-spreaders. Before we get to hospitalizations and deaths, the notion that the unvaccinated are somehow responsible for the continued spread of this virus is completely contradicted by the data. Some might suggest without evidence that the unvaccinated possibly have a higher rate of prior infection; however, Omicron seems to attack even those who already had previous versions of SARS-CoV-2.

Now onto hospitalizations and deaths. While the vaccines clearly provided some degree of protection for some people for several months against severe illness (while possibly causing even more spread), the Scottish data paints a concerning picture of the long-term consequences of the mass vaccination. People like Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche have been warning that if you mass-vaccinate with a leaky, narrow-spectrum (only recognizes spike protein) vaccine in middle of a raging pandemic, the virus would get more virulent over time.

This concern manifests itself at two time periods when the antibodies are “sub-optimal.” There is a period of a few weeks after the jab when the antibodies are strong enough to bind but not strong enough to neutralize, and then at the back end (estimated at four to six months for the original shot, but likely much shorter for the booster), a period when they wane. The media and public health tyrants like to focus your attention on a snapshot of time, but ignore the totality of circumstances that the shots are creating negative efficacy before and after, while using accounting gimmicks to mask the problem.

Remember how the lockdowns were hailed as a success for a number of countries that initially did well, while Sweden now has the lowest rate of excess mortality in Europe in 2021?

\u201cSweden now has a lower death rate than countries that went down the full lockdown route, including the UK, France, Spain and Italy\u2026 Economic recovery has been brisk\u2026 Sweden has not caused damage to the life chances of its children.\u201dhttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/02/a-wounded-pm-and-ailing-economy-forces-england-to-go-swedish-on-covid?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other\u00a0\u2026
— Prof. Freedom (@Prof. Freedom) 1641237709

Just as with lockdowns, the mass vaccination needs to be judged after all nine innings of the ballgame.

With that said, let’s take a look at tables 15 and 16 – the acute COVID hospitalization and death rates, respectively:

What is clearly evident both from the hospitalizations and deaths is that the double-vaccinated are now worse off per capita even against critical illness, and that pattern appears to be accelerating. Again, this evidently shows a pattern of negative efficacy even against critical illness over time as the shots wear off, increasingly quickly with Omicron. Why is there no desire to study the source of this negative efficacy and whether the fact that the vaccine is non-sterilizing, wanes quickly with sub-optimal antibodies, is narrow-spectrum, and is increasingly out of synch with the changing virus is going to make the pandemic worse in the long run?

Some will look at the chart and conclude that the boosters are amazing. But first it’s important to recognize that even the boosters don’t stop transmission at all even in the short run, and then, based on the latest hospitalization data, appear to wane just like the original shots. Relatedly, you will notice a pattern: the unvaccinated and two-dose cohorts always appear worse and the one-shot and three-shot cohorts always appear better. This is where the most important part of the data set comes into play.

You see, all cases during the first 21 days after the first shot are counted in the “unvaccinated” cohort, while the first 14 days after one receives the 3rd shot is counted among the two-dose cohort. See the definitions from Appendix 6 of the report.

We know from numerous studies (see here and here) that people are actually the most vulnerable to COVID during the first few weeks on the upswing of the antibodies, when T cells are likely suppressed. This is why the health departments smartly count them in the unvaccinated pile. Hence, for all these months, all the cases and deaths from those made more vulnerable from the first shot – which is caused by the mass vaccination, not the unvaccinated – are counted against the unvaccinated. Over time, as the shots waned on the back end, the truth became evident. Now they are starting the cycle all over again by making the two-dose group look even worse than they are by dumping all of the cases caused by the initial take-up from the third dose into the cohort of double-vaccinated.

It’s the ultimate pandemic Ponzi scheme. Just wait another two months and see what the fourth-shot group looks like relative to the triple-dosers, as the immediate vaccination causes an even greater spike in cases. In other words, you have to look in totality where we are headed rather than manipulating a snapshot of time.

What this report shows is that just 18.5% of the hospitalizations in Scotland were unvaccinated, but even that number includes numerous people within 21 days of the first shot, which is clearly a very vulnerable time. It’s akin to telling someone in a foxhole to run across the field of fire to get to a bunker that might be safer, but he runs an even higher risk of getting cut down before reaching the bunker. Then, after a few hours, the bunker will get overrun by the enemy and you have to run through a new field of fire to get to the next bunker.

Likewise, when a therapeutic lowers symptom severity through immune suppression, it’s a flash in the pan. Eventually, that mechanism of action will come back to bite you in the proverbial arm. And this is even before we get to the long-term concern that multiple shots will create permanent immune suppression by creating original antigenic sin, a position now articulated by the European Medicines Agency and top Israeli immunologists.

Just how prominent is the infection rate within the first 14-21 days of getting the shot, thereby completely distorting the epidemiological data and ultimate perception of efficacy of the shots? Although we don’t have data from the U.K. or U.S. on the timing of infection relative to vaccination period, Alberta, Canada evidently publishes some of that data. According to U.K. researcher Joel Smalley, who screenshotted the chart from the Alberta government’s website before it was taken down, roughly 40% of cases, 47.6% of hospitalizations, and 56% of deaths among the vaccinated occurred within 14 days of vaccination! Here is the graphical presentation that was on the website, according to Smalley. The top chart represents cases, the middle is hospitalizations, and the bottom is deaths:

Alberta, like many governments, counts the first 14 days as unvaccinated. In Scotland, they are counting the first 21 days after the first dose as unvaccinated and 14 days following subsequent doses in the cohort of the previous numbered dose. Obviously, we can’t mix the Alberta time-based data with the overall Scottish data, but common sense dictates that a bunch of cases from the immune suppression period of the initial vaccination are being blamed on the unvaccinated, and the perception of the booster shots is also likely being ameliorated at the expense of the double-jabbed cohort. For example, in Alberta, it appears that roughly 60% of the hospitalizations in the vaxxed cohort got COVID within 21 days of the shot, which in Scotland, would all be counted as unvaccinated cases. Thus, they deliberately chose the cutoff date for designation of vax status after the inflection point where they see the most COVID cases post-vax!

