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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz: Not so fast: 10 COVID biomedical fights that are still not over



Many commentators have noted that the Biden administration and the media are using Ukraine as the seamless off-ramp from COVID fascism. However, it is quite evident that they are not exiting the road to bio-medical tyranny but are merely driving in a tunnel – out of sight from the majority of people but still inexorably headed toward tyranny.

Republicans are just as eager as Democrats to let this issue go. However, it is far from over. And I’m not just talking about seeking revenge, justice, and a Nuremberg 2.0-style event to punish those who are responsible for the deaths of countless people and for suspending democracy. Here are 10 ramifications of our government’s response to COVID that are STILL with us today. Democrats artfully got rid of the broad mandates that affect families every day, such as school masking. They can’t afford to head into the election alienating everyone with children in school. But individuals still suffering in smaller numbers? There are no signs of relief.

1. Military Mandate
To this day, soldiers are being kicked out of the military for a shot that is expired, causes a shocking amount of injury and death, and never stopped transmission even when it worked a little. There have been some court injunctions for part of the military mandate, but the requirement is largely intact. Moreover, if the mandate is not removed, it will likely affect an entire generation of children who rightfully chose not to get the shots. None of them will be eligible for military service. Given all the shocking information that has come out about the safety and efficacy of the shots in recent days, it is appalling that Republicans wouldn’t engage in a budget fight ahead of the March 11 deadline and demand a termination of the military mandate.

2. Health care worker mandate
Even the U.K. got rid of its health care mandate. Yet American health care workers are still being fired for not getting this dangerous shot for a virus most of them already got and for a variant that seems to have more of an affinity to infect those with the shot! Even those already forced into getting the shots are now being asked to get boosters! This is coming at a time of a severe shortage of health care workers. Medscape, the leading medical profession media, has finally admitted, “Antibodies derived from natural COVID infection are more abundant and at least 10x more potent than immunity generated by vaccination alone.” Yet those with natural immunity are being fired and those with the shots are told to come to work with COVID! Again, how can Republicans let this continue for even a day? Florida and Tennessee are the only states to have passed laws fining health care agencies for not accepting religious or medical exemptions.

3. Pushing the shots on babies and toddlers
Children under 5 are the final frontier of Americans untainted by this bioweapon. We already know from a New York State study that there is no possible benefit because the authors admit the shots have negative efficacy after six weeks for 5- to 11-year-olds. They cause a tremendous amount of injury and there is zero benefit. How can Pfizer be allowed to seek authorization for the shots? States must promise to block any distribution of these shots.

4. Masks on planes and in doctor’s offices
Even though masks have been thoroughly debunked as a tool for viral source control, the criminalization of human breathing on airplanes continues. Moreover, every hospital in every state is still requiring it on patients in duress from injury, physical illness, or even Alzheimer’s patients. The inhumane treatment is still in full force.

5. Genocidal blocking of treatment
Ironically, COVID is not over and we don’t know what is coming next. There are actually more recorded deaths today than there were when the mandates began. The same people who destroyed our lives for COVID now want to walk away from it while still leaving people without proper treatment options. Very few states have passed bills protecting doctors prescribing off-label drugs, and not a single state has passed a bill requiring hospitals to allow right to try or to ensure that pharmacies stop blocking prescriptions. In other words, we still don’t have medical freedom in this country.

6. Remdesivir must be pulled
It is appalling that remdesivir is still the standard of care in hospitals. States must move to immediately pull this toxic drug.

7. Patient Bill of Rights
Patients are being denied visitation from family members. Dr. Molly James, an ICU doctor who treated COVID from day one, reports that she has patients who are being denied visitation by their spouses because the hospital believes they are slipping them ivermectin. Yes, they are actually upset the patient is getting better! Every state legislature must pass an emergency bill requiring hospitals to allow visitors, allow patients to decline treatment, the right to access treatment, prevent hospitals from confiscating existing prescriptions and vitamins, and criminalize “medical kidnapping,” whereby they prevent a patient from being released or transferred.

