Horowitz: New study shows more effective immunity from prior infection than in vaccinated among organ transplant recipients



Few people are as immunocompromised and vulnerable to COVID as solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Those are the people whom the medical establishment suggests should get shots and boosters early and often — even if they have to "mix and match" different variations of the shots. However, given the fact that these people are also the most vulnerable to complications from the pathogenic spike protein of the shots, why are doctors not first making sure they don't have natural immunity? A new study demonstrates that it is criminal to assume the risks of vaccination for SOTRs with prior infection.

We already have at least 122 studies attesting to the durability of immunity from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, many of which clearly show that immunity to be much stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine-mediated immunity. However, a new study from researchers at Ajmera Transplant Centre, University Health Network, in Toronto, Canada, demonstrates that even organ transplant patients have robust T cell immunity from prior infection, much greater than those who are vaccinated.

"Vaccinated SOTRs mounted significantly lower proportions of S-specific polyfunctional CD4 + T-cells after two doses, relative to unvaccinated SOTRs with prior COVID-19," concluded the authors of the study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. "Together, these results suggest that SOTR generate robust T-cell responses following natural infection that correlate with disease severity but generate comparatively lower T-cell responses following mRNA vaccination."

Rather than studying the less meaningful antibody responses, the researchers studied T cell responses in three cohorts at Toronto's University Health Network (UHN) Transplant Centre: SOTRs who had prior infection but were not subsequently vaccinated, SOTRs who were vaccinated 4-6 weeks prior to the study but never had the virus, and a control group of regular non-SOTRs with prior COVID. While the non-immunocompromised naturally immune cohort obviously mounted the greatest T cell response, the study still found that SOTRs with prior immunity had robust antigen-specific helper (CD4) and killer (CD8) T cells. Overall, the researchers found a detectable antigen-specific T-cell response in SOTRs with prior immunity at a 41.4% greater frequency than in the vaccine-only group. Also, most of those in the vaccine cohort received the Moderna shot, which is believed to be more potent than the Pfizer shot.

The findings of this study are a bombshell, because they suggest, at least in the short run, that even the most immunocompromised people with prior infection mount a serious antigen-specific T cell response that, unlike the vaccines, targets the nucleocapsid and membrane of the virus, not just the spike protein. While there is no long-term follow up in this study of SOTRs, it is important to remember that there are endless studies showing long-term and likely lifetime immunity from prior infection in the general healthy population. At the same time, we already have numerous studies and the reality of the current hard data from fully vaccinated countries hit hard with a new spread that the vaccine-mediated immunity completely wears off even for healthy people after six months.

Moreover, studies have already shown that the immunity conveyed by the shots might be particularly short-lived for the immunocompromised. For example, a study from Puerto Rico's Department of Health recently found the shots to be 0% effective in those 85 years and older after 150-200 days after vaccination. A massive Swedish study of half the country's population showed "notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities" after about six months.

The results of the SOTR study raise some serious questions:

  1. How can our government continue to ignore the power of natural immunity if it is this potent even in organ transplant recipients?
  2. How can we continue denying organ transplants to those who don't get the shot when some of them already had the virus and the shot itself doesn't work much?
  3. What is our solution to the immunocompromised? The shots barely work and will likely not work at all with the new variants, yet they are most dangerous to those people. They have never even been tested in people with kidney failure, much less an organ transplant. Are they supposed to live in their homes forever and atrophy with no safe and effective solution? Why is the government not studying the idea of using preventives like ivermectin, nitazoxanide, or monoclonal antibodies? A recent study of the general population showed that Regeneron given pre-emptively could work for at least eight months of protection without any of the severe risks that are associated with the failed shots. Our government won't even advise these people to use Betadine nasal spray after being around people.

Just how vociferously is our government working to deny natural immunity? At the other end of the health spectrum from elderly transplant patients are healthy children. As scandalous as it is to risk the shot on healthy kids, it's unfathomable to push the shot on kids who also had prior infection. Already in March, the government estimated that 42% of children 5-17 had prior infection, and that was long before the "Delta wave," which was more transmissible and seemed to infect kids more than the ancestral strain. We all assumed that a solid majority would have been infected by now and were waiting for new data to be published. But finally the CDC has updated its numbers, and you will never guess the new data. Immunity magically slid backward!

CDC finally updated their burden estimates... and they bizarrely find that the percent of age 0 to 17 ever-infected fell from 36.7% through May to just 29.9% through September.\n\nEven more bizarre: they claim a higher % of symptomatic COVID than infection. Literally impossible.pic.twitter.com/B3ujqf5Csw

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1636496130

Although they don't have new numbers isolated for 5- to 17-year-olds (excluding really young kids and babies who were generally more isolated), their numbers for the 0-17 cohort have slid backward from 36.7% through May to just 29.9% through September ... after Delta! This makes no sense because the media and our government were panicking about this wave hitting the schools much harder. For those with children in schools, we can attest to that fact that last year barely any kids got the virus, whereas this year more seemed to get it (although still mildly) and, unlike before, even spread it in the classrooms to some degree. There is simply no way that a majority of children are not already immune.

This is yet another example of the government retracting a talking point, data point, or study once our side begins using it.

What will it take for people to wake up and realize we are being lied to?

Horowitz: Instant karma! After forcing students to get vaccinated, Indiana U president gets COVID



We have the right to force you to take an experimental injection whose risk is greater than the benefit for college-age kids. This is all being done to supposedly stop the spread of the virus to a predominantly young crowd. That is the view of Indiana University President Pamela Whitten. She and her colleagues recently won a federal court case upholding the mandate of a state-funded university against the bodily autonomy of the students. But it's built upon a lie, and her own bout with the virus, after being fully vaccinated, now proves it.