This deep dive into the data from Scotland should serve as a Rosetta stone for the macro observations we have seen from day one. We are seeing the most vaccinated nations and states being hammered with more cases than ever in a way that defies anything we should expect to see from a safe and effective vaccine. Here are just a few of the many examples:

I mean. When you compare case rates and vax rates for the past 3 weeks you'd think that the line wouldn't look like this. But it does. That trend line should be going in the other direction.pic.twitter.com/85Wdgj9Z2b
— Justin Hart (@Justin Hart) 1641840740
JUST IN - Israel: Over 14,000 IDF personnel are currently infected with COVID. In addition, 9,732 personnel in quarantine (JPost)
— Disclose.tv (@Disclose.tv) 1642598226
Israel , the only quadruple-vaxxed country in the world (also using mask mandates and Covid passports), just broke global record for daily Covid cases pic.twitter.com/G1ZDuVG2Ru
— Dr. Eli David (@Dr. Eli David) 1642537647
With N95 mandates, vaccine passports and 2 months of a lockdown for unvaccinated people, cases in Austria have reached a new high\n\nIt\u2019s amazing how consistently and comprehensively COVID authoritarianism and The Science\u2122 fails & how uninterested media outlets are in covering itpic.twitter.com/O1ABBdOOOO
— IM (@IM) 1642530717
UK HSA data shows infection rate growth correlates with vaccination rate for age cohorts >50. The more highly vaxxed an age cohort is - whether fully vaxxed or boosted - the faster the infection rate growth. Infectn rate growth in the unvaxxed is fairly consistent across cohorts.pic.twitter.com/40l01thdtS
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1642360856
Quebec, in midst of draconian lockdown, (unlike Ontario) publishes new hospitalization data by age group, vax status https://msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/statistiques/documents/covid19/COVID19_Qc_RapportINSPQ_HospitalisationsSelonStatutVaccinalEtAge.csv\u00a0\u2026 \n\nThese are real counts, neither "normalized" relative to population nor "adjusted" by Ontario Science Table (or CDC). What do you notice?pic.twitter.com/2Q5hPfxam0
— Stephen McIntyre (@Stephen McIntyre) 1642354931
Sigh...pic.twitter.com/zeVA6mtZSi
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641995379
Omicron waves in Israel and South Africa, per capita.\n\nIsrael has given 4x more vaccine shots to its population than South Africa.\n\nYesterday, Israel was exhibiting the higher incidence per capita in the world among large countries.pic.twitter.com/tIryUthm6j
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1642778142

Dr. Fauci recently told Bloomberg news that “there are some inherent ‘non-believers’ that no matter what you say, they give you a real problem.” He’s right. It takes a true religious level of adherence – like a believer – to continue supporting his narrative, despite the plain facts before our every eyes.

Horowitz: Why did Scotland experience a spike in infant deaths?



One of the most durable public health trajectories over the past 50 years has been the consistent decline in infant mortality in countries with first-world health care. Yet in September, Scotland experienced such a spike at least in neonatal deaths that it rivaled levels not seen since the 1980s. What on earth would cause such a sudden bizarre spike? Nobody seems to have the answer — nor do they want to study all of the potential culprits.

In September, Public Health Scotland announced that 21 newborns had died that month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. According to the Herald Scotland, “the figure for September - at 4.9 per 1000 live births - is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.”

As you can see from the Public Health Scotland (PHS) data, the upper control limit was breached in September, which PHS believes "indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred." After all, the five-year average appears to be about 2.2 per 1,000 live births, so September’s numbers are more than double the average.

Although the incidents of neonatal death tend to fluctuate every other month, the levels appear to be elevated, on average, without the usual intermittent dips below the baseline throughout the entire year of 2021. This is astounding given how much the general trend of infant mortality has declined since the 1980s.

Based on media reports, it appears that the entirety of the public health investigation revolved around whether COVID itself was the culprit of the unusual number of neonatal deaths. The problem is that we didn’t see any of this death in the first year of the pandemic. Also, it was only infants who seemed to experience a sharp increase in death, the least likely cohort to be affected by the pandemic.

Scottish children recently born die abnormally more in 2021 than in 2020.\n\nAnd only them.\n\nWhy is that?\n\nI dread to think of the likely answer.\nhttps://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/covid19stats\u00a0pic.twitter.com/dhWhEVFSIG
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641260109

In December, PHS announced that based on preliminary findings, it has no evidence that COVID was the culprit. "There is no information at this stage to suggest that any of the neonatal deaths in September 2021 were due to Covid-19 infection of the baby,” said PHS, according to the BBC. "Likewise, preliminary review does not indicate that maternal Covid-19 infection played a role in these events.”

Well, that’s pretty obvious, but what is the culprit for such an unusual trend?

"Preliminary information on prematurity suggests that the number of babies born at less than 32 weeks gestation in September 2021 was at the upper end of monthly numbers seen in 2021 to date. This may contribute to the neonatal mortality rate, as prematurity is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death."

But why would that cause neonatal deaths not seen since the 1980s, and why would there be more prematurely born babies?

With so many other vaccine safety signals being seen, there is no desire to even look at the possibility that an experimental shot that was not studied in pregnant women – yet was widely distributed to them – had something to do with it. We have no idea what caused this spike, but here’s why any logical person would commence an inquiry around the shots.

  • We know that this shot has caused menstrual irregularities like we’ve never seen before. A University of Chicago survey sought to recruit 500 women with menstrual irregularities in order to study the cause and effect, and instead, researchers got 140,000 submissions. One study found that 42% of women experienced heavier bleeding, while only 44% reported no changes to their menstrual cycles. A whopping 66% of post-menopausal women experienced breakthrough bleeding. This all goes to show how the 20,000 menstrual irregularities reported in VAERS are a joke because the system only captures a fraction of the adverse events.
  • As of Dec. 31, there were 3,511 miscarriages reported to VAERS. Remember, this is something that is extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. Here is the presentation from Open VAERS, which shows the number of reported miscarriages peaking around August/September in the United States.

Does any of this mean we can conclusively say the shots are causing reproductive issues? No. But there certainly are a lot of safety signals that should be followed up on rather than dismissed. I asked Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB/GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 42 years of experience, if he was concerned about these signals. “To the extent of a broad statement that menstrual irregularities are usually minor issues is a true statement,” he said. “However, in the context of the massive increase in menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine, there are very serious potential implications. It supports the cumulative evidence that the jabs’ lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries and affect/infect/expose ALL ovum to the LNP and cargo mRNA [and] is extremely serious.”

Thorp notes that the LNPs can be inflammatory and they likely penetrate every area of the body and, by extension, the fetus. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) easily pass through all the natural barriers that God created in the human body. LNPs are extremely small spherical particles with an outer lipophilic (fat-soluble) membrane containing the mRNA cargo. There may be billions of LNPs in the COVID-19 jab that do not remain in the deltoid muscle; they are readily dispersed throughout ALL bodily tissues, easily pass through the maternal blood-brain barrier, the placental barrier, and the fetal blood-brain barrier.”

Thorp observes that whereas men continuously make more sperm throughout their lives, women have a finite number of eggs, which means that “every single one is exposed to the LNPs for life.”