8. Denial of organ transplants
People in need of organ transplants might not constitute a massive share of the electorate, but their lives still matter. To this day, they are being denied transplants on account of not getting a dangerous shot that fails to stimulate immunity for their health status, even if they already have natural immunity. How a single Republican-controlled state can allow this to continue for another day is barbaric.

9. Treatment for vaccine injury
Even if we look at the most conservative estimates of vaccine injury, given the fact that most adults in the entire country were given at least one dose, that means there are a ton of people in need of help. Pfizer’s court-released documents now reveal the company knew about thousands of categories of adverse events. Yet, because of the censorship, scientists can’t even publish papers on how to identify, diagnose, and treat injury. These people are in need of help, and it is disgusting to walk away from this travesty as if nothing happened. The government owes reparations to those people for the violation of the principles of informed consent. Moreover, states must establish injury-reporting centers, encourage doctors to treat patients, and welcome medical academics to promote their research diagnosing vaccine injury. And yes, the people behind the vaccine corruption need to be held accountable.

10. A complete audit of the injections
At this point, given everything we know (and still don’t know), it’s no longer OK to just oppose mandates. We need a full audit in every state of everything that is wrong with the vaccines. Unless there is something we are all missing, they need to be immediately pulled from the market. Absent such a movement, they will quietly be pushed by the government and medical establishment for months to come. Moreover, they are working on dozens of new mRNA vaccines that need an entire new sphere of oversight at the state level now that the FDA is compromised. Even for coronavirus, Biden is promising to deploy a new vaccine within 100 days. This model of “emergency” cutting corners on research, development, and trials is the “new normal” if we don’t stop it.

The March 11 deadline for Congress to pass the final omnibus bill funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year is the last point of leverage to force resolution of these issues. Madison referred to the power of the purse as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance.” We already know that the number one issue on the minds of perfidious Republicans is endless funding for Ukraine. Is it possible that they can muster up the same level of passion to redress a single one of these civilization-changing grievances from their own citizens?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz: The treatment nihilism of our government continues unabated



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz: Are hospitals making thousands off this dangerous and ineffective COVID drug?



It simply makes no sense. Hospitals are aggressively using remdesivir months after it has become clear that it is not only ineffective, but causes liver toxicity and kidney failure. Yet despite its astronomical cost, hospital administrators are refusing to pull the treatment from standard protocol. At the same time, they are balking at the use of safe and effective ivermectin (or any other safe repurposed drug) to the point that they are even willing to go to court and appeal if they lose. What gives?

A listener of my podcast who goes by @NC_updipchick on Twitter discovered a little-known fact about the hospital reimbursement scheme for COVID that could possibly explain the genocidal fervor behind doctors blocking lifesaving treatment while sticking with remdesivir until the bitter end. After I had legendary critical care doctor Paul Marik on my podcast to discuss his lawsuit against a Virginia hospital that refused to allow any effective treatments (including vitamin C infusions), @NC_updipchick dug up an important Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing rule from over a year ago that seems to explain everything.

THREAD: Stick with me, I promise it\u2019ll be worth it.\n\nOn Wednesday @RMConservative had Dr. Paul Marik on his podcast to talk about Dr. Marik\u2019s lawsuit against his employer, Sentara Healthcare. Basically, Sentara has told Dr. Marik that he is no longer permitted to treat patients
— Mel #SMILESMATTER \ud83d\ude00 (@Mel #SMILESMATTER \ud83d\ude00) 1637464270

It’s not just the extra 20% bonus the hospitals get for treating patients with remdesivir, which would come out to roughly $600 in extra reimbursements per patient. A report on the CMS compliance rule from last October explains that for hospitals that treat with the approved emergency therapeutics — at the time, remdesivir and convalescent plasma — not only are they eligible for a 20% bonus, but that eligibility triggers access to “a New COVID–19 Treatments Add-on Payment (NCTAP) under the IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system ) for COVID-19 cases that meet certain criteria.”