On Thursday, Pamela Whitten announced in an email to the school that she has tested positive for COVID after experiencing mild symptoms. "While the vaccine is not 100% effective, I am so grateful to be protected from more serious symptoms," she said in the letter. "I encourage everyone to get vaccinated as soon as you can."

Mike Mirro, MD, the chair of the IU Board of Trustees, added, "We are also encouraged that the vaccine she received is doing what it should, preventing a more serious illness.

Self-awareness is dead. Nearly all of the "experts" are now conceding that the vaccine does not prevent infection and transmission, but stating that it stops critical illness. Let's put aside the fact that some of the latest Israeli data casts doubt on the claim of protection from serious illness. The IU faculty (and CDC) are making the perfect argument against vaccine mandates. To the extent one believes government can rule over bodily autonomy, it's because of the claim that it falls under the state "police powers" to stop the spread of disease, a position articulated by Indiana federal Judge Damon Leichty last week.

However, now the school is articulating a position that undermines that stated interest. Officials now concede that the vaccine doesn't stop the transmission. After all, Whitten said she is experiencing symptoms, which means she definitely can transmit the virus. That she claims the vaccine prevents serious illness, assuming that is even true, is merely an argument that telling people to take the shot is solid optional advice. If vaccinated people can transmit the virus, while protecting themselves (not others) from serious illness, then a vaccine mandate is on par with telling someone they should lay off soda and excess red meat — great advice, but no reason to suggest it affects other people.

Even just as advice, Whitten's advice is not proven by science. Even if we believe that the vaccine has a 97% efficacy rate against serious illness, a claim that is being challenged in Israel by reality, it's unlikely that the balance of risk versus return pays off for her students, unlike faculty closer to her age. According to Phil Kerpen's calculation, an 18-year-old without that hypothetical 97% effective vaccine still has one-fifth the risk of dying from COVID as a 60-year-old-adult who is fully vaccinated.

Reminder: Even if vaccines are 97% effective, mortality risk for *unvaccinated* children is lower than vaccinated a… https://t.co/JKYLg7aZJT
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1625845289.0

Ms. Whitten's claim is so absurd when you consider the fact that just one IU student out of 12,000 who got the virus was hospitalized, and the details of that hospitalization are unclear. That means that college kids likely have a lower risk of serious illness than from the flu or other pathogens that typically spread like wildfire in college dorms in any given year. And if she is worried about staff her age, again, they already have their supposed protection in the vaccine and don't need the students to assume a risk on their behalf, especially given that they can still get it and spread it even if they are vaccinated.

According to the Israelis, there is just a 39% efficacy rate against getting infected by the dominant strain, and that number seems to be dropping every day. Studies have shown, on the other hand, that preemptively taking ivermectin decreases chances of infection by 86%. Thus, there is greater science behind mandating ivermectin than the vaccines, once we are OK with violating the human right of bodily autonomy.

As absurd as the argument of "my mask protects you but not me" was all of last year, at least the mask mandate made sense according to their ridiculous logic. However, with the vaccines, they are stating the opposite – that it only protects you but not others. Yet, in the same breath they are saying you must get vaccinated even if those who believe in the vaccines have already availed themselves of the protection, and the courts are indulging their argument.

In his opinion, Judge Leichty quoted Dr. Cole Beeler on behalf of the university. "For the university, Dr. Cole Beeler says the COVID-19 vaccine mandate facilitates a 'safe and reliable way to assure lack of spread of COVID' within the university's campus communities and 'prevents morbidity and mortality.'" He cited the 1904 Jacobson case as the foundation for his argument, in which the court stated, "The legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases."

Putting aside the fact that no legislature has passed the vaccine mandate, that argument has now been proven to be cloddish and absurd by the university's own president, who now has symptoms of the virus after having been fully vaccinated. The vaccines clearly do not stop or even slow the spread of the virus anywhere on earth where there are high vaccination rates. There is simply zero correlation, much less causation. As for morbidity, COVID deaths are extremely rare among people that age, and those who want such protection can always get the shot, regardless of the choices others make with their bodies.

Indeed, the U.K.'s latest report on "SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England" shows that there is zero benefit from the shots to those under 50 for the Delta variant. For those under 50, the case fatality rate of those who died with Delta was 0.03% both for the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.

What is truly appalling is that not only is there zero benefit to vaccinating college kids — both for their health and for the goal of stopping community spread — they will incur the most risk of any group. According to the CDC's own data, college-age kids are most at risk for myocarditis from the shots, particularly among the male students. They are seeing as much as a 200-fold increase in myocarditis cases within seven days of the second dose over the background rate of everyday myocarditis occurrence for 18- to 24-year-old males.

In his opinion, Judge Leichty shockingly ruled that bodily autonomy is not a fundamental right and a mandated injection is therefore subject to only a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. However, upon appeal, if the judges actually looked at the facts, Indiana University's vaccine mandate can no longer survive even a rational basis review. Just ask a vaccinated 80-year-old if they'd like to sit in a room today with Pamela Whitten.

Horowitz: The medical field's immoral war on children



"The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment." —Nuremberg Code

Wanted: a pediatrician who actually believes in science and not child abuse.

My children are months overdue for their checkups because they are distraught about having to wear masks. The baby, who doesn't yet have to cover her breathing orifices, was traumatized at her recent visit by seeing everyone dressed like a mummy. How can it be that the doctors responsible most for the health of children can't read simple data and studies showing clearly that children are more at risk from the trauma of the response to COVID than from the virus?