Previous studies have shown nanoparticles to be a source of fetal inflammation. “Nobody knows the potentially catastrophic results of this,” warns Thorp. “In my area of expertise of maternal-fetal medicine, we have researched for decades on the catastrophic effect of inflammatory processes that may occur in the fetus and may result in miscarriage, fetal malformation, fetal death, neonatal death, infant death, permanent major newborn damage, permanent major autoimmune damage, permanent cognitive damage, permanent impairment of the immune health, and unleashing of infections and cancers.”

Just how concerning is the VAERS data so far? Dr. Thorp created a chart to compare the rate of miscarriages and fetal deaths (defined together as “pregnancy loss”) per month reported to the system for the COVID shots as compared to all other shots.

As you can see, we have seen 50 times the rate of reporting per month of miscarriages for this vaccine than the other vaccines put together. Thorp mentioned on my show that lest people think he opposes vaccines, he particularly recommends the flu and pertussis vaccines to his pregnant patients. You can see the rate of reporting for pregnancy loss among those shots is very low.

Now look at the rate of fetal malformations that have been reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines as compared to others.

Thorp requested that anyone who had the jab pushed on her in her pregnancy and believes she has suffered adverse effects in herself, her pregnancy, or her newborn to please contact him at jathorp@bellsouth.net.

Given that Scotland seemed to have experienced the most obvious safety alarm signal, why aren’t they looking into any of this? Well, in the richest of ironies, Glasgow Royal Fertility Clinic, one of the top fertility clinics in Scotland, has announced it will not serve any women without the shot. Why do they so badly not want a control group from which to study?

Horowitz: Who are actually the super-spreaders?



“Businesses Now Requiring Positive COVID Test As Proof Of Vaccination.” This was a headline from the Babylon Bee, but increasingly, satire is the new reality.

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then this data showing negative efficacy of the shots in nearly every age group from my friend Don Wolt is worth 1,000,000 words.

The U.K. has done the world a service by being the only country to put out granular and continuous weekly data breaking down infection rates by vaccination status and by age cohort. For quite some time, the U.K. data has been showing negative efficacy in all but the youngest age group. This means that the infection rates per capita have been higher among the vaccinated. This was true with Delta, but with Omicron, the vaccines have blown the infection rates off the charts.

Yesterday, the U.K. Health Security Agency published its first “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report” of 2022, which collates infection rate data for the final weeks of 2021 (weeks 49-52). These are not raw numbers, but case rates per 100,000 divided by age group and vaccination status. The results are simply devastating to the cause of the vaccine altogether, much less support for mandating it.

This is from table 13 of the report:

If you factor vaccine efficacy based on the case rates by age group, here is what you get:

As you can see, aside from children, there is clear negative efficacy of the shots in terms of likelihood one will become infected with COVID. For age groups between 18 and 60, the vaccinated are roughly twice as likely to test positive for COVID than the unvaccinated. But what is very telling is the dramatic shift over the past few weeks since Omicron. This is where Don Wolt’s chart is so illustrative.

The beauty of this chart is that it stacks the weekly changes in case rates of each age group and vaccination status next to each other and tracks the progression of the data over the course of five months. As you can see, for a short period of time, the elderly age brackets stopped going negative from the vaccine during November when they got the boosters. It barely registered in positive territory, but it didn’t go negative. Now, Omicron has proven that the boosters don’t help in reversing the vaccine-mediated enhancement, and the seniors are therefore back in negative territory.

Although Omicron, as a mild but very transmissible ailment, caused case spikes among all people, you can see the rate of growth over the past week is exponentially higher among the vaccinated, especially in the younger age groups, who appear to be hit by Omicron more than the seniors. For whatever reason, unvaccinated children seem to have a lot of cases, but that could be a function of testing. Remember, in this same report, the data show that not a single child under 18 died of COVID these past four weeks.

There is simply no way to escape the fact that the vaccines always went negative after a few months, the boosters offered an even shorter degree of partial protection than the original doses, and now with Omicron, there is a clear inverse relationship between case rates and vaccination rates. This point is exemplified in Don’s second chart showing the rate of growth in cases since the previous week’s U.K. report:

With this week's report, infection rates rose in all age cohorts, vaxxed & unvaxxed, except for among Unvaxxed <18. Growth rates from the last UKHSA report (Week 51) are much higher among the fully vaxxed.pic.twitter.com/e8taRwNxG5
— Don Wolt (@Don Wolt) 1641489887

The fact that we are seeing negative efficacy grow the more shots one gets lends credence to a theory that not only are the shots ineffective against Omicron, but they are creating viral immune escape. A recent study from the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark studied secondary attack rates (SAR) inside households during Omicron as compared to Delta. “Surprisingly, we observed no significant difference between the SAR of Omicron versus Delta among unvaccinated individuals,” note the authors. However, when it came to the vaccinated, they found that secondary attack rates were 2.61 times higher for Omicron than Delta, and among booster-vaccinated individuals, it was 3.66 times higher. “This indicates that the increased transmissibility of the Omicron VOC primarily can be ascribed to immune evasion rather than an inherent increase in the basic transmissibility,” concludes the authors.

Thankfully, Omicron is exponentially less deadly than Delta, but it is being used as pretext to force vaccine passports at a time when it is abundantly clear that the vaccines are causing the super-spreading of Omicron. The public health frauds have consistently propagated a narrative that the unvaccinated are driving mutations, but it never made sense that people with zero antibodies could be creating evolutionary pressure on a virus. It’s suboptimal antibodies that do that, and clearly, to the extent one believes these mutations are a problem, it’s the vaccine that is to blame.

The Israeli data harmonizes very well with the theory of shots creating more viral immune escape. If there is any country that “did it right,” it’s Pfizer’s personal laboratory, aka Israel. So many have three shots and they are already onto their fourth, yet cases are have soared past record levels. But over the past few weeks with the rise of Omicron, there is a clear decoupling based on how many vaccines you had.

The vaccinated drive the new infection wave in Israel.\n\nIn particular the boosted.pic.twitter.com/QvCLuGb0Xe
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641487016

At present, the unvaccinated are 29% of the population but compose less than 14% of the new cases.

Israeli data shows a feature now seen in many countries:\n\nvaccination appears to augment the odds of Covid infection.\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other respiratory infections?\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other viral infections?\n\nDoes it increase the risk of other diseases?pic.twitter.com/hn1zZE2Gs1
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641459081

Again, just like in the U.K., while the shots always lost efficacy even during Delta, they actually go negative much quicker with Omicron, including with three shots.