What is this new payment scheme? Not only do hospitals get hundreds for remdesivir, but they potentially receive thousands for treating that individual patient for his entire course in the hospital. The report explains it as follows:

Normally, Medicare outlier payments, which are extra payments for cases with extraordinarily high costs, only kick in after the hospital has incurred $30,000 in costs above the MS-DRG payment. In other words, under the standard outlier rules, a hospital would only receive 80% of the costs that exceed $30,000 of the IPPS payment, which means that hospitals eat the first $30,000 in losses. Under the IFC, however, when hospitals provide remdesivir or COVID-19 convalescent plasma and the patient has a positive COVID-19 test, Medicare will share in 65% of the first dollar losses that exceed the MS-DRG reimbursement up to the $30,000 outlier threshold.

Hence, the hospital gets reimbursed for 65% of the initial cost as well, which explains why they have been in such a rush to treat patients with remdesivir up front. How big a difference could this make per patient? How about close to $20,000?

For example, if the COVID-19 treatment exceeded the MS-DRG payment by $100,000, based on the outlier payment alone, the hospital would receive $56,000 because Medicare’s formula for outliers is 80% of the cost above the inpatient payment after the hospital eats the $30,000. Under the IFC, however, because Medicare will now share in 65% percent of the first dollar losses up to the $30,000 outlier threshold, Hettich explained that the total Medicare reimbursement would be $75,500—the typical outlier payment of $56,000, plus the add-on payment of $19,500 (65% of the first $30,000 in losses is $19,500). “You would only get $56,000 normally, but because of the add-on payment, you get $75,500,” he said.

Thus, for a hospital system in a given state that treats 5,000 COVID patients over the course of the pandemic, remdesivir alone could be a golden ticket to close to $100 million in federal reimbursements. So while, thanks to the PREP Act, patient families cannot sue Gilead, the maker of remdesivir, for death or organ failure, hospitals are loving every minute of the remdesivir scam.

Perhaps, in a very dark and sinister way, we can now understand the vicious opposition to ivermectin by the hospitals. Ralph Lorigo, the attorney who has litigated most of the ivermectin “right to try” cases against hospital systems, said on my podcast earlier this month that he has gone up against the same hospital attorney in a western New York system who had previously argued against the use of ivermectin and was overruled by the judge, and thanks to that ruling, the patients are now home with their families after being at death’s doorstep. How could that same lawyer possibly argue against him in subsequent cases after seeing the results the first time?

As they say, money makes the world go ’round. Sadly, this greed has likely cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Horowitz: Remdesivir is the greatest scandal of the pandemic



Is there anything produced or approved by our government for COVID that isn't infective, doesn't have terrible side effects, and doesn't actually make the virus worse? The lockdowns, masks, and shots not only failed to work, but caused terrible collateral damage, failed to stop the virus, and, in fact, likely made the virus become more virulent. Now there are reports that remdesivir, which we already know doesn't work and causes renal and liver failure, might also be making the virus itself worse.

Antiviral agents, whether vaccine or therapeutic, must be perfect. If they fail to fully work, they can create viral immune escape, whereby the virus learns how to mutate around them. It's sort of like the principle of shooting at the king and missing, a principle we are often concerned with regarding the overuse or misuse of antibiotics.

Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine posted a preprint study in which they discovered a mutated version of SARS-CoV-2 that appears to have redeveloped in a previously infected immunocompromised woman who was treated with remdesivir. Researchers were able to sequence the genome in a way that made it clear it was related to the remdesivir use in the patient. The patient was later cured by monoclonal antibodies. "This case illustrates the importance of monitoring for remdesivir resistance and the potential benefit of combinatorial therapies in immunocompromised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection," the study's authors wrote.

Obviously, this mutation appears to be a rare find, but why would we run the risk of spending $3,000 a person on a therapeutic that doesn't work anyway if it may create immune escape?

Which raises the question: Why are we not treating everyone early with therapeutics like Regeneron, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other proven safe, cheap, and effective drugs that don't case renal failure like remdesivir and don't run the risk of inducing mutations? This is particularly important for those who are immunocompromised. The last thing people who already have fragile organs should be taking is remdesivir.