Scientists from University College London and the Universities of York, Bristol, and Liverpool studied the data from all pediatric COVID-19 infections in the U.K. and found that just 25 children under 18 likely died from the virus in a country with over 12 million children. Only six of those children had no known serious underlying conditions, although the authors caution that they could not confirm that all of them were indeed healthy. The rest of the fatalities were among those with the sorts of conditions that cause people to die every year from other endemic respiratory viruses for which we never disrupt society or force masking and experimental injections.

"During the same time period studied there were 124 deaths from suicide and 268 deaths from trauma, emphasizing COVID-19 is rarely fatal in CYP," concluded the U.K. scientists.

According to this data, healthy children under 18 have a 1 in 2 million chance of dying of COVID in the U.K. over the course of a year. According to the CDC, in the U.S., every person has a 1 in 500,000 chance of being struck by lightening in a given year. In other words, there is more math and science behind destroying the lives of children and forcing them to wear a protective suit or stay inside for a year because of lightening than because of COVID.

The forced masking and vaccination of children is likely the biggest scandal of all time. For pediatrician offices to continue focusing their regulations on COVID when every other ailment is a bigger threat to children is global malpractice that will leave an indelible stain on a profession that now follows voodoo rituals over science. There is simply no way a pediatrician can possibly think it's humane to pressure children to get the experimental injections, even if the risk factors are as low as they believe.

Even if we are to trust Pfizer's own trial data (p. 27) and allow the foxes of profit from guarding the academic henhouse, there is a 1 in 333 risk for a serious adverse event (SAE) from the vaccine. Pfizer's trial resulted in 5 SAEs out of 1,127 12- to 15-year-olds in the vaccine group, as opposed to 1 in the 1,127 of the placebo group. That was the number of serious adverse events in just 30 days. If this excess absolute risk of 0.003 (0.3%) for SAEs holds up, that means for every 333 children 12-15 years old who are vaccinated, there would be one serious adverse event.

So, let's assume that somehow the vaccine is 100% effective in stopping the one in 2 million pediatric deaths. On the way to that 2 million pediatric vaccination number, over 6,000 children would suffer serious adverse effects, including life-altering disabilities and deaths. But that is from Pfizer's untrustworthy data. A detailed analysis from Israel's Hadassah Medical Center found that the rate of just one serious side effect – myocarditis – was as high as 1 in every 3,000-6,000 among young men.

The cruel irony is that most of the children in the trial did develop mild side effects. Within a few days after the second injunction, 66% of the 12- to 15-year-olds developed fatigue, 65% developed headaches, and 42% developed chills. This is the upper bounds of serious illness that children would get from the virus itself, assuming they are even symptomatic. Worse, 13% developed moderate or serious muscle pain, a much greater share than those who develop it from the virus. Thus, they have swapped out a front-loaded guarantee of afflicting children with these symptoms for a chance of perhaps avoiding those same symptoms for some, while creating an exponentially greater chance of serious, immutable side effects. Yet they have now taken their show down the road to get approval for injections for those younger than 12!

Another important finding of this British study is that initial estimates of pediatric COVID deaths were overestimated by 61%. If we were to extrapolate that number to the U.S., it would mean there were only 133 COVID deaths (out of 331 reported), which fits in proportionately given that the U.K. is one-fifth the population of the U.S. and reported 25 pediatric deaths. This would mean that fewer kids died of COVID than in almost every flu season this past decade.

Pediatric Flu/COVID comp https://t.co/Tz69zFQWoK

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1625766117.0

Yet the CDC is shockingly requiring children who don't get the experimental shots to wear masks all day in school this fall. Mind you, children are far more protected unvaccinated than adults are with a vaccine, even assuming it's 97% effective.

Reminder: Even if vaccines are 97% effective, mortality risk for *unvaccinated* children is lower than vaccinated a… https://t.co/JKYLg7aZJT

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1625845289.0

Once we have proven mathematically that the medical "experts" are lying to us about the threat of COVID to children, there is no reason to believe they are not lying about every other premise of the virus: treatment, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and vaccines. Why aren't the state legislatures in red states holding hearings and auditing everything their respective state departments of health are doing about COVID and revisiting those policies? Everything that is being done regarding treatment, vaccines, natural immunity, and most certainly children is based on false science and needs an immediate course correction.

At a minimum, state legislatures should ban all doctors and other venues from ever masking children and immediately cease and desist from marketing the experimental vaccines. Until children can see a doctor while breathing properly, there is not a single state that is truly free of COVID fascism.

Horowitz: ‘Masks defeated the flu’? 4 reasons that’s absurd beyond belief



It's the lie that won't die and the one that is designed to prevent mask-wearing from being relegated to the ash heap of history. The same experts who last year predicted a "twindemic" of COVID and the flu flooding the hospitals together, completely missing the natural phenomenon of viral interference, are now crediting the lack of flu and other respiratory viruses to mask-wearing. But the disappearance of flu-like illnesses occurred even at times and in places where mask-wearing was uncommon, and its subsequent re-emergence occurred even in places where mask-wearing was still in vogue.

Last week, the local ABC station in Dallas ran a story on the out-of-season spread of RSV in north Texas and of course blamed people not wearing masks. "We've changed our behavior and now nature is giving us the answer," said Dr. Jeffrey Kahn, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Health and professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center. "For the people who think masks don't make a difference, I can't think of any better evidence to suggest that masks actually make a huge difference," Kahn said.

This story came on the heels of the Boston Globe running a headline, "The downside of ditching masks: the return of colds, flu" — all the while never presenting a shred of evidence that masks are the source of the changing trends. Dr. Fauci himself predicted that mask-wearing for the flu might become universal. "I think people have gotten used to the fact that wearing masks, clearly, if you look at the data, diminishes respiratory diseases," he said. "We've had practically a non-existent flu season this year merely because people were doing the kinds of public health things that were directed predominantly against COVID-19."