Omikron go BRRRRpic.twitter.com/HX9S4xNETQ
— Jon Snowflake (@Jon Snowflake) 1641472175
Wales has one of the highest booster rates in the world, with 63% of everyone over 12 having had a booster shot already on top of the 90+% vaccination rate\n\nThey also have had a mask mandate since September 2020 and use vaccine passports, so uh\u2026why are cases so out of control?pic.twitter.com/giHLU3drcm
— IM (@IM) 1641496512

Data from Denmark seems to show a similar picture, with cases rising among those with three shots quicker than anyone else, especially in younger and middle-aged adults.

Danish new case incidence data per age group shows a clearly growing problem with booster shots in younger adults...\n\nno vaccination\n 2 shots full effect (no previous infection)\n boosted (no previous infection)\n previously infected\n\nhttps://covid19danmark.dk/#gennembrudsinfektioner\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/3RGCccPl5Q
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1641409797

A recent study from Public Health Ontario was equally devastating to the vaccine cause and fits perfectly with the U.K. data. “Receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron infection at any point in time, and VE was –38% (95%CI, –61%, –18%) 120-179 days and –42% (95%CI, –69%, –19%) 180-239 days after the second dose,” concluded the Ontario health officials in a preprint study. What about the booster? Out of the gate, it was only 37% effective but then rapidly wanes.

At this point, now that we know the vaccines go negative, and even quicker with Omicron, what is it going to take to ban the shots? After all, if a scientific reality of the unvaccinated getting the virus more often justifies the implementation of vaccine passports, shouldn’t a reverse scientific reality justify getting rid of the shots?

Horowitz: 6 important COVID data points that destroy the prevailing narrative



“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus.” ~Dr. Fauci, Face the Nation, May 16, 2021

“Negative efficacy.” Get used to that term, because every day more data suggests we are already in the vaccination twilight zone of all pain and no gain – just as with the lockdowns.

It is tearing humanity apart. COVID fascism is the most serious human rights threat we’ve faced in our lifetimes, and the latest science and data demonstrate that it’s all built upon a false premise. While people tuned out the news over the holiday week, many have missed the growing incontrovertible evidence that not only is there risk and zero benefit to taking any of the COVID shots, but there is actually negative efficacy against the virus. In other words, not only does it put you on the hook for known and unknown short-term and long-term injury without stopping COVID, it now actually makes you more vulnerable to COVID.

As you read these latest points, just remember that this is the injection for which police in Europe are now using dogs and batons against those protesting it. All these human rights abuses for a shot that, especially with the new variant, has become moot.

1) 96% of all Omicron cases in Germany among vaccinated: The respected Robert Koch Institute reported last week that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this means that the shots now have a -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

Data from Robert Koch Institute shows only 4% of Omicron cases coming from the 30% of the country which is unvaccinated.\n\nIn other words, not being vaccinated has 87% efficacy against infection in Germany, using the same calculation that vaccine advocates have employed. https://twitter.com/Tim_Roehn/status/1476575806969335812\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/rYLHnVNYOH
— PLC (@PLC) 1640926860

2) Omicron among vaccinated outpacing unvaccinated by 28% in Ontario: The government in Ontario posts continuous data on case rates by vaccination status. The fact that the vaccinated have rapidly overtaken the unvaccinated in new infections demonstrates a clear negative effect of the shots against Omicron.

Vaccinated 28% ahead of unvaccinated now in Ontario.pic.twitter.com/cm7PHWculu
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1640881781

3) In Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among fully vaccinated: As of Dec. 31, just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark were unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark is fully vaccinated, and Omicron seems to hit younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which indicates clear negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the un-injected composed only 23.7% of the cases.

4) Just 25% of the Omicron hospitalizations in the U.K. are unvaccinated: Not only are the vaccinated more likely to contract Omicron, but they are likely more at risk to be hospitalized. While American hospitals put out unverifiable information about “nearly everyone seriously ill with COVID being unvaccinated,” the U.K. continues to put out quality continuous data that shows the opposite. According to the U.K.’s Health Security Agency’s latest “Omicron daily overview,” just 25% of those in the hospital with suspected Omicron cases are unvaccinated.


Although that is roughly in line with the percentage of unvaccinated overall in the U.K., we know that Omicron cases are overwhelmingly among younger people who have a greater share of the unvaccinated. Dr. Abdi Mahamud, the WHO’s incident manager for COVID, said last week that Omicron has not hit most of the elderly yet.

According to the latest U.K. vaccine surveillance report (p. 21), between 32% and 40% of the age groups under 40 are unvaccinated. Which means that, with a 25% hospitalization rate, the unvaccinated are very possibly underrepresented in the Omicron hospitalized population, which again indicates negative efficacy to the shots.

5) 33 of 34 hospitalizations in Delhi hospital were vaccinated: The Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. Two of them received the booster shot. While some of them were international travelers, it’s important to remember that India has a much lower vaccination rate than the West. This is another small indication that not only might one be more likely to get Omicron after having gotten the shots, but possibly could be more vulnerable to hospitalizations, very likely due to some form of antibody dependent disease enhancement (ADE).

6) Vaccinated exponentially more likely to get re-infected with COVID: A new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection that co-morbidities!


Hence, the findings of this first-in-its-kind study harmonize with what a Public Health England survey found in October; namely, that the vaccines seem to erase a degree of N (nucleocapsid) antibodies generated by prior infection in favor of narrower S (spike) antibodies. "Recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination,” stated the week 42 report from the U.K. (p. 23).

This finding also correlates with what researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid found last year – that the second dose of the vaccine “determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response." In that report, researchers already observed that other research has shown "the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals."

At this point, how is there any benefit, much less a net benefit, from the shots? There are currently 21,000 deaths reported to VAERS, along with 110,000 hospitalizations and over 1 million total adverse events. Most deaths and injuries are never reported to VAERS. Now that the efficacy is, at best, a wash and at worst negative, why are we not discussing the short-term and long-term liabilities of the shots?

Remember, the VAERS numbers don’t even begin to quantify the long-term concerns, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases. A heavily redacted analysis of the Pfizer shot (p. 16) from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency (TGA) flatly conceded, “Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed.”

Consider the fact that the CEO of Indiana-based life insurance company OneAmerica, which has been around since 1877, revealed last week that the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old Hoosiers is up 40% from pre-pandemic levels. That is four times above what risk assessors consider catastrophic. Yes, some of this has been due to the virus, but given the age group, OneAmerica CEO Scott Davidson said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, who spoke at the same news conference as Davidson, said that Indiana hospitals are flooded with patients “with many different conditions.” Any wonder what those ailments are if not COVID itself?

Indeed, those who say the injections are a “medical miracle” are correct, just not in the way they meant it.