In many respects the fact that remdesivir was ever approved and is still the only standard of care, as it kills patients and lines the pockets of both hospitals and the maker, Gilead, is possibly the worst scandal of this entire ordeal. On Feb. 5, Reuters reported that none other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the China Academy of Sciences sought a patent on Gilead's remdesivir, a failed drug repurposed from treatment of Ebola, based on the alleged improvement of a single individual COVID patient reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Incidentally, the only drug ever approved for COVID was developed by Dr. Ralph Baric's lab at UNC Chapel Hill, the same lab that applied for the coronavirus spike protein gain-of-function research and is suspected by many to be behind the creation of this virus.

Gee, is it surprising that the drug developed and pushed early by the same two labs likely behind the virus is not only a dud but dangerous?

But it gets worse. On Dec. 12, 2019, less than five months before Fauci and the FDA pushed approval of remdesivir without consulting with an outside panel of experts, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study on remdesivir use in Ebola that should have gotten the drug permanently banned for any use. Over the preceding year, the researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial of four therapeutics for use against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo: remdesivir and three types of monoclonal antibodies, including Regeneron. What were the results in Table 2 of the study?

Of the four drugs, remdesivir had the worst outcome with a 53.1% death rate, which is higher than the death rate from the virus. In fact, both remdesivir and ZMapp (death rate of 49.7%) were deemed to be so dangerous that they were pulled from the study on Aug. 9, 2019. Incidentally, Regeneron, which had the lowest death rate, is the monoclonal antibody therapy that seems to work well for COVID. Why would Fauci first pick remdesivir over Regeneron?

On April 29, Fauci announced that remdesivir would become the standard of care, and another study he cited was Gilead's own March 2020 study (eventually published in the NEJM in June) of 53 coronavirus patients in the U.S. Canada, Europe, and Japan who used remdesivir for 10 days. Sixty percent reported adverse events and 23% reported serious adverse events, the most common being "multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension." Furthermore, "Four patients (8%) discontinued remdesivir treatment prematurely: one because of worsening of preexisting renal failure, one because of multiple organ failure, and two because of elevated aminotransferases, including one patient with a maculopapular rash."

This is why the NIH to this day warns about renal failure and liver toxicity from the use of this drug that is bankrupting us and killing people in the hospitals. The WHO recommends against using it. The WHO's Solidarity trial, which was conducted on 2,750 patients in 405 hospitals across 30 countries, found "little or no effect of remdesivir on mortality," even though "the proportion of lower-risk patients happened to be appreciably greater in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group."

Last year, in France's Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, researchers studied outcomes in the first five COVID ICU patients who were administered remdesivir. Researchers observed, "Remdesivir was interrupted before the initially planned duration in four patients, two because of alanine aminotransferase elevations (3 to 5 normal range) and two because of renal failure requiring renal replacement." Elevated alanine aminotransferase is usually an indication of liver toxicity, one of the warnings the NIH has given about the use of remdesivir.

To control for the confounding factor that perhaps the kidney failure associated with remdesivir is in fact a symptom of the virus, researchers at the Department of Nephrology-Dialysis-Transplantation at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, France, compared the reported incidence of renal failure in COVID patients using remdesivir to those using other drugs. A search of the international pharmacovigilance postmarketing databases (VigiBase) of the World Health Organization (WHO) showed that the reporting odds ratio of acute renal failure for COVID patients on remdesivir "was 20-fold" that of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and lopinavir/ritonavir.

Well over a year after it has become abundantly clear that this drug only causes harm and does not save a single life, not a single hospital has stopped using it. These same hospitals are firing talented doctors either for not getting the failed shots or for using ivermectin. They will even go to court to prevent a dying patient with no other options from being administered ivermectin by an outside doctor. Yet they will use remdesivir to the gates of hell.

For those who simply cannot believe all of the safety concerns and signals about the vaccines, just remember that what we already know from existing data and see right in front of our eyes with remdesivir is perhaps even more scandalous that what is being alleged about the vaccines.

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



A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death's doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it's time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn't officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH's website right under remdesivir as "Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19." It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir ... except according to NIH's own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let's take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is "ALT and AST elevations," which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let's move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is "generally well tolerated," a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH's own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH's own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they'd promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here's one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let's go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it's given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is "generally well tolerated" and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment's treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It's all in the $cience.