Like most ideas promoted by leftists, the mask theory about the flu sounds good for about one second, but if you allow your brain to think past that political impulse of groupthink, their entire theory falls apart. In fact, it's quite evident that the disappearance of the flu and some other respiratory viruses (but not all) is due to viral interference, a phenomenon completely out of our hands.

Here are four points to consider:

1) How can masks work so spectacularly for the flu and RSV but fail so miserably for COVID? Crediting mask-wearing and not natural viral interference from COVID for the disappearance of other viruses implicitly implicates the belief that masks worked for COVID! Although the endless charts and data prove masks never worked anywhere, theoretically, supporters could hypothesize that it might have been slightly worse at any given time had masks not been worn. However, if they are now crediting a near 100% drop in flu-like illness to mask-wearing, there are no laws of biology and physics that can explain a close to zero effect on COVID. The virions are roughly the same size for both viruses. If anything, there are 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited by the CDC that already showed masks don't work for the flu. The only question was whether perhaps masks could work for this new virus. And of course, we have our answer from a year of data and the results of the only RCT conducted, showing no statistically meaningful effect.

2) Why did rhinovirus colds continue while coronavirus colds stopped? Rhinoviruses pretty much circulated normally throughout the entire duration of the epidemic.

The same trend was observed for adenoviruses, which seemed to remain pretty level throughout the pandemic:

Contrast that to the CDC surveillance data of the four coronavirus colds, and you will see that they completely disappeared during the normal late fall/winter season.

There is no logical reason why mask-wearing would chase away coronaviruses but not rhinoviruses or adenoviruses. Adenovirus virions are roughly 0.1 microns, the same size as SARS-CoV-2 virions. If anything, the Ro rate of contagion for coronaviruses is much higher than for rhinoviruses. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that from an immunobiological standpoint, COVID, a form of coronavirus, would interfere with the spread of viruses within the same family.

3) Disappearance of viruses coincided with circulation of COVID, not COVID response. Perhaps the most obvious proof that the disappearance of the viruses like flu, coronavirus colds, and RSV was due to natural viral interference and not mask-wearing is the timing.

As you can see from Bio Fire Syndromatic Trends, the flu, RSV, and coronavirus colds dropped off the face of the earth beginning in late February 2020. Mask-wearing did not become common until April (or May-June in some places), yet these viruses ground to a halt in the late winter/early spring even more than the typical drop we see in March. It coincides perfectly with the timing of the virus, not the mask-wearing.

Fauci today said that masks decrease respiratory diseases & led to a non-existent flu seasonAs I’ve repeatedly sa… https://t.co/dJ60u8i22u

— IM (@ianmSC) 1620588039.0

Likewise, the re-emergence of viruses like RSV, coronavirus colds, and parainfluenza off-season during the spring coincides with COVID cases dropping like a rock, not the lack of mask-wearing. For example, while many southern states ended the mask mandates in the early spring, New York only recently ended it, and most people still wear masks indoors in the northeast. Yet the CDC's data on RSV show the resurgence beginning early in the year – exactly when COVID started to decline.

Similarly, the CDC's data for coronaviruses in the northeast (heavily masked) show those colds making a comeback long before the mask mandates were lifted.

4) Flu disappeared in countries and regions that did not have widespread masking. Nearly every country experienced the natural circulation of COVID, but not all of them wore masks. Sweden was notorious for thumbing its nose at the mask fad, yet the flu and RSV completely disappeared. Then RSV reappeared when the virus declined:

And who can ignore Japan? The Japanese are notorious for disciplined mask-wearing during the flu season, yet there is no evidence the practice ever made a dent until this year's circulation of COVID, a very aggressive and durable pandemic.

Japan masks every year, and pushed masks hard in 2019 with no apparent effect. But in 2020-21 flu disappeared with… https://t.co/u5CkLdpLsu

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1621008715.0

Indeed, when our public health officials follow political science rather than life science, anything is possible. As it relates to masks, they can only get the credit for any positive trend, but not the blame of any case increase.

Horowitz: As the CDC rushes to experiment on children, its own data show K-12 likely have herd immunity



Nearly 42% of Americans ages 5-17 — roughly overlapping with the ages of K-12 schoolchildren — have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to CDC's best estimate. That observation, culled from CDC's "Estimated rates of COVID-19 disease outcomes, per 100,000" by my friend Phil Kerpen, has earth-shattering implications that refute the premise behind the CDC's continued panic over children and COVID, as well as the rush to vaccinate them despite the unknown risks.

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices planned to hold an emergency meeting on Friday to discuss the emerging evidence of myocarditis cases among newly vaccinated teens and young adults. However, the "emergency" had to be pushed off by the retroactive holiday of "Juneteenth," itself celebrated on Saturday. In the meantime, it's totally fine to continue to vaccinating teens — in many places, requiring it — without further study, despite the fact that they likely have already achieved herd immunity. This comes even as the World Health Organization has taken the position that "Children should not be vaccinated for the moment."

We've already known that this virus is less of a threat to children than the flu. However, the latest data from the CDC show that even this mild virus (for children) is already in the rearview mirror, making the entire debate over current policy moot.

About 42% of the K-12 population had already recovered from COVID by the end of March, per CDC best estimate. That… https://t.co/tAzGAFgDNH

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1623982847.0

The CDC's best estimate of infections per 100,000 by the end of March is that 5- to 17-year-olds have had the highest rate of infection per 100,000. If you do the math, that adds up to 41.532%. This is earth-shattering for several reasons.