Horowitz: Omicron: Mother Nature’s universal booster



In the ultimate irony, those who get more boosters appear more at risk to get the new variant of coronavirus. At the same time, God appears to be offering natural boosters by making this variant a mild illness that doesn’t cause lung inflammation or blood clotting, and new evidence suggests that it might offer protection against more serious strains of the virus. So why aren’t the public health “experts” taking “yes” for an answer and ending the failed vaccines and panic-induced mandates? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Bizarrely, numerous states were quick to partially suspend the monoclonal antibodies based on a rumor that they no longer worked against Omicron. At the same time, they are doubling down on the ineffective injections that not only fail to work, but actually appear to make people more likely to contract the virus.

In Maryland, for example, one day after the governor contracted COVID (after getting three shots), then treated himself with the monoclonals, the Maryland Department of Health announced that it was pausing federal allocations of the monoclonal antibody treatments because they “may not be effective against the new Omicron variant.” At the same time, they urged people to get the shots that failed the governor. Well, if the antibodies no longer work in the monoclonals, which until now were working better than the vaccines, then the vaccines most certainly don’t work.

Last week, the Indian Express reported that 33 of the 34 people hospitalized for Omicron in Delhi’s Lok Nayak hospital were fully vaccinated. This data is very revealing because India still has a relatively low vaccination rate compared to the U.S. and Europe. Thankfully, none of them needed oxygenation and it was unclear why they were admitted, but to the extent the COVID fascists want to create undue panic over Omicron, it’s not being driven by the unvaccinated.

The U.K’s Office of National Statistics already found in a survey that the vaccinated are exponentially more likely to test positive for Omicron, and now Danish data seems to indicate the same for some age groups.

Not really a scoop anymore:\n\nConfirmed Covid case incidence per 100,000 in Denmark is higher among the vaccinated young adults than the unvaccinated over the last 7 days.pic.twitter.com/kNnm3PQlwN
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1640692655

According to the U.K.’s latest Vaccine Surveillance report, which factors in infection rates for all variants together, the vaccine effectiveness is down to negative 75% for 18- to 29-year-olds, negative 98% for 30- to 39-year-olds, and negative 131% for 40- to 49-year-olds. The vaccine effectiveness was in positive territory only for those over 70 years old – but still well under 50% for most – likely because Omicron is infecting mainly the younger people.

Ironically, while the powers that be continue to push the failed vaccines, a lot of local officials are tacitly admitting they don’t work by going back to the original failed mask mandates. Let’s put aside the fact that these masks absolutely do not work ...

Two weeks into the mask mandate, cases in New York City are up an astounding 542%, and 863% since vaccine passports started\n\nHow many more times do experts and politicians need to fail spectacularly before people realize they have absolutely no idea what they\u2019re doing?pic.twitter.com/X6qk2iWIvf
— IM (@IM) 1640631763


Well, it\u2019s official \u2014 San Francisco, one of the most heavily vaccinated areas on earth, with mask mandates & vaccine passports, has set a new high in cases\n\nSo sure, nothing that The Experts\u2122 say to do is working at all, but at least they\u2019re never going to admit they were wrongpic.twitter.com/EwRl8BU1t9
— IM (@IM) 1640544175

However, they are obfuscating the truth from the public that while nothing seems to work against Omicron, the variant itself is very mild and will give people immunity on the cheap.

The decoupling between cases and fatalities from Omicron is unmistakable. South Africa was the original epicenter of the Omicron outbreak, and for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic, the case fatality rate has dropped to near zero.

The 'Cron Effectpic.twitter.com/ZoCR9HxMSh
— Phil Kerpen (@Phil Kerpen) 1640651025

Now look at the decoupling of hospitalizations from cases in Denmark.

Denmark (population: 6 million) ends a month of growing Omicron exposure with 51 hospitalisations 'with'.pic.twitter.com/X2gDNXJ27k
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1640620735

And here is a similar presentation from London:

Why London is going to win the epic Omicron battle of England.\n\nhttps://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/HoM7bE36gW
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1640555120

Which is why you should be suspicious of any news about hospitals being flooded with patients. It’s true that in some places in the U.S., they are still dealing with the lag effect from the seasonal virulence of Delta’s outbreak and possibly some residual percolation of that much more severe strain. But you will not see large rises in hospitalizations from Omicron because, as a study from the University of Hong Kong suggests, Omicron is fundamentally an upper respiratory infection and rarely replicates in the lungs. A new preprint study from the Soto Lab in Japan also found in hamsters that the spike protein from Omicron has a much weaker fusion to the cells than the one in Delta, thereby making it “less infectious and pathogenic.”

However, because Omicron stays in the nasal pharynx, it spreads as rapidly as a cold. Thus, if we are going to count every last case of the cold with mass testing, can you guess how many people in the hospital at any given time might be incidentally infected? The U.K. Telegraph reports, “Hospitals are reporting high numbers of ‘incidental Covid’ patients who are admitted for unrelated reasons, an NHS chief has said, warning hospitalization data should be treated with caution.” The Miami Herald reports that at Jackson Health, “60% were diagnosed after being admitted for another reason, according to the hospital system’s internal tracking report."

Thus, if anything, to the extent we still have problems in the U.S., it’s precisely because Delta hasn’t been fully flushed out by Omicron yet. Otherwise almost nobody would get seriously ill with coronavirus. For states and cities to have relaxed restrictions during Delta and then use Omicron as pretext to bring them back is scientifically backward. Then again, the imposition of these mandates to begin with was always voodoo for any respiratory virus.

So, is Omicron too good to be true? If it is so mild that even those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection can get it, then does infection with this variant convey immunity against stronger strains of the virus in the future? Sigallab in South Africa conducted a study and found that those infected with Omicron experienced a 4.4-fold enhancement of neutralization against Delta over a person without any infection. If these results hold, it will mean that the masses of the world could achieve herd immunity with much less pain than from previous variants or possibly future, more virulent variants.

The fact that global and local governments are using the exact wrong variant to promote vaccines and masks – which never worked for more serious, less transmissible strains – against an unstoppable yet mild variant demonstrates that this has been and will always be about social control, not source control.

Horowitz: Omicron itself might turn out to be the real vaccine



Bizarrely, rather than focusing on the failures of the vaccine to deal with the existing, more deadly strain of coronavirus, the global governments are using the new, milder variant as a pretext for control simply because “newer” always means scarier. As such, they are pushing the vaccine more than ever, even though there is now a clear data picture showing that the virus is so mild there is no need for a vaccine, plus the vaccine actually makes it worse. So, based on their premise that Omicron is cause for panic, shouldn’t there be a downright ban on the shots based on data from multiple countries?