What is self-evident from the NIH's disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It's primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

Horowitz: 12 things red-state legislatures must do tomorrow to reset COVID policy



They've been completely missing in action for 18 months. Ever since our federal government and state governors reset our health care, culture, society, economy, and relationship with government with their "15 days to flatten the curve" plan last March, state legislatures — the unit of government closest to the people — have been in the witness protection program. A year and a half later, our government has flattened our liberty and economy, yet the virus is worse than ever because not a penny of the trillions of dollars spent have gone to early and preventive treatment. In other words, rather than keeping people out of the hospital, our policy response was designed to ensure that as many people as possible wind up in the hospital.

With state legislatures reconvening in special sessions to redraw our election maps, they have much more important things to deal with than redistricting. Before drawing the maps, they have a responsibility to hold hearings and pass legislation dealing with the problems with the leaky vaccine, vaccine and mask mandates, the censorship of heroic doctors treating COVID, the war on cheap, effective therapeutics, and prioritizing the billions of dollars in COVID funding for what actually saves lives rather than what controls lives. To that end, state legislatures and governors should promote the following ideas:

What works and should be done to treat COVID:

1. Right to try: We have all witnessed the gut-wrenching stories of people being refused effective treatments in hospitals, even when the hospital doctors are advising families to take patients off life support. States must pass a law requiring hospitals to give patients the right to try any FDA-approved drug prescribed by a licensed physician, at least if the patient's family is willing to pay for it and accept all liability.

2. Right to prescribe and practice medicine: Physicians may not be penalized with medical licensure because they share documented medical information or their own professional experience and observations. Those who speak up against public officials, if done in the public interest, may not suffer undue retaliation in the form of loss of board certification, licensure, or loss of privileges. They must also not be penalized for prescribing any off-label (but FDA-approved) drug to treat COVID, as on paper, there is not a single on-label approved drug for COVID, which is the main policy responsible for 90% of the COVID deaths and the run on the hospitals.

3. Right to fill prescription: All pharmacists must fill FDA-approved prescriptions for medications for off-label use so long as they are prescribed by a licensed practitioner. Failure to fill a prescription would result in a $100,000 fine. Anywhere from 10% to 20% of all prescriptions are off-label, and pharmacists never interfere with them. An uncontrolled pandemic with no other ways of alleviating the hospitals is an even more important time to not interfere with such prescriptions.

4. Right to coverage: Medical insurance companies must cover prescriptions for COVID the same way they would other respiratory viruses, such as bronchitis or pneumonia. If we are going to live under Obamacare, where one cannot go into the insurance business without actuarily insolvent coverage mandates, then you better believe we are not going to make a carve-out for COVID fascism.

5. Right to independent practice: States should encourage independent physicians, including all the talented physicians chased out of the hospitals for not getting the shots, to start COVID treatment clinics where they prioritize the patient and real science over Big Pharma. But any health care provider who wants to innovate with specialty ideas or establish new hospitals is automatically confronted with the near-insurmountable "certificate of need" (CON), which requires them to undergo a cumbersome process of licensing. CON requirements exist on top of the regular licensing requirements and FDA regulations. Like most regulations and barriers to innovation in health care, they were created by the existing health care establishment and are a way to box out competition and new ideas. The CONs and other red tape need to go.

6. Test and treat: It's time to move away from the failed "test and trace" model and move towards a "test and treat" system. As soon as people test positive, they should be given prescriptions immediately rather than be sent home empty-handed with fear and no hope. With a fraction of the billions in COVID funding each state spent on failed policies, they could easily fund physicians to man the testing centers and treat people on the spot, as well as a surge in the production of cheap, off-patent drugs that have shown to work against the virus.