We know from most places in the country, including the Los Angeles area, that the virus essentially became extinct when they reached the 40% infection mark. The virus seemed to wane in almost every part of the country when serology tests showed about 40% with antibodies, and if the CDC is estimating that school-age children had an even slightly higher rate, it means they are certainly immune without the vaccine. In other words, not only is the virus not serious enough to experiment with a new vaccine for children, it has likely passed.

Moreover, if 42% of school-age children have already gotten the virus, despite the child abuse regimen of masking, isolation, and testing we've foisted upon them, what does that tell you about the efficacy of those voodoo "non-pharmaceutical interventions"? Many local governments are requiring children to wear masks until they get vaccinated, but clearly masks have not prevented the inevitable.

It was clear from day one that the virus had long spread throughout the country before we even recognized it. The CDC's own research on mitigating the spread of flu indicates that "the effectiveness of pandemic mitigation strategies will erode rapidly as the cumulative illness rate prior to implementation climbs above 1 percent of the population in an affected area."

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that "a National Institutes of Health research program identified seven people in states from Mississippi to Wisconsin to Pennsylvania who were infected with the new virus days or weeks before the first cases were confirmed in their areas." Thus, even if these mitigation strategies somehow work under the right circumstances, in the U.S., those horses already left the barn. Yet, here we are with over 40% already infected and we are still acting as if non-pharmaceutical interventions can prevent the spread.

Sadly, while children have already achieved herd immunity to this inconsequential virus, the mental health problems, as well as side effects from the experimental mRNA shots, will continue indefinitely. Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Massachusetts, is reporting an 80% increase in mental health-related pediatric visits to its emergency department this past year and three times the number of 8- to 18-year-old patient admissions for suicide attempts.

There is no herd immunity threshold for this problem because the senseless child abuse is continuing. My son recently ran across boys on a playground wearing masks outside in Maryland's oppressively humid climate. When he told them they don't have to wear them, they were shocked. Clearly, the parents couldn't care less about their own children, and it's all coming from the government and the media.

Now, ignorant parents are being led by a maleficent government to expand the mask abuse to experimental gene therapy. Just consider the insanity of requiring vaccines for children. According to the latest data from the CDC's VEARS, a 12- to 15-year-old male is eight times more likely to suffer from myocarditis after the second Pfizer shot than from the virus itself.

1/ Per VAERS update today, & CDC’s Covid Net via data analyst @JeanRees10: At PRESENT, “Hospitalization for myocar… https://t.co/noYCLkYSTt

— Andrew Bostom, MD, MS (@andrewbostom) 1624032284.0

According to VEARS, there are now more reported cases of chest pain resulting from the new COVID shots in just six months than from all other vaccines combined for all years.

@Autumnlilyx1 For "chest pain" (the other main presenting symptom of myocarditis) the figures are:All vaccines ev… https://t.co/RZIpdiE97n

— Jonathan Engler 🌸 (@jengleruk) 1624272187.0

To paraphrase John Kerry on the Vietnam War, how can you ask a child to be the last child to die for a lie?

Horowitz: Contagious lies: CDC claims hospitalization rising among unvaccinated teens — contrary to its own data



We all knew this was coming. In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer's efficacy data.

"CDC director reports spike in teen hospitalizations, urges parents to vaccinate kids over 12," was the headline at the Hill on Friday, reporting on the CDC's new study of hospitalizations. Naturally, it caught my attention because we all know that hospitalizations among all age groups have been plummeting to record lows across the country in recent weeks. It turns out that along with its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC published a "study" purporting to show an increase in hospitalizations among 12- to 17-year-olds, with one-third of them being in the ICU and 5% of them being placed on ventilators.

A new @CDCMMWR finds of 204 adolescents hospitalized for COVID-19 during Jan–Mar 2021, nearly a third were admitted… https://t.co/LN3kQlMQJp

— CDC (@CDCgov) 1622819402.0

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was ready to pounce. "I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation," said Walensky in a statement.

Of course, the solution is the great experimental gene therapy. "Until they are fully vaccinated, adolescents should continue to wear masks and take precautions when around other [sic] who are not vaccinated to protect themselves, and their family, friends, and community," Walensky stated.

CNN dutifully echoed the false data and the premise it engenders without investigating it.

New CDC report shows a recent increase in Covid-19 hospitalizations among people ages 12 to 17, reinforcing the imp… https://t.co/0lZSNIMOTt

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) 1622819579.0

But there's one problem. The CDC's own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks. It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they've used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rates.

The study period of the CDC's report was from March 1, 2020, to April 24, 2021. It just so happens that April 24 was roughly the peak period for ALL age groups!

@kerpen Guess where the CDC stopped their study: https://t.co/3reIhWzEmv

— Woke Zombie 😊 (@foogatwo) 1622829400.0

Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based on the CDC's headlines, one would think that childhood hospitalizations are spreading nowand that they are rising relative to other age groups. In reality, they have plummeted and only rose slightly from a near-zero baseline earlier this year along with other groups.

For 2 days @CDCgov @CDCDirector have falsely claimed #COVID19 kids hospitalizations are rising and are using that c… https://t.co/pleAk7kfYD

— Philip Holloway 😊 (@PhilHollowayEsq) 1622899248.0

If anything, the April 24 "peak" hospitalization rate among teens was lower than the peak during the winter, yet nobody ever felt there was an emergent situation with teen COVID hospitalizations during the worst months of the winter.

This is the same thing the CDC and others did when they picked arbitrary start and end points last year showing a decline in cases after mask mandates were instituted, while ignoring the massive subsequent increase over the winter in these same places.

But here's the kicker: Hospital rates among children actually increased more slowly during the early spring spread than among those over 65, which is the most vaccinated demographic.