According to the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, as of Dec. 13, 90.5% of all Omicron cases in Denmark, a country where the new variant is spreading rapidly, were vaccinated. Comparing the overall vaccination rates, this means that the double-jabbed are more than twice as likely to get Omicron than the unvaccinated. Put another way, Omicron represented 8% of the cases in the triple vaccinated, 5.5% in the double vaccinated, and 1.2% in the unvaccinated. Seeing a pattern?

Are the double-vaccinated now more susceptible to infection?\n\nDoes it affect the risk/benefit assessment?pic.twitter.com/u6aKRyPVot
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1639677179

The Danish experience so far harmonizes very well with a CDC analysis of the first 43 known Omicron cases in the U.S., where 80% were double-jabbed. Halfway around the world in Israel, the country’s health ministry announced as of Dec. 12 that 76% of Omicron cases are among the triple vaxxed. Although Israel has the highest share of boosters in the world, the percentage of triple vaxxed in the overall population is still just 58%. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom admitted, “The overwhelming majority [of Omicron cases] have been fully vaccinated.”

Thus, if Omicron is now the new ploy to return to March 2020-style government authoritarianism, shouldn’t governments downright ban the shots rather than promote and even mandate them? Fauci is predicting hospitals will be “overwhelmed” when Omicron becomes dominant. Mandating the shots, according to his misguided view of Omicron, is like requiring a blowtorch to “extinguish” a fire. In fact, Fauci even admitted earlier this week that South Africa, a country with a low vaccination rate, didn’t experience much critical illness from Omicron because of built immunity.

Moreover, as everyone acknowledges this version of the virus spreads very quickly, the worst thing you could do now (if you believe Omicron must be avoided) is get a shot. Studies have shown the shots initially suppress your immune system for several weeks before ramping up antibodies. Therefore, by the time you would have the theoretical protection (which seems not to work for Omicron anyway), you likely would have gotten the virus anyway. A study published earlier this year by the Statens Serum Institut found that health care workers within seven days of the first shot were more than twice as likely to get infected than those unvaccinated. That is only going to be magnified by this variant, with quicker spread taking place right as governments are ramping up the mandatory vaccination campaigns.

However, fortunately, it looks like it won’t even matter if the vaccine makes it worse or not. All the reports and data we are seeing from Omicron indicate that it is mild like a common cold and infinitely better to catch than Delta. In fact, the only reason to tell people to lock down now is not because of Omicron but to give another two weeks so that Omicron boxes out Delta!

In Israel, 60% of the estimated Omicron cases are asymptomatic. In Denmark, just like in South Africa, we are seeing no additional pressure being placed on the hospitals – a complete decoupling between cases and hospitalizations.

Today's update from Denmark.\n\nZERO hospital pressure.\n\nOmicron seems to be on its way to repeat the milder South African experience in Europe.pic.twitter.com/SuNwO8D2Ak
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1639583986

As the U.K. Telegraph reports, South Africa’s virus death rate is now one in 200 – the lowest it has been throughout the pandemic and 10 times lower than last September. The hospitalization rate per COVID case has dropped 91% relative to the Delta wave. There are currently only 509 people in the ICU – fewer than one per hospital – despite several weeks of the rapid Omicron spread. To further drive home this point, the AP reports that Orange County, Florida, officials found that nearly 100% of the SARS-CoV-2 strains in the city’s waste were Omicron. Yet, Orange County barely has anyone in the hospital, and few people have bothered to test. At least as of now, Omicron is so “dangerous” that people don’t even test for it. The reason the hospitals are still loaded in the northern states experiencing their seasonal wave is because of the existing Delta cases.

A new preprint from University of Hong Kong sheds some pathophysiological insight on the data and observations we are seeing at the clinical level. By isolating the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant in human lung tissue and comparing it to the original strain, researchers found that it barely affects the lungs and is primarily an upper respiratory infection, aka a cold.

They found that the novel Omicron variant replicates faster than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and Delta variant in the human bronchus. At 24 hours after infection, the Omicron variant replicated around 70 times higher than the Delta variant and the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. In contrast, the Omicron variant replicated less efficiently (more than 10 times lower) in the human lung tissue than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, which may suggest lower severity of disease.

What made COVID so dangerous, and the Delta variant likely enhanced by the vaccine in particular, is that it attacked the lungs and spawned an aggressive pulmonary inflammation. The fact that this variant stays higher up in the system perfectly explains why it’s so contagious through the nasal pharynx but also so mild. It would also explain why it appears that even some of those with prior infection are getting infected. After all, your body doesn’t store memory cells for a common cold.

Hence, the public health officials can’t have it both ways. Either Omicron is a de facto vaccine itself and the solution to the pandemic and should be embraced, or, if it’s somehow a harbinger of doom and gloom, the vaccines are the problem and should be banned because they are clearly spreading it.

Horowitz: Now we know why the establishment has always opposed early treatment



The shots don’t work for many people, particularly the elderly. The establishment is blocking every other treatment option available. At this point, with so many people recovering even from late-stage COVID by taking ivermectin, which is infinitely safer than the shots, how could anyone ascribe anything other than very sinister motivations to those declaring war on its use?

The shills for Big Pharma and the “Great Reset” who don’t want to see people survive this virus claim they don’t have enough data on ivermectin, despite dozens of studies and simple reality showing that it works better than anything they have suggested. They demand massive randomized controlled trials, but then refuse to fund any such expensive study. They refuse to follow up on positive signals with off-patent therapeutics the same way they blithely ignore negative signals from the vaccines and refuse to follow up with investigative studies. Well, Brazilian researchers just published something better than a randomized controlled trial. They did a study of reality.

Everyone in the entire southern Brazilian city of Itajai was invited to participate in a preventive study of ivermectin for efficacy against severe COVID-19 symptoms. 133,051 (60.3%) volunteered to take ivermectin for two days every 15-day period between July and December 2020 at a low dose of 0.2mg per kilogram of body weight. 87,466 (39.7%) chose to enroll their information as the control group without taking the treatment. So no complaints can be made about a small sample size. The results? The hospitalization and mortality rate of the trial group was nearly half that of the control group!

However, the results are much more impressive than the top-line numbers suggest. One of the complaints about studies like this that are not randomized is that it’s possible for the healthier, more treatment-conscience individuals to sign up for the trial group, thereby confounding the conclusion of the trial results. But in this case, the opposite is true. The ivermectin group had nearly twice as many people over age 50 enrolled, which also included many more people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and pulmonary issues. Thus, the relative risk reduction in mortality rate among those high-risk people taking ivermectin was actually much higher – 71% among those with type 2 diabetes and 67% among those with hypertension. The absolute risk reduction was also even greater among older people who are most at risk.