7. Family treatment packets: States have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on endless welfare programs and social engineering. Yet they have failed to spend a penny on getting people prepared for the virus. The one thing that would have quelled the pandemic, and indeed obviated the need for all the other spending, was shunned. States must right that ship by promoting family treatment packages that any family can pick up and use for preparation. The kit should include multiple home COVID tests, a pulse oximeter, a nebulizer, aspirin, vitamins and supplements, and a guide to treating COVID along with information on where to get treatment.

What does not work and must be stopped:

8. Stop the blank check for remdesivir: The only treatment approved for COVID is remdesivir, and state and federal subsidy programs are paying $3,000 a treatment for something that has shown zero efficacy. Studies have found a statistically significant correlation of remdesivir use with kidney failure, which is partly why even the WHO recommends against using it. The universal use of remdesivir is one of the greatest scandals of COVID, especially when juxtaposed to the excuses given to reject much safer and more effective longstanding drugs.

9. Ban all discrimination against any hospital patient based on their medical history: Existing law applies this to HIV, and no physician would discriminate on account of the patient being a smoker or a drug consumer. Someone who chose not to get the vaccine should be no different.

10. Investigate the vaccines: Hold hearings with true experts about the waning efficacy, the risk of leaky vaccine syndrome, and the scope of the unreported short-term and long-term side effects. Before states continue to pump millions of dollars into a failing vaccine, shouldn't we get the facts straight?

11. Abolish all mandates: Every red state needs to ban all public and private vaccine and mask mandates, which violate human rights and have clearly shown not to work over 18 months. They should criminalize the enforcement of any federal mandate.

12. Make non-compete or non-contact clauses in physicians' or pharmacists' contracts illegal: At present, the reason most doctors won't treat COVID and many pharmacists won't fill prescriptions is because they will be fired, and then, pursuant to their non-compete clauses, they cannot practice anywhere in the region. These clauses threaten and sever the doctor-patient relationship, eroding its trust, and are used to financially threaten providers and pharmacists into compliance, as these providers cannot disagree with the contracting entities (usually health networks) that the federal government has control over. If such an organization threatened to fire such a provider, the provider could open shop across the street and the patients could follow them, free of control by outside forces.

From day one, our government's response has been focused on controlling people rather than controlling the pandemic. It's time to replace control with care and mandates with compassion. This is what it truly means to all be in this together.

Horowitz: Fauci’s criminal disregard of lifesaving treatment to keep people out of hospitals



Anthony Fauci has been a miserable failure. No, I'm not referring to his support for failed "non-pharmaceutical" interventions, such as social distancing and masking. That is within the purview of the CDC, not the NIH. His job as the most famous official at the NIH is to work on pharmaceutical interventions, you know, like actually treating a virus we can see coming a mile away. Yet he and his team have failed to educate the public on long-term and short-term preventives, as well as treatment at all stages of the virus that talented physicians have known about from day one.

Seventeen months into this pandemic, it is abundantly clear that everyone who has not already gotten the virus has to assume their turn will come. They have had more than enough time to bulk up on vitamin D and zinc and to prepare with effective medicines, or at least keep them ready on their shelves for the first sign of minor illness. Most people usually experience 5-7 days – if not more – of mild to moderate symptoms before the illness heads into the dangerous inflammatory phase for those destined to suffer a clinical-level illness. Had Fauci, HHS, and every state department of health published a simple guide for people, as a stay-at-home mother has done, nearly every serious case could be pre-empted. Most of the illness could be dealt with simply, with over-the-counter medicines and supplements, while the tougher cases and the more vulnerable could be saved with early prescriptions.

Katie Jennings is a stay-at-home mom from Massachusetts who has put together a treatment packet based on the protocols of pioneering doctors like Vladimir Zelenko, Pierre Kory, Brian Tyson, and Peter McCollough, to name just a few. She collated their standards of care and some other information these and other doctors have given on my podcast and created an easy-to-use guide that every American family should have in their medicine cabinets.

Click here to access Katie's COVID treatment packet.

Disclaimer: Obviously, not all of the medicines and therapeutics mentioned are for everyone or are to be taken together at any and all stages. Everyone should consult a competent medical professional they trust who actually believes in treating this virus rather than rolling the dice until you can't breathe. However, most of this information could boost your health and immune system even aside from COVID treatment. The end of the document contains a list of doctors and organizations who are willing to prescribe medication for the virus of the century before people get deathly ill from it.

The fact that a stay-at-home mom can put together a lifesaving treatment document with robust science behind it that 95% of doctors are completely unaware of demonstrates the failure of Fauci. How is it that primary care physicians are refusing to even prescribe basic antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and anti-coagulants? Unless this was his intent all along.

In a recent interview with Reuters, Fauci finally began talking about therapeutics, perhaps in advance of an eventual pivot away from the vaccines (after they are fully mandated) at a time when he is admitting people will need a third shot because the immunity is waning. He described his dream COVID drug as a "pill that blocks the viral function."

"I want it to be low in toxicity," said Fauci. "And I want it to have very minimal drug-drug interactions. So, orally administered. Single pill. Given for seven to 10 days. Little drug-drug interactions. And low toxicity. Give me that, and I'll be really happy."

Well, I've got news for you, there is such a drug, and it's called ivermectin! Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, a pulmonologist in Broward County, has been treating patients with ivermectin with a great deal of success since last April. It has great efficacy at every stage, is safe to be taken with nearly every drug on the market, and can be used pre-emptively, early, late, and even to treat the side effects (that you are not allowed to mention) of the vaccine itself! More importantly, if people had bulked up their vitamin D and zinc levels for 18 months, it would be even more effective, especially together with several other drugs, such as famotidine, Celebrex, and fluvoxamine. These are the treatment protocols that Fauci could have developed and perfected for an infinitesimal fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars HHS has gotten to deal with the virus.

Last week, a massive study (N=3,532) of Indian health care workers who took two doses of ivermectin was peer-reviewed. The results? Those who took ivermectin were 83% less likely to get the virus, a much better result than the vaccines, which have failed to stop infection. The effect of ivermectin against critical illness is even better. I got my own ivermectin for just $15. But most importantly, this and similar drugs can be used from day one, when it is exponentially easier to treat the virus. It is criminal that every elderly or even middle-aged person is not given this prescription by his or her doctor immediately following a positive test. In fact, there's no reason ivermectin should not be made available over the counter.

Contrast that to remdesivir, the ONLY standard of care, for $3,000 a pop, but only when someone is already in bad shape. This is creating an unnatural rush on hospitals — both because untreated patients are already in worse shape and because people with milder cases are told the hospital is the only place to go to receive treatment.

The only thing to lose from an early treatment approach — the only thing we've bizarrely refused to do in this pandemic — is money and power for Fauci's cronies.

Horowitz: Study shows remdesivir as primary COVID treatment is a total bust



16 months into this virus, our government has nothing to offer us in terms of treatment in the hospital but remdesivir at $3,100 a dose and zero treatment options at the critical early stage, when serious complications can be pre-empted. Now, a new study from the University of Iowa shows what we knew all along – that remdesivir failed to reduce mortality one iota. Why are we to believe the same government entities about embracing the clot shots and shunning so many other cheaper and effective treatments after spending billions and losing countless lives on a failed drug?

After 62 studies, 32 of them randomized controlled trials, establishing ivermectin as an effective treatment and an even more effective preventative to keep people out of the hospital in the first place, our government refuses to endorse its use and Big Tech continues to censor it. They claim they need more studies. Yet not a single randomized controlled trial showed remdesivir to be effective before they dove in headfirst and the NIH made it the only approved antiviral treatment for COVID. Now, a University of Iowa study published in JAMA Network Open on Thursday has shown that remdesivir was a complete bust.

Among the 2,334 U.S. veterans studied in 124 hospitals, a higher share of remdesivir patients (12.2 percent) who took part in the study died than patients in the control group (10.6 percent). Moreover, on average, remdesivir patients spent six days in the hospital, while control group patients spent only three.

Previously, last October, the World Health Organization found that use of remdesivir in 11,000 patients across 400 hospitals in the world failed to lower the mortality rate or truncate time of stay in the hospital.

Take a look at this chart of treatment protocols for COVID hospital patients from the NIH, and you will see that aside from remdesivir, the only other treatment they offer is dexamethasone as the corticosteroid of choice to treat inflammation.

Again, dexamethasone was approved after just one randomized controlled trial last year, when ivermectin had over two dozen. This new study from the University of Iowa seems to show that dexamethasone is also a bust because outcomes did not improve among those who received that steroid along with remdesivir, as opposed to the control group that did not. In other words, after 16 months of research by doctors on numerous helpful antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as more effective corticosteroids, the government has ensured that we have not advanced one iota in treating this virus. This is truly criminal and probably the gravest scandal of COVID.

Contrast this to ivermectin, which is available for $25. A Cochrane-standard (the highest level review) meta-analysis of ivermectin against COVID-19 by Bryant-Lawrie, which has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, concluded that ivermectin reduced fatality in hospitalized patients by 62%. But more important is getting people to use this immediately in an outpatient setting and, for vulnerable people, even preventively. The study found that "ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86%."

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are just two of the more known treatments, but there are so many more. There are fluvoxamine, budesonide, colchicine, nitazoxanide, proxalutamide, and many other simple supplements, such as aspirin, melatonin, and quercetin that have shown much promise at varying stages of disease – mixed with various cocktails and antibiotics (like azithromycin and doxycycline) – that can be used by a doctor's orders.

Why has the government refused to spend a penny of the trillions it wasted chasing false strategies that destroyed the country on research toward guidance on outpatient treatment? Why does every testing center not have doctor or nurse practitioner on staff to immediately prescribe treatments to those who test positive? Why has the government not encouraged people to use the past 16 months to test and then bulk up their key nutritional supplements, especially vitamins A, C, D, E, B2, B6, B12, folic acid, iron, selenium, and zinc?

Also, why has the government not promoted the more effective methylprednisolone as the corticosteroid to treat pulmonary inflammation instead of dexamethasone? None of the government agencies even discuss, much less debate, cocktails, dosages, and stages of treatment to keep people out of hospitals 16 months after "15 days to flatten the curve."

Had they done all of this, most of the fatalities and critical illness, including hospitalizations, could have been avoided.

Inescapably, this is not just a war on hydroxychloroquine, it's a visceral opposition to treating the virus with anything that will work and not line the pockets of big pharma. This is a scandal of biblical proportions. The purveyors of panic themselves are now admitting that the risky shots are not nearly foolproof against some of the mutations. So how can they ignore risk-free treatments that can save them?

Ivermectin has been dispensed almost 4 billion times, is safer than Tylenol, and has 86% effectiveness as a prophylaxis. If we are to believe it's constitutional to mandate masks and vaccines, at least follow the science and mandate ivermectin use. After all, if you don't get the virus, you can't spread it. In other words, if you believe it's OK to shame and ostracize someone for not taking the shots, then by a factor of 10, people should be shamed for not taking ivermectin and bulking up their vitamin levels without causing blood clots and myocarditis and only God knows what other symptoms from the spike protein-based injections.

The entire job of public health agencies is to study, invest in, and sort out the best protocols of all the aforementioned treatments, yet that is the one thing they refuse to do and are preventing others from doing. It's scandalous that people who are just getting the virus now have nowhere to turn, while Google completely censors information on lifesaving treatment. Thankfully, there are still some independent doctors who take their Hippocratic oaths seriously and have published detailed protocols for all stages of the virus, including prophylaxis and post-hospitalization. Here is one from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance and another from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons published by Dr. Peter McCullough. Anyone who has trouble getting a prescription from an ignorant doctor can go to MyFreeDoctor.com to schedule a telemedicine appointment.

I never thought getting involved in broadcasting and politics as something of a public figure would give me access to lifesaving medical treatment and help save lives by referring people to these doctors. I get numerous frantic emails from people with elderly parents (including those who were vaccinated) seeking treatment when their doctors have nothing for them but a cheap mask and the hospital has some remdesivir and a ventilator waiting for them.

The government and medical system is so broken that the very people who shout "COVID!" the loudest are the ones ensuring that people are left in the dark about treatment for the most studied ailment in all of human history.