4/ "Rising hospitalizations" also misses very important context - hospitalizations were rising in ALL age groups ar… https://t.co/u9chQLjRC9

— Eric (@The_OtherET) 1622832099.0

So, there is no way to chalk up that superficial increase with an arbitrary start and end point to lack of vaccination. It's merely a reflection of a time when cases went up mildly in a minority of the country (while plummeting in the South and West). Whatever tiny baseline of hospitalizations there are among children went up commensurately with the baseline increase during any other period of spread. Of course, today, hospitalizations are lower than ever. There is zero evidence that vaccination rates played any role in that trend.

Finally, numerous studies, including the CDC's own data, show that there is a much higher rate of fake COVID hospitalizations among children than adults, aka when there is no proof they were hospitalized because of COVID. According to this very report from Friday, 46% of those reputed teen hospitalizations were "not clearly COVID-19 related."

5/ Something in this MMWR study that is worth mentioning, though - almost HALF (172 out of 376) of "COVID" hospital… https://t.co/VSTDh6D4KS

— Eric (@The_OtherET) 1622832207.0

What's worse, almost half of those teens in the observational study where the cause was unclear appear to have been admitted for psychiatric reasons!

6/ Additionally in this table, of the 172 children admitted to the hospital, but not for COVID, over 44% were there… https://t.co/GAIjRh0w1a

— Eric (@The_OtherET) 1622832255.0

In other words, it's likely the depression induced by the very panic the CDC is trying to exacerbate among kids that has engendered a decline in mental health leading to hospitalization, not the virus itself.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail, a recent U.K. survey of humanitarian organizations found that "more than a quarter of 75 charities surveyed said some children had expressed suicidal thoughts, while 41 per cent said some had been abused at home in lockdown." In the U.S., the CDC reports 1,139 deaths from COVID under the age of 25, but concedes that 30% of those deaths included could not plausibly be linked to the virus. At the same time, there were over 2,500 non-COVID excess deaths for that age cohort, meaning that the panic, hysteria, drug overdoses, and suicides likely killed 3.5 times as many teens and young adults as the virus.

The CDC reports 1139 deaths with Covid for those under 25, with ~30% of those not plausibly connected to Covid (can… https://t.co/00jyYqZsWp

— PLC (@Humble_Analysis) 1622964789.0

It doesn't take a forensic investigator to realize that there has been a plethora of teenagers in the hospital due to the lies overstating the threat of the virus to them. Naturally, at a time when COVID is increasing in all age groups, a certain percentage of those youngsters will test positive for the virus. Accordingly, any subsequent death of any teen who tested positive – whether he or she died from drugs or suicide – will be recorded as a COVID death.

In May, New York magazine published a story highlighting new studies showing that the pediatric hospitalization numbers for COVID have likely been dramatically inflated throughout the country. The first study, published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was conducted by Stanford researchers and examined 117 reputed COVID hospitalizations among those under 18 at a children's hospital in Northern California. They found that just 7.7% exhibited severe illness and 12.8% critical illness. Overall, 45% were classified as "unlikely to be caused by SARSCoV2," and it appears that most of the others weren't suffering life-threatening illness.

The second study, published in the same journal, found in America's fifth-largest hospital that, among patients younger than 22, 40% had "incidental infection," only 47% were "potentially symptomatic," and just 14% were "significantly symptomatic." They further found that "Fifty-five percent of incidental and 47% of potentially symptomatic patients had at least one identified comorbidity, while 90% of significantly symptomatic patients had at least one."

The twisted irony is that the CDC is lying about COVID hospitalization trends in order to get children to vaccinate when, in fact, vaccine-related hospitalization are really on the rise today. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at UCSF, tallied the data from just one reported serious side effect listed in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), myocarditis, and found that hospitalization for myocarditis post-vaccination among 12-17-year-olds is currently 12 times greater than hospitalization for COVID. Why do our "public health experts" not find that current trend alarming?

It's quite evident that the pandemic in America is over with and it never affected children, even during its peak. However, the pandemic of lies, fear, panic, and emotional abuse is continuing indefinitely until Pfizer and Moderna satiate their rapacious appetite for children's blood. Who will defend our children?

Horowitz: Why unvaccinated kids are less at risk than vaccinated adults



It's official. Children are less at risk of serious illness from COVID than literally any other ailment that afflicts them, yet they are the last people our government is setting free from the clutches of COVID tyranny. We have always known that children tend to get less sick from COVID than from a seasonal flu. But two new studies from California demonstrate that the risk is even lower than previously thought.

Yesterday, New York magazine published a story highlighting new studies showing that the pediatric hospitalization numbers for COVID have likely been dramatically inflated throughout the country. The first study, published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was conducted by Stanford researchers and examined 117 reputed COVID hospitalizations among those under 18 at a children's hospital in Northern California. They found that just 7.7% exhibited severe illness and 12.8% critical illness. Overall, 45% were classified as "unlikely to be caused by SARSCoV2," and it appears that most of the others weren't suffering life-threatening illness.

The second study, published in the same journal, found in America's fifth-largest hospital that, among patients younger than 22, 40% had "incidental infection," only 47% were "potentially symptomatic," and just 14% were "significantly symptomatic." They further found that "Fifty-five percent of incidental and 47% of potentially symptomatic patients had at least one identified comorbidity, while 90% of significantly symptomatic patients had at least one."

As Drs. Monica Gandhi and Amy Beck wrote in a commentary for Hospital Pediatrics that accompanied the two studies, "Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of clearly distinguishing between children hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 found on universal testing versus those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease." They further conclude that the data also "greatly overestimate the true burden of COVID-19 disease in children."