The overall effect on the city’s population was remarkable. The COVID-19 hospitalization rate decreased from 6.8% before the program with preventive use of ivermectin, to just 1.8% after its beginning (73% reduction). The mortality rate also dropped by 59%, from 3.4% to 1.4%. Most astounding is where the city of Itajai ranked relative to others in the state of Santa Catarina:

“When compared to all other major cities in the State of Santa Catarina, where Itajaí is located, differences in COVID-19 mortality rate between before July 7, 2020 and between July 7, 2020 and December 21, 2020, Itajaí is ranked number one, and far from the second place,” observed the Brazilian researchers in the study manuscript. “These results indicate that medical based optional prescription, citywide covered ivermectin can have a positive impact in the healthcare system.”

In many respects, this is more illuminating than a standard randomized controlled clinical trial. If we actually want to project what the world would look like if everyone would take ivermectin, this is a perfect case study of an entire city and its effect on the hospitals. Contrast these results to the vaccines, where we are seeing no correlation between outcomes and vaccination rates by geography, even though their randomized controlled trials purported to show an unmistakable benefit of 95% reduction in mortality.

Also, another key issue is dosage. FLCCC recommends 0.4-0.6mgs per kilogram of weight, which is 2-3 times the dose used in the trial. Obviously, this was a preventive trial only used for two straight days, but then rather than taking it every week, there was a 15-day gap before the next dose. One has to wonder what the results would be if each one in the trial group ramped up the dosage to 0.4mg every day for five days once they contracted the virus, or at least took the 0.2mg preventive dose twice every week.

Even the most effective drugs need a minimum dose. Ivermectin has demonstrated a strong dose-response relationship in terms of viral clearance; higher doses have not only been required, but have demonstrated clinical efficacy. While critics claim the dose is too high, cancer trials had patients taking ivermectin at a much higher dose for months without any problems.

Moreover, like any other virus, treatment requires a multi-drug approach because the virus has multiple avenues to infect cells. Imagine if every primary doctor treated patients with a mix of ivermectin and several other drugs, along with the appropriate anti-coagulants and steroids in the right patients at the early stage of disease. Imagine if they’d be directed to use Betadine nasal rinse, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and several other proven therapeutics from day one. Imagine if our government had placed as much money, marketing, and logistical facilitation into the monoclonal antibodies as it did the unsafe and ineffective shots.

In a recent presentation, Pr. Million from IHU Marseille has presented their first numbers of Covid mortality by age group in 2021.\n\nHe has highlighted the improved 2021 mortality where patients did not get HCQ+AZ, which he attributed to the discreet introduction of Ivermectin.pic.twitter.com/EOg1JObQKr
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1639383575

Well, we already see from doctors in the U.S. who have applied this approach, and their reduction in mortality is near 100%. And all the drugs they use range from safer than over-the-counter medications (in the case of ivermectin) to much safer than anything being administered by the hospital systems, such as remdesivir, baricitinib and tofacitinib.

One thing is certain: Ivermectin is much safer than anything the medical establishment is using, and there definitely is a degree of efficacy. So why would it face such visceral opposition? Had the medical establishment merely talked down its efficacy to a degree, I would probably believe it. But now that they are treating this Nobel Prize-winning drug as if it’s heroin, it actually would appear that it’s super effective. During a pandemic, the FDA is now using resources to collaborate with the post office to hold packages of ivermectin from being delivered.

The FDA is working with the post office to hold packages containing ivermectin. The FDA could better use its resources to, I don\u2019t know, publicly release the docs submitted by Pfizer to license its mandated liability-free V earlier than 75 years from now! http://bit.ly/3oMU53S\u00a0pic.twitter.com/O2d1zgTjAB
— Aaron Siri (@Aaron Siri) 1639353779

Last week, the World Tribune published an article revealing information that indicates the WHO likely knew ivermectin was effective for months, but blocked its use, all for Big Pharma. Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow in pharmacology at Liverpool University, adviser to the Gates Foundation, and researcher for the WHO, was tasked with conducting an ivermectin trial for the WHO. Based on his preliminary findings, Hill testified enthusiastically about the use of ivermectin before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel on Jan. 6, 2021. But then he suddenly changed course and published a study dinging the drug’s efficacy against COVID.

According to the Tribune, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, who was also involved in the ivermectin research, recorded a Zoom call she had with Hill and revealed a remarkable exchange between the two of them.

In a remarkable exchange, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use. […]

Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as “flawed,” “rushed,” “not properly put together,” and “bad research . . . bad research,” which Hill appears not to have denied.

Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions.

“Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,” he told Lawrie.

The exact exchange on the Zoom call, according to the Tribune, went as follows:

Lawrie: I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Now, imagine the difficult position that millions of people found themselves in when they were denied access to this treatment early, and many more, even on a ventilator. Imagine how many other promising treatments we know about (and possibly ones we don’t) because research was squelched in order to deny the public a cheap and effective way around the false choice the establishment has created – either confront the bio-weapon virus without treatment or take their bio-weapon injection as the panacea?

It’s not too late for red-state governors and legislatures to correct this mistake by barring all punitive actions taken against doctors for prescribing FDA-approved drugs off label and prohibiting pharmacists from denying those prescriptions. Hospitals must also allow patients to bring in doctors to administer the drug when they are unwilling to save lives themselves. To paraphrase John Kerry about the Vietnam War, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lie?

Horowitz: The despicable and indefensible approval of Merck’s dangerous COVID drug



The FDA has refused to even explore approval of cheap, safe, and effective repurposed drugs for 20 months, despite mounds of evidence from studies vouching for their efficacy and safety. So, naturally, now that the agency is on track to issue an emergency use authorization to the first outpatient drug for COVID, this one must be the greatest thing since penicillin, right? Wrong! In fact, the drug is so dangerous and has so many known and unknown side effects that the FDA advisory committee members basically admitted this was a “difficult” decision and that they could rescind the authorization later on. This decision makes their rejection of ivermectin, fluvoxamine, nitazoxanide, and hydroxychloroquine all the more indefensible.

If you liked remdesivir, you will surely like Merck’s molnupiravir, which was developed with the help of the same entities guarding its approval based on flawed data produced by the company itself that is making over $1 billion off the federal government. No conflict of interest whatsoever!

Although the fix was in because no drug produced by Merck or Pfizer – no matter how dangerous – will ever be turned down, the approval was as revealing as it was appalling. The fact that the vote even by these compromised hacks was 13-10 demonstrates just how problematic molnupiravir likely is out of the gate.

Yesterday, the FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee voted 13-10 to approve molnupiravir at 800 milligrams twice a day for five days of COVID treatment for people in at-risk categories. It still needs official approval from the FDA and the CDC before it can be used, but the fix has long been in.