If so many of the pediatric hospitalizations are wrongly ascribed to COVID, then how many of the already very few pediatric COVID deaths are also among individuals who died with COVID, not because of it? The CDC has already stated based on an analysis of death certificates that 35.2% of all reputed pediatric COVID deaths "could not be plausibly categorized as either a chain-of-event or significant contributing condition."

Keeping that in mind, this table compares CDC best estimates of pediatric flu deaths with the first two seasons of… https://t.co/A0ZQreXP94

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1621011020.0

Yet, appallingly, so many schools are still requiring children to remain masked until they get an experimental vaccine that can only potentially harm them and not help them. Children already are de facto vaccinated by God. A new study published in Science magazine shows blood taken from kids before the pandemic contains memory B cells that bind SARSCoV2. "These findings suggest that encounters with coronaviruses in early life may produce cross-reactive memory B cell populations that contribute to divergent COVID-19 susceptibilities," suggest the Stanford University researchers.

Just how strong is the immunity of children? Phil Kerpen calculated the numbers of age-stratified risk of COVID using the CDC's mortality numbers and assumed for good measure that the Pfizer shot is 97% effective. Even under such a scenario, unvaccinated children are still less at risk than vaccinated young adults and 100 times less at risk than vaccinated 75+-year-olds!

Consider the fact that Dr. Fauci now admits that if people are vaccinated, even if they can still get the virus asymptomatically, their risk of spreading it is "very very low." Well, in January, the CDC already conceded, "Children might be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than are adults." Consequently, it admits that because asymptomatic people really do not spread very often, that is likely the reason why we never experienced outbreaks in schools. "This apparent lack of transmission [in schools] is consistent with recent research, which found an asymptomatic attack rate of only 0.7% within households and a lower rate of transmission from children than from adults," wrote the CDC in a January 29 report.

The chance an asymptomatic kid infects another kid that results in them being hospitalized from COVID is 1 in 42 mi… https://t.co/kMMZocgn5y

— Eric (@IAmTheActualET) 1621437763.0

In other words, children already are more vaccinated with immunity than adults can ever achieve even under the most bullish outcome of the vaccine. And unlike with these experimental mRNAs, God's vaccine for children comes risk-free.

Horowitz: Can there really be a harsh flu season along with coronavirus?



"Twindemic."

It's the new literary expression of panic being propagated by politicians and public health officials as pretext for continuing the social control measures indefinitely. If you search for the term "twindemic," you will find all sorts of ominous predictions of a "perfect storm" of a raging coronavirus pandemic converging with a harsh flu season to overrun the hospitals and pile up the bodies in the morgues. There's just one problem: We've already had COVID-19 for at least nine months, and we've seen that this virus and the seasonal flu do not proliferate together.

My friend Kyle Lamb, the ultimate COVID-19 math and data guru, has been messaging me for months about the strange phenomenon of the disappearance of the flu in the Southern Hemisphere. The issue didn't grab my interest at first because the public health elites hadn't begun to sow panic about the coming flu season in our hemisphere yet. Then, on Sept. 18, the CDC published a paper acknowledging that the flu had essentially disappeared from the Southern Hemisphere this past summer. That is an astoundingly positive fact that almost everyone in the world is unaware of amid the endless barrage of doom and gloom in the news.

The World Health Organization has observed that overall "influenza activity remained record low in comparison with previous seasons." The WHO discovered an almost miraculous cure for the flu! "Despite continued or even increased testing for influenza in some countries in the southern hemisphere, very few influenza detections were reported," wrote the WHO in an Aug. 31 report on influenza surveillance data.

The numbers are truly remarkable. In Australia, for example, there were just 107 lab-confirmed cases of influenza this past August, as opposed to 61,000 in August 2019. The same dynamic was observed in countries like South Africa, Chile, and Argentina – all countries that get their flu season during the North American summer.

@kerpen Data from Chile. Flu and other resp viruses disappeared last southern winter https://t.co/I4xQJ8YLb0
— Robinson Nuñez (@Robinson Nuñez)1602732250.0

A recent study by Australian researchers found "98.0% and 99.4% reductions in RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] and influenza detections respectively in Western Australian children through winter 2020; despite reopening of schools."

Those numbers are simply astounding and hint to some strong immunobiological phenomenon more than any human intervention as the culprit. It seems clear that when there is a dominant respiratory virus in circulation, it predominates over the flu and possibly other respiratory viruses. To test this theory, I asked Kyle to dig into data from the U.S. in the late winter. I recalled numerous articles early on in this past flu season warning of a moderate to severe season, but then it seemed to die off in February, and we wound up with just 22,000 reported flu deaths, the lowest in a decade. Could it be that we had already experienced the disappearance of the flu once COVID-19 began circulating more widely in early March?

The answer is a resounding yes!

After compiling the CDC's data on weekly influenza hospitalizations per 100,000 for the three prior flu seasons, Kyle contrasted those numbers to the weekly trend line in the 2019-2020 season. The numbers are astonishing:

Source: Kyle Lamb

As you can see, every year, the flu season begins to wane around week 10 (ending March 7, this past year) until it is essentially over around week 17 – at the end of April. But if you look at the 2019-2020 flu hospitalization data, you will notice that the flu didn't just wane in March, it died precipitously. By week 13 (ending in early April), the hospitalization rate was much lower than during any year on week 17, when it's normally the lowest and people are thinking a lot more of spring allergies than the flu!

Thus, we have already experienced this phenomenon of coronavirus cancelling out the flu in the Northern Hemisphere, but few have noticed it.

You might suggest that the lower numbers of confirmed hospitalizations were only evident because we were so focused on coronavirus at that point and weren't testing for the flu, even though it might still have been circulating, but not captured in the data. Kyle has the data on that as well:

Source: Kyle Lamb

As you can see, we actually increased flu testing well over the numbers of any previous year. This was likely due to the fact that in February and March, there were limited numbers of COVID-19 tests available and hospitals were actually liberally testing for the flu as a means of ruling out other pathogens and better diagnosing COVID-19. Yet despite the increased tests, the rate of positivity for the flu plummeted to near zero. In April, the positivity rate for flu tests hovered between 1/20 and 1/40 of the rate from the past three years!

Let's come full-circle back to the present. We stand today at the precipice of the new flu season – 2020-2021. Based on CDC data for week 40 of this year, we are already seeing the miraculous decline in the flu:

Flu Testing, 2020 Week 40 vs. 2019 Week 40Clinical labs:2020: 17 positives on 7,923 tests (0.21%)2019: 447 posi… https://t.co/A6nD0aMJo8
— Phil Kerpen (@Phil Kerpen)1602729931.0

Thus, it is now an undeniable fact that COVID-19 essentially has not only reduced the prevalence of influenza, but it has nearly boxed it out of existence in both hemispheres. The big question is why. The CDC and WHO reports on the disappearance of the flu are extolling the virtues of "mitigation efforts," such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and better hygiene as the key to defeating the flu.

The CDC believes the decline in the flu is due to "widespread adoption of community mitigation measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2." Likewise, the WHO suggests, "The various hygiene and physical distancing measures implemented by Member States to reduce SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission have likely played a role in reducing influenza virus transmission."

Let's just indulge this point for a moment as if it were true. That would be an admission that these efforts have failed to block COVID-19 but somehow stopped the flu from circulating. It's a truly bizarre assertion.

Fortunately, you don't have to engage in mental gyrations to figure out why these measures would work for one respiratory virus and not the other, because several simple facts demonstrate that natural predominance of COVID-19, not human intervention, is what stopped the flu from circulating widely during the pandemic.

The reality is that lockdowns didn't begin until the end of March, and the universal mask-wearing was implemented several weeks to several months later, depending on the region. Plus, it takes a few weeks for these measures to register, assuming they work. Only the natural immunobiological phenomenon of one circulating virus pushing aside another would explain why the flu died in early March.

Moreover, the flu disappeared from nearly every country, not just the ones that exercised these attempted mitigation efforts. In typical years, the positivity rate of flu testing reaches well over 10% in most countries, yet the WHO reported that not a single country had more than a 2%-3% positivity rate this year.

Source: World Health Organization

Ironically, one of the only countries that did have a flu outbreak at the tail end of the summer this year was Cambodia, but as Kyle points out, the country barely had COVID-19 cases.

So look at this folks... the flu has mostly disappeared this year in the southern hemisphere, but just further Nort… https://t.co/Eie5Xx7gPj
— Kyle Lamb (@Kyle Lamb)1601357869.0

In Brazil, which notoriously eschewed lockdowns at the national level, a policy that President Jair Bolsonaro has been roundly criticized for, there was the same abrupt end to the flu season. A search of the WHO's influenza surveillance country database shows that Southern Hemisphere countries usually see an increase in flu cases in weeks 10-12 and then a continuous climb through July. In Brazil, as in all other countries (regardless of mitigation policies), the numbers dropped off and went backward in April relative to last year's numbers, which accelerated for several months thereafter.

Source: Kyle Lamb

Remember, unlike in the U.S., where COVID-19 began to predominated in early March (which is when our flu season was short-circuited), in Brazil the virus didn't really begin until April, which is why their short-circuit of the flu began a month later.

The two viruses seem to work against each other remarkably like a seesaw. Just as we see that our flu season in the Northern Hemisphere was normal before it was abruptly cut short by COVID-19, the same dynamic played out in the Southern Hemisphere. The virus that circulated strongly in America in March didn't begin to predominate in South America until April. Thus, flu season had time to get off the ground and went up through week 13-15. It died abruptly in April, as compared to previous years when it surged in a straight line through August, like all countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

The concept of one respiratory virus boxing out another is not new. A recent study published by immunobiologists at the Yale University School of Medicine found that the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 was cut short in the fall in several European countries by the seasonal rhinovirus spread. "These findings show that one respiratory virus can block infection with another through stimulation of antiviral defences in the airway mucosa, supporting the idea that interference from rhinovirus disrupted the 2009 IAV pandemic in Europe," asserted the four researchers. "These results indicate that viral interference can potentially affect the course of an epidemic, and this possibility should be considered when designing interventions for seasonal influenza epidemics and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic."

Indeed, it is something that the propagators of panic and control refuse to consider. The implications of this data analysis are huge. It's not just that it shows it's nearly impossible to have a bad flu (or much of a flu season at all) circulating together with COVID-19, contrary to what governors in both parties are warning. It demonstrates that much of the loss of life from COVID-19 is really being taken from from flu seasons and will likely result in a very weak flu season this year, if not for the coming few years.

I saw something interesting in looking at total deaths by year since 1999 in the CDC Wonder database: every odd num… https://t.co/V5uXMQ7dRd
— Kyle Lamb (@Kyle Lamb)1602455107.0

What this means is that over a 3- to 5-year window, unlike during the Spanish Flu, the excess deaths from this virus will be truly unremarkable outside of a few hot spots. It also demonstrates how mechanically cyclical respiratory virus deaths tend to be, regardless of human intervention measures. We are clearly not in control of natural biological phenomena, and it's time for politicians to stop using fear to make themselves all-powerful. Then again, these are people who think that we can "mitigate" temperature spikes and hurricanes.