As CNBC reports, even those who voted for the drug admitted that it was a difficult decision and asked to revisit the authorization down the road. They conceded, as I have warned, that this drug can be mutagenic and cause birth defects, in addition to the fact that Merck’s own manipulated data show the efficacy is very modest.

“Given the large potential population affected, the risk of widespread effects on potential birth defects, especially delayed effects on the male, has not been adequately studied,” warned Dr. Sankar Swaminathan, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah School of Medicine, who voted no.

As CNBC reports:

The FDA and Merck both recommended against using the drug in kids and pregnant women. Molnupiravir was found to be lethal to embryos in pregnant rats, also causing birth defects and reducing fetal body weight. It also caused other defects that interfered with bone growth in young pups, along with other abnormalities, the data shows.

Just like the vaccines and remdesivir, this drug hits the triple crown – fails on efficacy, causes injury, and also induces mutants and viral escape, possibly making the virus worse. In the FDA’s briefing document on the drug for yesterday’s meeting, it states clearly that “there are potential safety concerns pertaining to MOV, including embryofetal toxicity, bone and cartilage toxicity, and mutagenicity.” They also observe that there is evidence molnupiravir “may increase the rate of changes in the viral spike protein, which, in theory, could enhance SARS-CoV-2 spike protein evolution."

“Of particular interest, in some participants, MOV treatment was associated with amino acid changes at sites/regions of spike that are likely under immune or other evolutionary pressure," warns the onetime gatekeeper that has now become a collaborator with Big Pharma. This sounds an awful lot like Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s warning about the vaccines placing evolutionary pressure on the virus, which likely resulted in making it more durable this year than in 2020. “Collectively, these analyses indicate MOV treatment may increase the rate of emergence of SARS-CoV-2 populations with amino acid changes in the viral spike protein, consistent with its mutagenic mechanism of action,” warns the FDA.

Nonetheless, Dr. Michael Green, a pediatric transplant specialist at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases, said the lack of available therapies swayed him and others to vote to approve the drug.

The problem is that after incurring such unknown risk for a drug that has never succeeded and has known safety problems, the efficacy is very modest. Even Merck’s own trial shows barely any efficacy for Delta, and we all know by now how reliable the data can be from the manufacturer itself!

The FDA approves Molnupiravir by 13 votes to 10.\n\nIf you're hit by Delta, Merck's trial data show with a 95% confidence that your risk of hospitalization or death is:\n\n\u2022 reduced by 7.8% or increased by 2.9% (absolute)\n\n\u2022 reduced by 57% or increased by 42% (relative), p=0.41pic.twitter.com/lyLNLVaCv4
— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1638313433

Even more bizarrely, after Merck announced a 50% reduction in hospitalizations from the first phase of its trial announced in October, just last week the company announced that the combined efficacy is down to 30%. As some have pointed out, that raises serious concerns as to what has happened with the drug’s trial, given that the data from just phase 2 would indicate negative efficacy for the drug, with 4.7% hospitalized in the placebo group compared to 6.2% in the molnupiravir group.

Also, remember that it has already bombed out in terms of efficacy for moderate COVID and never had the potential to work in late stages because it is not anti-inflammatory like ivermectin. The FDA concedes up front that there is zero proven benefit after day five of symptoms.

So, we are trading so much risk of injury and making the virus worse for a short window of potentially modest efficacy at a cost of $700 per person. If this is the standard for approval during an emergency, how on earth could the FDA refuse to greenlight drugs that have already established a robust safety profile for decades when independent studies from people who don’t stand to benefit show much greater efficacy and for a broader spectrum of disease at a cheaper price?

COMPARAISON IVERMECTIN (8,53\u20ac)-vs-MOLNUPIRAVIR(600\u20ac)..pic.twitter.com/shyhoVUNQU
— telephonearabe (@telephonearabe) 1635666126
Revision of the previous post. More precise now.\n\nSources:\nhttps://www.fda.gov/media/154422/download\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://www.fda.gov/media/154419/download\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://www.fda.gov/media/154421/download\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgebacks-molnupiravir-an-oral-covid-19-antiviral-medicine-receives-first-authorization-in-the-world/\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-issues-advice-use-lagevrio-molnupiravir-treatment-covid-19\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://pm.gov.au/media/australia-secures-access-additional-covid-19-treatment\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://kpkesihatan.com/2021/11/03/kenyataan-akhbar-kpk-3-november-2021-hasil-dapatan-kajian-keberkesanan-rawatan-ivermectin-untuk-pesakit-covid-19-berisiko-tinggi-i-tech-study/\u00a0\u2026\nhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04920942\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/KMuNLRuOeU
— Massimaux (@Massimaux) 1638269686

The FDA and NIH are willing to give a drug known for birth defects with low efficacy to women of childbearing age outpatient but won’t even allow a Nobel Prize-winning drug safer than Tylenol as a last resort to someone dying.

Just rinsing your nose and mouth with Betadine at the onset of symptoms or preventively works better than this drug, according to Merck’s own data.

Povidone-iodine vs. Molnupiravirpic.twitter.com/64fyTJpfGP
— Massimaux (@Massimaux) 1635004644

Again, why would our government refuse to recommend any of these therapeutics and treatments but continue to support remdesivir and now approve molnupiravir, two dangerous and likely ineffective drugs? And what does that tell us about the process and transparency behind the FDA’s perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccines?

There are no innocuous answers to these questions.

Janet Cragan, a medical officer at the CDC and a panelist on the FDA advisory committee, bizarrely conceded at Tuesday’s meeting that “there are definite concerns about the potential effects of this drug on the embryo and the fetus,” but then said she has problems denying the drug to people! “I don’t think you can ethically say it’s OK to give this drug in pregnancy. [But] I’m not sure you can tell a pregnant women who has Covid-19 that she can’t have the drug if she has decided that’s what she needs.”

Well, how about denying the safest drugs around to everyone with COVID for the past 20 months???!!!

Roy Baynes, the Merck executive at the meeting, even had the nerve to suggest that it’s not for the FDA to tell doctors not to use the drug even in pregnant women! “But I think the idea here is that ultimately the physician is the best position to determine the relative risk-benefit for their patients,” said Baynes.

With its eight mechanisms of action against COVID and award-winning safety profile established for decades, ivermectin trounces molnupiravir in every consideration. As a 2017 article published in Nature’s Journal of Antibiotics observed, “Few, if any, other drugs can rival ivermectin for its beneficial impact on human health and welfare." The authors noted that "ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary.” They fortuitously predicted, “Essentially, a unique, multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug of the past and present may yet become an even more exceptional drug of the future." Sadly, our government is denying that future and that of several other important safe, off-patent drugs.

Anyone who can’t see the conflict of interest in this powerful juxtaposition is willfully blind to the irremediable corruption in the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA.