Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

The problem with America’s Frontline Doctors

Examining the questionable claims of an alternative medical organization

A healthcare worker administers a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Associated Press/Photo by Mary Altaffer (file)

The problem with America’s Frontline Doctors

Much of the reader mail WORLD has received critiquing our coverage of the COVID-19 vaccines has asked about or suggested we read reports by a group called America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). Supporters claim this group of doctors presents another side to the vaccine debate that is largely ignored by media and the government.

To investigate the trustworthiness of the group’s ideas, I examined some of the points raised by AFLDS’ position paper on COVID-19 vaccines. I found a mix of truth and falsehood: The paper often twisted true statements to promote misleading ideas about vaccine safety.

First, a little background on AFLDS: The group rocketed to notoriety last July after posting a viral video in which several doctors stood on the U.S. Supreme Court steps in white coats to offer arguments against lockdowns. One was Stella Immanuel, known for her unusual views on the spiritual origins of gynecological maladies and her statements about “half human, half E.T.” leaders in the U.S. government. Another was AFLDS founder Simone Gold, who in other videos used the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ER as a backdrop. Yet according to a statement by the Los Angeles hospital, she has never worked for Cedars-Sinai apart from a three-week stint at an affiliated urgent care clinic in 2015.

After making the videos, Gold largely faded from the spotlight until Jan. 6, when she and AFLDS communications director John Strand joined rioters illegally entering the Capitol. Twelve days later, authorities arrested both in California, and a federal court has since indicted them. (Authorities have so far arrested more than 500 people in connection with the Capitol riot.)

AFLDS’ goals appear to be more political than medical. Bloomberg reported that the original Supreme Court video event was hosted by the Tea Party Patriots. FactCheck.org states that “[AFLDS] appears to be connected to the Tea Party Patriots Foundation,” offering as evidence an archived copy of a web page copyrighted by TPPF and featuring the AFLDS logo alongside that of the Tea Party Patriot’s “Second Opinion Project.”

(In an email after this story was published, TPPF spokesperson TJ Winer said the foundation supported healthcare freedom and the doctor-patient relationship but was “no longer associated with America’s Frontline Doctors.”)

On its website, AFLDS identifies itself as “a project of the Free Speech Foundation,” a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This nonprofit apparently has no website of its own. (AFLDS did not respond to my query about its organizational affiliations and its vaccine-safety claims.)

Now on to what the group believes, as outlined by its position paper. While space prevents coverage of all of its claims, we can examine the most salient.

Does hydroxychloroquine cure or prevent COVID-19?

The AFLDS write-up hinges on its assertion that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19: If a cure exists, the risk-benefit calculus for any given vaccine changes greatly. Here AFLDS mixes correct assertions—hydroxychloroquine is indeed a common drug and patients rarely die from its use at appropriate doses—with its incorrect claims that the drug is effective against COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine received a lot of attention early in the pandemic because of its ubiquity and safety profile. The drug’s proponents, which had included President Donald Trump, argued that scientists downplayed hydroxychloroquine due to anti-Trump sentiment. But once scientists began to investigate the drug, quality research showed no benefit for patients who received it.

Interestingly, another “front-line” group, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, rejects hydroxychloroquine and beats the drum instead for ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug. (The group claims neutrality on the COVID-19 vaccine.) Ivermectin as a treatment against COVID-19 is being studied in the ongoing British PRINCIPLE trial, and WORLD reported on research into the drug back in February. But strong data supporting its use remain elusive.

Is COVID-19 actually dangerous?

AFLDS asserts that “COVID-19 kills very rarely and is mostly limited to the medically fragile,” pointing out that most younger and healthy COVID-19 patients make a full recovery. That the elderly and infirm fare poorly against the coronavirus is well known. Whether 600,000 COVID-19 deaths in the United States constitute killing “very rarely” is debatable.

This often leads to a discussion of what’s counted as a COVID-19 death. One particularly cynical anti-vaccine cartoon (not, to my knowledge, from AFLDS) features a weeping family asking whether a patient’s lung cancer might have contributed to his death, as a doctor with his nose high in the air replies that it was COVID-19. Leaving aside the cartoon’s emotional manipulation, the doctor would have been reporting correctly the cause of death.

This is because “cause of death,” as popularly understood, focuses on the “last straw” that prevented a patient from surviving any longer. Death certificates often include “underlying” and “contributing” causes. As the College of American Pathologists notes in an excellent write-up, an underlying cause is “the disease (condition) that initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.” A contributing cause is one that was less directly related.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that in its count of COVID-19 deaths, “COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause on the death certificate in 92% of deaths.” The “cause of death” might then be viral pneumonia, with COVID-19 infection being the underlying cause: If the patient had not contracted COVID-19, he would not have developed pneumonia, and the virus is therefore what caused the death.

Are the vaccines “experimental”?

Here AFLDS moves from assertion-by-innuendo to plainly incorrect statements, saying that the vaccines “are now being approved for experimental use” and demanding the public refer to them as “experimental vaccines.”

The vaccines are not “approved for experimental use,” but rather carry an Emergency Use Authorization. In other words, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration balanced the benefit of longer-term data against the risks of delaying vaccine distribution. Each vaccine had to pass through so-called phase 3 studies involving very large numbers of patients—30,000 for Moderna and 43,000 for Pfizer/BioNTech.

AFLDS’ proposal—that COVID-19 be treated with hydroxychloroquine—has far less evidence for its efficacy than the vaccines do. However, AFLDS does not call its own proposal “experimental.”

The group also asserts that since the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer are based on new mRNA technology (involving neither live nor weakened viruses), they are not actually vaccines according to what AFLDS calls “the settled meaning of the term.” Yet that “settled meaning” has long allowed for new technologies: Dictionary.com back in 2016 defined vaccine as “any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease.” The vaccines aren’t experimental, but they are indeed vaccines.

Do the vaccines work?

Yes, including against the Delta variant. A June study released by Public Health England found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were 96 percent effective in preventing hospitalization from the variant. The AFLDS paper tries not to address effectiveness directly, but does so unintentionally in this complaint: “Notably, the vaccine trials had too few positive [COVID-19] cases to assess with statistical significance any benefit in secondary outcomes such as decreased mortality or hospitalization.”

Actually, the vaccine trials had plenty of positive COVID-19 cases—almost all of which were among the placebo groups. AFLDS effectively admits here that there’s no pleasing it: In its view, either a vaccine doesn’t prevent cases from developing, in which case it’s ineffective, or it does prevent cases from developing, in which case it can’t be studied sufficiently.

It is also worth noting here that 95 percent efficacy—or even 99 percent efficacy—is not the same as perfect, 100 percent efficacy. More than 160 million Americans are fully vaccinated, but if even 5 percent of them experienced a “breakthrough” case of COVID-19, that would still equal 8 million people. Thus, reports of “thousands of people infected after vaccination” indicate only that the original efficacy statistics were largely accurate.

Is this just a way for companies to make money?

AFLDS argues that “the very exciting profit anticipated by the pharmaceutical companies” motivated them, and others have pointed to Wall Street presentations by companies like Pfizer and Moderna as further evidence that the companies hope for returns on their investments.

But what does that prove? Under capitalism, entrepreneurs accept economic risks in hopes of making a profit: Many promising vaccine candidates failed, and the money invested in their development went to waste. Merck, for example, wrote off $305 million after neither of its two COVID-19 vaccines proved effective in a phase 1 trial. Even some successful candidates, like Novavax, may have proved their worth too late to pay off. In short, capitalism fostered an environment where companies tried various approaches and rewarded those that found successful ones in time to help.

Do the vaccines cause “pathogenic priming” or “antibody-dependent enhancement”?

It’s possible to create a vaccine that makes infections worse instead of better. But these vaccines don’t do that. Again, AFLDS accidentally refutes itself by comparing the COVID-19 vaccines to a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine from long ago:

This same thing happened in the 1960’s with Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)—they gave the vaccine to 35 children and initially it looked like it worked well. But when those children were exposed to the wild virus, they got much sicker and then two of the kids died, which became a scandal.

The RSV problem came to light in a study with just 35 people. In America alone, over 330 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have reached patients. We’d know by now whether COVID-19 vaccines lead to a similar problem. They do not.

Do the vaccines cause infertility or miscarriage?

AFLDS cites a case report of a pregnant woman who contracted COVID-19 and suffered a miscarriage at five months gestation. Without informing readers that severe illness of any type can cause miscarriage, AFLDS concludes that “getting COVID-19 has been associated with a high risk of mid-pregnancy miscarriage because the placenta fails—but the vaccine may do the exact same thing—but not for just the few weeks of being sick—but forever.”

We know that patients who recover from COVID-19 often have antibodies to spike protein, the same protein targeted by the vaccines. Those antibodies stick around, so logic dictates that if antibodies to spike protein cause infertility, then humankind has a major problem indeed—regardless of whether those antibodies come from COVID-19 infection or from a vaccine. Thankfully, as a write-up from Henry Ford Health System explains, antibodies to spike protein do not cause infertility.

Online misinformation about the connection between COVID-19 vaccines and miscarriages has included misquoting of a New England Journal of Medicine article about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. This study enrolled nearly 4,000 pregnant women who received a vaccine, including those vaccinated just before conceiving (that is, any time after 30 days before their last menstrual period). It reported that among 827 participants whose pregnancies concluded during the brief study, 712 had a live birth, 104 had a miscarriage, one had a stillbirth, and 10 had an ectopic pregnancy or abortion.

Inevitably, someone simply divided one number by another and announced the vaccine itself carried a 1-in-8 risk of miscarriage. This ignores a crucial fact: Roughly 20 percent of all early pregnancies do tragically but ordinarily end in miscarriage. During the short study period, 2.6 percent of NEJM study participants miscarried, and roughly 80 percent neither miscarried nor delivered, but maintained their pregnancies. That reflects that the vaccines studied did not raise the risk of miscarriage. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists offers a similar analysis on its website.

AFLDS is right about one thing here: Pregnant women are far more likely to suffer harm from COVID-19 than their nonpregnant peers. But far from being a reason to avoid the vaccine, it’s a reason to get it.

Have the vaccines caused 45,000 deaths?

AFLDS asserts in a lawsuit against the Biden administration that the vaccines have caused 45,000 deaths, stating that the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) “reported 9,048 deaths associated with the Vaccines.” AFLDS claims a computer programmer compared this figure with Medicare and Medicaid data about deaths within three days of vaccination and concluded the death figure should be multiplied by five.

It’s not possible to corroborate the claimed analysis of Medicare and Medicaid data, since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services hasn’t publicly released its 2021 data yet and almost all COVID-19 vaccinations took place in 2021. So we’ll focus on the first claim, about 45,000 supposed deaths.

As of July 19, VAERS reported 6,207 deaths. This would still be an unprecedented number, but there’s a catch. The vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization requires that all deaths after vaccination be reported to VAERS, “regardless of causality.” In plain English, that means that VAERS wants to know about any deaths that happened after vaccination, whether or not the vaccine was believed to be related to them, for future research.

This makes sense, because VAERS did catch a rare complication from a now-recalled rotavirus vaccine in 1999. (Today’s rotavirus vaccine is not associated with that problem.) But it also means that we can’t simply count the deaths reported to VAERS as “deaths caused by the vaccine.” They could be deaths from anything.

The takeaway …

People I know personally, including some who are high-risk themselves or who share a household with a high-risk individual, have skipped getting COVID-19 vaccines after hearing unfounded claims like those above. This disinformation, according to the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, is also amplified online by China and Russia. Their goal: to gain market share for their own products, both vaccines and philosophies. Their autocratic governments, by fostering tension and disagreement in the West, hope to portray democracy as chaotic and unreliable.

We, as Christians, are called to be truth-tellers. This does not mean being undiplomatic or using the truth as a bludgeon. Still, the fact remains that, unlike at the beginning of the pandemic, we now have significant evidence and knowledge about the nature of the virus that has ravaged the world and about the vaccines that are helping the country reopen.

—WORLD has updated this story with a response from Tea Party Patriots Foundation spokesperson TJ Winer.

Charles Horton, M.D. Charles is WORLD's medical correspondent. He is a World Journalism Institute graduate and a physician. Charles resides near Pittsburgh with his wife and four children.


Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register, subscribe, or login to comment on this article.


In worldview. To be more than opinion we do want the worst the Church (crusades?) to be the back drop for current evaluation. To take the worst, even if most vocal, to evaluate Covid immunity and vaccine ends in opinion not reporting and determination of correct action.

Sam C

[Comment marked as inappropriate]

WORLD's Mickey McLeanSam C

The response, copied below, is in the body of the story:

(In an email after this story was published, TPPF spokesperson TJ Winer said the foundation supported healthcare freedom and the doctor-patient relationship but was “no longer associated with America’s Frontline Doctors.”)


I was rather disappointed in the focus of this article, more a hit piece on AFLDS than a serious coverage of many valid alternatives to the single monolithic viewpoint we hear from the government-media complex. There are many doctors with impeccable credentials who have different perspectives (than what we hear) on early treatment, research and reporting data, and the "vaccine." Unfortunately, these competent voices are stifled and censored in the media. AAPS - American Association of Physicians and Surgeons - (https://aapsonline.org) is one such group, non-political, unlike the highly politicized and "woke" AMA. Dr. Peter McCullough is a name to know (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM), as is Dr. Richard Bartlett (https://americacanwetalk.org/dr-richard-bartlett-acwt-interview-4-27-21/). Dr. Lee Merritt is another. There are many, many more. There IS another side to the Covid story and there are valid reasons why many people do not trust the government (at any level) nor the official narrative. WORLD Mag: you owe it to your readers to cover the other side with balanced reporting.


www.medicalracism.org (.org not .com) - i just checked it is still up.


I just finished reading through the 34plus pages of comments, and I agree that censorship is rampant vs. the main stream narrative (that hides the facts). Google the Danish study on masks (masks don't work) and there are other brave Drs standing up to the false narrative from CDC/WHO and FDA. I highly recommend this group of MDs https://doctors4covidethics.org/doctors-for-covid-ethics-signatories/ and parent groups (www.learntherisk.org, Children's Health Defense, etc.). Finally here is an excellent documentary (it gets pulled down constantly - but with a little diligence you can find it) www.medicalracism.com We are definitely in a spiritual battle, stay strong in prayer and pray for your enemies.

Joe Mama

What happened to this publication? Pure one-sided garbage now being skewed to intentionally confuse people. I was considering the vaccine until I read this, and now I'm at least a year away from considering it again. Whatever happened to truth? In the third paragraph here (titled "are the vaccines experimental?") where you give the definition of vaccine, you conveniently left off the rest of that definition sentence and put a PERIOD there, instead of a COMMA and the rest of the definition. Why? Because you left off where it states " employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production". You even have it in quotation marks, and left off the second half of the sentence! You also conveniently left off the second and third paragraph of YOUR source where it states -
noun (med)
a suspension of dead, attenuated, or otherwise modified microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae) for inoculation to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies
2. A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration stimulates antibody production against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection.

How can anyone trust anything you say? You lied. Isn't there supposed to be some Christian values at WNJ? One lie = ALL lie in my book. By your definition, Ivermectin and all other treatments would qualify as vaccines, so I guess that settles it, we're all vaccinated if we've tried "ANY preventive preparation used". They're all equal bc none of them are approved (except Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine, oops). Why do you think people are so stupid? Shame on you. The blood of the people that used to trust you is on your hands.

not silentJoe Mama

[Comment marked as inappropriate]

not silentnot silent

To add to my comment above: for what it's worth, Joe Mama, I went back to the article and reviewed the quote. I can understand why you were concerned that they did not include the entire sentence and used a period instead of ellipses. But I'm afraid you left out a word when you quoted from the same source.

To quote directly from the link provided (definition of "vaccine" from dictionary.com dated 2016): ""any preparation used as a preventative inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, USUALLY employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. " (I have emphasized the the word, "Usually" because you left it out, and leaving it out changes the meaning.)

I'm not sure where you got the rest of what you quoted (i.e,. your # 1 and # 2 defintions) but it is not what I see when click on the link in the article.

CMCC6020not silent

Just scroll down further in the linked archived page. It is under a heading for "British" definition of the word.

not silentJoe Mama

For Joe Mama, my intent in the comment that was taken down was to defend World Magazine against the claims that they were lying (among other claims). I still do not believe that World Magazine lied, but the way I expressed my views reflected anger rather than love and may have seemed personal. Please accept my apology.


In the Washington Times today . . .


1) Recent studies have shown both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to be effective. 2) My Bother and sister-in-law both came down with COVD (ironically after the flu vaccine) - I told them stay hydrated take Vita D and breath deep - it worked, 3) Regarding pathogenic priming - please google Sanofi Dengue fever vaccine - Philippines. 4) How dangerous is COVID - if they didn't change the ICD to skew the death numbers, this would of been a blip (like MERS was and like the original COVID in 2002 was). I found this article very biased and frustrating to read. No voter ID but vaccine passports - think about that. Fear mongering about 2-18 y.o. gonna kill grandam in the nursing home (so put her in solitary confinement, to protect her)- mask up (mask do not work please see Danish study on 3030 masked vs. 2997 unmasked vs. COVID). Dr. Benjamin Rush ~230 years ago warned of this !


The university of Chicago had a study on the effect of vitamin D level and severity of covid, indicating that vitamin D provided immune system support. Another study from Israel (Galilee Medical Center) looks at vitamin D and severity of covid.
My husband & I have had our vitamin D level tested (blood test) and take supplemental vitamin D3


I read this article with great interest but was underwhelmed with the content. First, I'm not sure why Dr. Horton felt the need to smear the character of a couple of the doctors involved with AFLDS. OK, Dr. Immanuel has unorthodox views and Dr. Gold was arrested. So what? Should we listen to the words of Jesus who was not only arrested but also convicted of a crime and executed? The arguments of AFLDS deserve to be analyzed based on their merits. Dr. Horton, to his credit, included the link to the AFLDS Position Paper on CoVID-19 Experimental Vaccines. So, I read the paper and found its position more persuasive than Dr. Horton's.

I'm not as versed in Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as some of the readers who have commented. However, I've watched doctors describe how they have administered it along with a couple of other drugs (zinc and maybe one more) to patients with early COVID-19 symptoms, and these doctors testify to excellent recovery for patients. I've heard patients describe how they were administered these drugs and how they recovered quickly. So, I don't understand the negativity shown to these drugs shown by many in the media and medical establishment. I know HCL has been around for over 60 years and has an amazing track record treating Malaria and little risk of negative side effects. Personally, if I was having adverse reactions from COVID-19 I would want to have these drugs administered to me. Dr. Horton's claim that these drugs have no benefit is at odds with the testimonies I have seen. Its possible, I suppose, that all of these testimonies I've seen are lies. Still, I find it more plausible that Dr. Horton is merely regurgating the narrative that there is no good treatment for COVID-19. I recommend that Dr. Horton actually interview doctors who have administered these drugs or patients who claim to have recovered from the drugs and then write a follow up article explaining his findings.

Concerning the vaccines, I'm glad they exist. Data overwhelming points to older people at a greater risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19, so I think that its good that vaccines exist for people in that age group. My parents are both 80 and took the vaccine, which I think that was the right decision for them, given their age and health. However, that doesn't mean that taking a shot when we don't know its long term health ramifications is without risk. Personally, I will not get the vaccine. I'm middle age but in excellent health. I know many people slightly younger than me in their 30's and 40's who have gotten COVID and had little complications from it. Here are the COVID-19 survival rates by Age group based on CDC data through March of this year:

0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%

Based on this scientific data, I see little reason for anyone under 50 (unless that individual has underlying health issues - i.e, diabetes, asthma, overweight) to take a vaccine with unknowable long term impacts when your survival rate is so high. We need to treat people as individuals and let each individual make their own decision based on their own personal health profile as to whether or not they need the vaccine. Coercion, mandates, fear mongering, guilt trips, etc. are tools of the enemy and not God. I'm so thankful that we serve a Savior who knows our name personally and treats us as individuals.

not silent

I found this statement about Ivermectin by Merck (NYSE:MRK), the company that was approved to make the HUMAN version of it in the US: "Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding the use of ivermectin during eh COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continued to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. it is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

-No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
-No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease; and,
-A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies." From merck.com

For those who say to "follow the money": Merck is literally the MAKER of ivermectin for human use in the US. They have no reason to suppress data that would promote widespread us of it for COVID.

Apparently, I also need to point out that Twitter, You Tube, and etc are not scientific journals and are not subject to peer review. Regardless of who posts these articles or letters, they are not going to be treated as scientific evidence by the vast majority of scientists and doctors.

John Ronningnot silent

Funny how you found that. I’m guessing your browser steered you to that one instead of to this indictment of Merck: https://joyce-kamen.medium.com/merck-its-truth-telling-time-4496d9af9ca1#_=_
“Follow the money” indeed. Merck has a billion reasons not to pursue Ivermectin. They recently got a commitment from the federal government for more than a billion $ to develop an anti-viral for covid-19. They’ll be selling a pill at $700 a shot for something that might work as well as Ivermectin, but which in any case is off into the future.
Ivermectin, on the other hand, is a generic drug – the patent is long expired - made extremely cheaply in countries such as India, with which Merck cannot compete and wouldn’t make much money if any. Merck in fact turned down an offer to study Ivermectin for Covid-19. Again, “follow the money.”
Merck claims to be concerned about the safety of Ivermectin, as if they had not distributed hundreds of millions of doses to help eradicate river blindness and other parasitic diseases in the third world (under a previous, more benevolent, administration) – note that dosage used for Ivermectin is comparable to that used to treat parasites.
There is no mystery as to why Merck claims to be unaware of any potential benefit to using Ivermectin during this pandemic. If Christians have trouble believing a company could be so callous and greedy, have you been reading your Bible?
And by the way, studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin have been published in peer reviewed Journals. (And peer review has been not incorrectly referred to as "pal review"). I refer readers again to the wealth of information found at flccc.net

not silentJohn Ronning

For John Ronning, as you recommended, I went to flccc.net. I will now quote from their website under "Status of Recommendations":

"The Ivermectin/Mask+ Protocol has been developed by experienced physicians treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. At this time, it has not been adopted as a medical consensus. While clinical experience and research to date is promising, these products have not been proven to be safe and effective by randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies acceptable to US medical associations and regulatory bodies. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Ivermectin or the Mask+ protocol for COVID-19, and such use is considered "off-label..."

You may not accept what Merck says, and that's okay. But surely you accept a quote from your own source.

John Ronningnot silent

that's a legal disclaimer - "off-label" means doctors are doing it on their own initiative - doctors do this all the time, and are using this or similar protocols to successfully treat patients while the "official" guidance is to send patients home and isolate until they can't breathe, then go to the hospital. That's what they're calling medicine? It takes many months to do a double blind placebo controlled study and more months to get it published, and doctors (correctly) consider it immoral to do a placebo controlled study for a potentially fatal disease when they already know the drug works. My life was saved at age 4 by a drug that has never been proven in a double blind placebo controlled study - you've probably heard of it - it's called penicillin.

John RonningJohn Ronning

PS - often I give a reference to a doctor's twitter account, the tweet itself linking to an article. Why not just link to the article itself? One reason for giving the twitter link is that you can not only look at the article, but see the back and forth from others commenting on the twitter thread - often this adds a lot to the article itself.

not silentJohn Ronning

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, John; but it's asking a lot to expect the medical and scientific community to accept Twitter as a source. I don't accept Twitter and comments under a post as evidence because they are opinion and subject to bias. I want to read the evidence myself and not just the testimonial of the person promoting a product and/or random people commenting about it.

Regarding your question "why limit the evidence to the kind of study that takes millions of $ and months to carry out": BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SCIENCE AND MEDICINE WORK. Supplements and vitamins often rely on testimonial evidence, but pharmaceutical companies can't do that. It's expensive and time-consuming and it's one reason why "big pharma" has to charge so much money, but it protects us from disastrous outcomes like the deformities that resulted from the use of thalidomide in pregnant women outside the US many years ago.

CMCC6020not silent


Bringing up thalidomide is curious. It appears that it was kept (mostly) out of the US because someone STOOD UP AGAINST big pharma. (One person: Frances Oldham Kelsey.)

Who is there today, to stand up to big pharma?

Obviously not you.
And obviously not World.

not silentCMCC6020

My goal is not to take sides but to find the truth. As such, I do not automatically assume that "Big Pharma" is right or wrong but look at the evidence myself. Big Pharma has had its issues, to be sure; but that does not automatically mean that others who promote various treatments for illness are free of greed or corruption. In reality, all human beings and human institutions are prone to sin (including myself). So I try to seek the Lord and his guidance above all.

BK20John Ronning

"Blinding/masking the allocation of subjects to treatment groups in therapeutic clinical research is now a well-established method to reduce the chance of bias and erroneous conclusions about safety or efficacy."

John RonningBK20

Yes of course - if a drug company has developed an expensive drug with unknown safety profile they need to rigorously prove it's safe and effective before putting it on the market, and such studies often go on for years. But (1) we are in a pandemic; (2) it's already known that Ivermectin is safe (safer than aspirin), and it's cheap; (3) observational studies are also valuable and there are plenty of them in addition to the double blind placebo controlled studies that have been done. There is more than enough evidence for honest men that Ivermectin saves lives, meaning probably millions could have been saved that are already lost. Yes, we're talking Rwanda scale genocide, and we're sleeping through it.

BK20John Ronning

I just finished looking at the recent FLCCC paper published in the Journal of Therapeutics that is actively promoting Ivermectin - it analyses 24 studies across 3406 participants (average study size 142). In the FLCCC paper, they rate only 3 studies as having no structural biases. Of those 3, one shows positive results, one cannot be evaluated for a risk ratio, and one shows no improvement for Ivermectin. Proof of effectiveness in most studies includes wide confidence margins. I would encourage you to be careful putting your trust in this drug until it has had a proper study performed on it. My understanding is that there is one in the works, but it will take some time. I would love for Ivermectin to be proven effective, but I can't recommend it to anyone at this time. I fear that Ivermectin is another HCQ that won't pass muster in a more robust study.

John RonningBK20

Why limit the evidence to the kind of study that takes millions of $ and many months to carry out? We've got a meta-analysis that looks at all these little studies and aggregates them (https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_1324461135c749dab73ed7c71e47d316.pdf) and yes, there's a wide range of possibilities, but if Ivermectin "only" saved 50% of those who are dying (could be more like 90%), and there is no down side to its use (very cheap and already known to be safe), isn't that the mother of all "no-brainers"?

Why ignore the evidence of doctors actually using Ivermectin successfully on thousands of their own patients with little or no deaths? As you say, a "proper study . . . will take some time." Who benefits from dragging this out? Pfizer, a company that has paid billions of $ in fines for fraudulent practices in the past, Johnson and Johnson, ditto, Moderna, which partnered with NIH in the development of its mRNA vax, NIH which thus benefits financially from the sale of Moderna's vaccine, so a public agency is serving private interests, serves as Moderna's propaganda arm, warning us against doing anything but vaccinate or use expensive drugs to treat C-19.


Interesting study on ivermectin by Israeli scientist.


I certainly pray that an inexpensive drug like Ivermectin will be found as a good cure. I'm not sure this is a good study to validate that. 89 people in two groups - Ivermectin (47) and placebo (42). It measured the reduction of viral loads by day, but the study does not account for reduced viral loads in the Ivermectin group on day Zero at the beginning of the study (before administering Ivermectin).

John RonningBK20

The article explains the reluctance of people to accept the results - it has nothing to do with science or interest in human welfare:

"Researchers in other places worldwide began looking into the drug at around the same time. But when they started to see positive results, no one wanted to publish them, Schwartz said.
'There is a lot of opposition,' he said. 'We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.'
'This drug will not bring any big economic profits,' and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said."
The opposition is from the Father of lies, same as in Acts 19 at Ephesus, when the acceptance of the free gift of the gospel threatened the idol makers income.

Kevin Odowd

WORLD, I am a little shocked that you decided to go ahead with this article despite the large amount of negative feedback you reported from the podcast. In the podcast, you started by saying that getting the vaccine is a personal decision that each individual makes based on their own circumstances and knowledge; that was very unfortunately missing from this piece. That is definitely something missing in the mainstream media that says everyone needs to be vaccinated against COVID. I believe that most high risk people should probably be vaccinated, and I think the mainstream viewpoint misses the fact that there are billions of high risk people around the world that should be prioritized before everyone in America receives it.
However, I was extremely disappointed with many of Dr. Horton’s statements. Most of all, I was disappointed by his immediate dismissal of the vaccines as experimental. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, an experiment is “a procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or illustrate a known law.” One type of experiment is a Natural Experiment, also is called a quasi-experiment, which involves making a prediction or forming a hypothesis and then gathering data by observing a system. The variables are not controlled in a natural experiment. The truth is we have ZERO data for what the long term side effects of the COVID vaccine at 2, 5, or 10 years. We can’t look at the animal trials; they were all euthanized before 6 weeks. No mRNA vaccine has gone beyond phase II.b clinical trials, so we can’t really use those. And even if we could, none of them have used the spike protein technology. The statement that most side-effects show up within 6 weeks is flawed because it is considering non-mRNA vaccines, which have millions of data points and decades of data. At the end of the day, we do not know for certainty what the long term side effects at 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years and beyond will be. One could HYPOTHESIZE that there won’t be any long term side effects, but it would require EXPERIMENTATION to prove that hypothesis. That is by definition an experiment! And the fact that they have emergency authorization doesn’t clear that case, which you used as your argument, it means that the people who have chosen to get the vaccine acknowledge that they are a part of that EXPERIMENT. And arguably, even if the FDA fully approved the vaccine, they would still be in stage IV for years to come, and the results would have to continue to be analyzed. You would have to really explain to me how you came to the conclusion the vaccine is not experimental.
Unfortunately, what you have done is sided with the mainstream push for mass vaccination as the sole preventer of COVID. By once again only showing MOST of the data, you have continued that message. Instead of presenting people with ALL data, a portion of data is omitted with the hopes of encouraging people to feel confident about the vaccine. And the majority of people either lack the knowledge, ability, resources, or time to search for all data. I have looked at dozens of peer-reviewed journals, specifically covering mRNA vaccines and SARS from 2000 to present. I have looked at the Pfizer, Miderna, and J&J vaccine reports. I have personally analyzed a vast majority of data on COVID from the CDC website. And the conclusion I have drawn is that it is not worth 99% of healthy people under 40 or 50 getting the vaccine. I would be willing to guess 80-90% of people have not done that analysis. And not providing them with all data or presenting it from a biased view is doing a great disservice as they try to make the best decision as individual. And, most alarming, when any medical professional does try to present all data or cast any semblance of a doubt in the vaccine or the fear-mongering that politicians and the media consort to, they are immediately censored and discredited. That is extremely disconcerting to me.
Every person has the right to also make decisions also based on their personal experience. I know that others may be different. For me I know a lady in my office’s great-aunt, who was a healthy elderly woman died unexpectedly DAYS after receiving the vaccine with a brain aneurism – she had no underlying conditions. So when the CDC says that there is no casual link between the deaths on VAERS and the COVID vaccine, you’ll understand why I do not believe them.
I believe it is everyone’s personal choice for receiving this “experimental” vaccine based on their knowledge, research, experience, and thoughtful prayer. It hurts me that there is so much division over this. But I was disappointed in the subtle push from Dr. Horton to discredit people who have chosen not to get the vaccine. So many of us rely on World to present news and information from unbiased perspective with a Christian worldview. You missed the mark big time on this. If you are planning on including this in your printed magazine, I strongly recommend against it.


As a pastor, I am looking at the world through spiritual eyes. As early as April 2020, I discerned 4 major shifts in our worldview: 1) A spirit of fear. This whole pandemic was sold on the premise of death (remember the comparison to the Spanish flu?). 2) Faith in science. Science was promoted as our only savior. First we had to believe the science of lock down, then mask, now vaccine. Not once was faith in God even considered. Compare that with David's response to a plague in his days in 2 Sam 24. 3) Restriction of freedom and choices. This has played out in censoring dissenting voices. Remember the documentary P(l)andemic? Their point was Fauci's involvement with Wuhan, which most of us actually believe happened. And 4) a push from diversity to uniformity. God created diversity, but as we are walking away from him, uniformity is demanded. There is a definite eschatological dimension to this.
My thoughts about World is that they are as biased as the rest of us (let's just admit that) and tilting toward a more scientific approach to the crisis (whatever that may mean). I remember Marvin Olasky basically shaming those Christians who did not go along with the lock down as not loving their neighbors. That makes sense if the narrative is true. But based on the seismic shifts in ideology in our world, excuse me for not jumping on the bandwagon and believing the full narrative. As to Dr. Horton, he is the only medical voice that I remember reading from in the magazine (I may be mistaken). He seems to be World's medical consultant. I do remember his article sometime last fall when he first explained the mRNA vaccine. He was kind of excited about it. He may have his reasons for that, but as far as I am concerned, he is not the only voice I am listening to. And in my spirit, there is a HUGE resistance to the vaccine push (see reasons above).
@World: thank you all for opening this topic to the readers. I very much appreciate you listening to us.


It appears that Dr. Horton is not following the data out of Israel regarding the waning effectiveness of the vaccine. "Data released by the Health Ministry last week suggested that people vaccinated in January have just 16% protection against infection now, while in those vaccinated in April, the effectiveness was at 75%." https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-severe-covid-cases-could-reach-400-by-mid-august-researchers-warn/
Scientists have not ruled out antibody-dependent-enhancement. As we get into the fall we may have more insight. Watch the reports coming out of Israel.

John Ostraat

Thank you WORLD NEWS for reminding your readers that we can never blindly just believe and accept everything you say. This article was totally one-sided and biased. I just pray that all your readers will also read all the comments because you have some very wise readers who are much more insightful and intelligent than your medical correspondent. Why is no one addressing the huge number of adverse reactions reported to the CDC through the VAERS reporting system. And why did OSHA decide on May 22, 2021 to stop enforcing their own 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements, which required employers to report adverse reactions to the vaccine if they mandate it as a requirement of employment. So now, not only are the pharmaceutical companies protected from any liability, but also, employers appear to be protected from liability also. This leaves each individual solely responsible to weigh the risks and benefits. Is Dr. Horton confident enough in his conclusions that he would subject his own , say, teenage son or daughter to this vaccination? I pray that every reader will do his/her own research before thinking that if WORLD NEWS says it's safe, then it must be safe.

CMCC6020John Ostraat

I quite agree with you. However, be assured that any employer who mandates the vaccine as a condition of employment is very much open to lawsuit -- and should expect it. (Watch noted lawyer Robert Barnes, available on https://rumble.com/user/vivafrei )
Sadly, the same is not true of the entire rest of the chain for the vaccine: the makers, distributors, clinics/staff who apply it. No legal liability whatsoever, even for negligence (only for intentional malice, which is all but impossible to prove).


There are several misleading comments in this article but the most blatant one is this:
"But once scientists began to investigate the drug, quality research showed no benefit for patients who received it."
I clicked on the word research and the only research it shows is HOSPITALIZED patients. Anyone who was following the use of HCQ knew it was for EARLY treatment. In my own attempt at research, I came across this letter with references that make the FDA protocol very suspicious. You, World, need to have more than one Doctor's opinion, whose article demeaned more than informed. There are 2 sides to every story and you let only one Doctor share his. Consider reading this letter and maybe letting Dr Zelenko write an opinion too. https://twitter.com/I7Bomb/status/1406418701096656896?s=20

Steven J Ellis

I would add or amplify to other comments re why people (including me) are resistant to the vaccine narrative.

First, the inherent bias and push of a bureaucratic narrative - Dr. Horton indicates that Dr. Gold was eventually "illegally entering the capitol" during the "riots." Then he states, AFLDS goals appear to be more political than medical. These opinions reflect a bias. To my knowledge, entering the capitol peacefully as did Gold and many others was not illegal. Everyone there has been smeared by the actions of some and by a propaganda campaign of the left. Why have the videos not been released?
Who shot Ashley Babbitt? Furthermore, what today is not political? The medical profession is rife with politicization. I am sure Dr. Horton would agree that the debate over "right of conscience" within the medical profession is a largely political debate. We all know this and recognize that every so called "expert" reflects a bias. We are very leery of anyone whose professional judgment is monitored by a compliance driven administrative government agency such as the CDC - which in turn is influenced by the Teachers Union and the WHO.

Finally, and more importantly, we know the money trail reveals the truth. There has been too much suppression, obfuscation, hiding, and avoidance of addressing the money trail between Big Pharma and Medical and Political establishment to engender any trust of the "experts" who are paid by or governed by bureaucratic agencies.
When do the "vaccines" for C-19 end? That is another question. Ok, even if the first injection were to prove to be as efficacious and harmless as Dr. Horton indicates, why is the gov't pushing mask mandates for the vaccinated? Why more shots? Why no discussion of natural immunity and the fact that via natural immunity and already administered vaccinations we have 85% of the American public vaccinated (ref. Dr. Ben Carson on FoxNews on Sunday 8/1/2021)? Who has the data related to my vaccination history? What about HIPPA? What if I am taking Ivermectin under a doctor's prescription? I have a huge problem with forced vaccinations in order to function in society and travel - especially mandated by a government. That is a Constitutional issue - unless in our post-Constitutional America the Constitution doesn't matter any more. These are just "some" of the reasons many do not want the vaccine. Where is this really going in America? We know where it is going eschatologically. But there is no reason Christians or anyone should just roll-over in America as long as we have a means to push back.

John Ronning

God in his Providence gave us a double blind placebo controlled study of Ivermectin a year ago, when there was a scabies outbreak at a nursing home in Toronto. The residents were given a single dose of Ivermectin, while the staff did not need it and did not get Ivermectin. Results showed significant benefit for the residents - clear trend of not catching C-19 for the residents, not the staff. But it wasn't a random study - the group that got Ivermectin were those most prone to get sick, i.e. the elderly - so Ivermectin won, even with the deck stacked against it.

The whole world (not to mention World) should have greeted these results for the good news it was, but $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ruled the day - only expensive solutions that enrich drug companies and their beneficiaries can be sought and accepted. So here we are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otQwrI3PKcI

not silentJohn Ronning

Was this study published in a medical or scientific journal (i.e., where it could be peer reviewed and its validity determined)? If so, would you mind sharing a link? (The only link I see in your comment is to YouTube.)

John Ronningnot silent

Watch the video, you will see that the results were not welcomed - they were suppressed by the powers that be. If they had any doubts they could have made inquiries, but they didn't. Good news is not always welcome (see Acts 19 - "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians"). Any 6th grader can judge the implications of the numbers that came out. If you want to see published studies, go to https://c19ivermectin.com/

Joe Mamanot silent


not silentJoe Mama

Thanks for the link. I actually found a few articles about that particular study, and they all said that the results were promising but that more research needed to be done. That is consistent with what I learned about research while getting a science degree in a top US university. A doctor can go on YouTube and talk about their own experiences, but there must be NUMEROUS studies on a lot more people than just one group in one setting-and those studies must also be peer reviewed-before an official recommendation will be made. This is to protect the general public but also to protect doctors, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies against future lawsuits. I.e., it's how science and medicine works.

CMCC6020John Ronning

Thanks! I had not heard of that (accidental) study before.

(And I'm surprised that it's still available on YouRube, which might have been expected to censor it!)

John RonningCMCC6020

Your very welcome! Incidentally, in the month since this post, I got and recovered from covid, so I've got the best immunity (no boosters for me). I'm 67, had done my homework, used most of the protocol at flccc.net, oxygen never went below 97-98%, never went to my lungs - very thankful.


I have spent many hours reading information pertinent to this subject from many, many different sources. Dr. Horton's handling of AFLDS is disappointing and very incomplete. AFLDS represents a fairly large and diverse group of medical professionals. I have heard representatives from AFLDS speak in person and be interviewed by many credible interviewers over the last year. Their information also largely agrees with the opinions expressed by many other medical and research professionals that are not associated with them. They deserve something better than the many "low blows" dealt them in this article. They also have shown enormous courage in the past year being willing to speak up and challenge the majority opinion at great cost to many of them personally. That speaks to me more loudly than anything. Finally, no discussion on HCQ is complete without including the work of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, whose "protocols" for its early, proper, and effective use present the strongest case for it being considered a legitimate treatment.


I am really disappointed in Dr. Horton and World's one sided approach to Covid and the MRNA Shot coverage. Y'all have pretty much shut down actual scientific debate while claiming to follow "The Science" and "The Experts".

Deb O

Well, as long as some of you want to take Covid out of the community health aspect and politicize it, we might as well go back to your original disappointment with World and Marvin Olasky ... when they came out as anti-Trump back in 2015-2016. Face it, you've been soured ever since. Seriously, isn't it proof enough that Mr. Trump "got the shot" himself and asked all of you to be vaccinated? Did he ever retract that statement?

Roger & Kathy

I'm disappointed with the leadoff....."first a little background on AFLDS" which only highlights one physician's unusual views and another's choice of video backdrop. How does that constitute an adequate background for the AFLDS? I'm unpleasantly surprised to note that attending the January 6th gathering at the Capitol is considered damning. (We know ordinary people who chose to be there.) As well as being supported by Tea Party Patriots--(is this a group known to be out of line, or is this bad simply because political support from any source would be bad?). If we're judging by association, I wonder that no mention was made that FactCheck.org reveals funding (support) from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If there is good reason to set the stage with possible conflicting motives, I'd like to see more connections made with the revolving door of money and personnel flowing between Big Pharma, FDA, NIAID, CDC, WHO, BMGF, and China's Wuhan Lab, etc. As for the questions he "answered"?... There is significant data available for even the most amateur researcher about the role of hydroxychloroquine (and other common drugs, vitamins, therapies) in efficacious early treatment interventions worldwide. There are multiple protocols, numerous international sources of data. AFLDS is not the only, or the gold standard, by any means. However, at a time when no early treatment was the official standard (as it remains), when normally accessible drugs were banned (not by any standard of physician-based care ever practiced in this country, but by non-medical, non-authoritative executive mandate), AFLDS was able to provide alternative early treatment which proved effective for many. [Note: in a world that prescribes off-label testosterone in first visit affirmative therapy treatment for minors experiencing Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria with known potentially irreversible side effects, why were America's doctors hand-cuffed against normal off-label use of inexpensive drugs with 60+ years of safety records while treating the at-risk patient across the desk from them?] Next, when you try to answer the question of whether COVID-19 is actually dangerous in an article entitled "The Problem with America's Frontline Doctors," what are the chances you will get it right? I find many unsatisfying, uncompelling defenses mounted in the remaining article in what turns out to be a "party-line" conclusion: get the vaccine. (I think the author makes an enormous error when he assumes antibodies are the agent of vaccine injury, and uses his "logic" to say we are in trouble because creating antibodies is the body's response to both the infection and vaccination. Discussions of injury, however, reveal damage is from the spike protein itself, acquired in both the infection and the vaccine, but injected into the body through vaccination by the billions, along with replicating recipes in the form of mRNA, nano-lipids, and other potential toxins and allergens.) On a personal level, our family is seeing a notable incidence of death, fetal demise, blood clotting/bleeding issues, and other adverse reactions in close proximity to receiving the vaccines. We are not happy with pat answers that give statistics we all just have to "live" with, especially when we should be given as much information as possible to make accurate personal risk assessments and choices. I feel like this entire article of Dr. Charles Horton was a step backwards, the wrong direction.

not silent

Our sermon today referenced this scripture, and I found it very helpful: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Let me be VERY clear why I quoted it so there's no misunderstanding: First of all, the enemy is not other human beings, no matter how much we disagree with them or how convinced we are they are wrong. One way we show the truth of the gospel by our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are also called to love those we view as enemies as far as the gospel is concerned.

Second, NONE of us can claim to know ALL of the truth. That is why I appealed earlier for us all to pray for lies and deceit to be revealed and for the truth to be known. Please note that I am not praying for "all sides" to be known-I'm praying for the TRUTH to be known.

Third, I have seen sharp disagreements among believers in the past; and I made a promise to myself that I would focus my fight on the real enemy outside (i.e., the Devil) instead of shooting my fellow soldiers in the foxhole with me. Lies are always damaging on a spiritual level, but this the first time I felt the lies threatened people's lives on a physical level. I've also seen words used as weapons many times (I debated atheists online for ten years), but I find it much more disheartening to see believers fighting each other. I don't know what to do except to plead with God to have mercy on us all.

not silentnot silent

A few additions to my comment above: I also pray that God would help us all focus on the One who called Himself the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. I pray that we, as believers would love the LORD with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength and that he would show us how to live the second greatest commandment also-to love our neighbors as ourselves-and to fulfil the Great Commission-to go and make disciples of all nations.

CJnot silent

Amen and thank you. Disagreeing with Dr Horton’s research sources is legitimate debate but personal attacks have no place in discourse among Christ’s followers. I am praying for Dr Horton. I’m dismayed, shocked, and saddened by the vitriol expressed toward him.

John Ronning

I think the worst part of this article is this: "The vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization requires that all deaths after vaccination be reported to VAERS, 'regardless of causality.' In plain English, that means that VAERS wants to know about any deaths that happened after vaccination, whether or not the vaccine was believed to be related to them, for future research."

"Future research," so pay no attention to the data now? VAERS is supposed to provide warning signals, not data for a future research project. Note the circularity - to paraphrase, "The only reason there is an unprecedented and shockingly high number of deaths and debilitating side effects in VAERS is because we told doctors to be sure to report them - so pay no attention to them." The circularity is bad enough, how about the casual indifference to human suffering? You also say that the whistleblower testimony you mentioned says that the VAERS data should be multiplied by five, so therefore there are 45,000 deaths. To me this implies that the whistleblower came up with the multiplier, then applied it to the VAERS deaths. I think you have misunderstood. The sworn whistleblower testimony says that the medicare/medicaid system itself shows 45,000 post-vax deaths, with the conclusion that the VAERS number should be multiplied by five. In other words, the 45,000 post-vax deaths comes from the data, itself, it's not an inference from something else. But even this is low, since the medicaid/medicare system only covers part of the population. See page 41ff., https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5aa5e74f00/M%20for%20PI%20file%20stamped.pdf


I'd like to see an investigative piece on the vaccine manufacturers and companies, please. Or perhaps an article on why people do choose to not vaccinate.

John RonningAhandicrafthome

An article on why people choose not to vaccinate (aside from those opposed to all vaccinations), should cover at least the following points: (1) the point most often overlooked, is how successfully C-19 can be prevented/treated - we have other options besides (a) get vaxed; (b) let covid rip; (2) the already alarming safety data on all of the vaccines in use; (3) the long term side effects are unknown and unknowable at this point (by definition, side effects which take a year or more to show up cannot be known yet, no matter how many people have been vaxed). (4) compounding this is that the mRNA technology is new technology, history is full of well-intentioned innovations that just don't turn out - in this case, governments have given the manufacturers immunity from liability for damages from their product, and Christians should know better than to trust in man to do the right thing (Jeremiah 17) (5) the age-related risk of death from C-19; healthy people below a certain age are at greater risk of death or disability from the vaccines than from the virus. Where exactly that cut-off is, is debatable, but there is certainly no reason for kids to get vaccinated. Very sad to see young people thinking they're supporting the common good and then dropping dead.

Christians should be in favor of full disclosure, "treat others as you would like to be treated," so we can come to an informed decision and not be herded like sheep.

For point (2) above, there are a multitude of web sites, twitter users, facebook groups, telegram channels, etc etc where deaths and horrible side effects from the vaccines are documented. If our public agencies and news sources were acting in the public interest, we would know about such things. One of many is https://t.me/covid_vaccine_injuries

Dr. Robert Malone - https://rumble.com/vkkl8m-authoritarian-messaging-must-stop.html


Promising alternatives, like Ivermectin, need to be seriously investigated.
See Dr. Horton's article from earlier this year: https://wng.org/articles/an-anti-parasitic-versus-covid-19-1617297039
And a recently published study in the American Journal of Therapeutics: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
Another frustrating question that is not addressed by the government and in the media is: Should those who have been infected with COVID-19 take the vaccine? This recent study suggests not: https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2
P.S. -- I am a dentist, and my wife and I have taken the vaccine.

Laura W

To everyone complaining that this is a straw man argument, unless World is lying about their reader mail, this is the group that the most people have been telling them to check out so far, so they did. If you think they should examine someone else's views on the issue, write and tell them so. They just might.

Kim MLaura W

Thank you for pointing this out!


World, thank you for this article. I know you may lose subscribers because of it, but I appreciate your stand for biblically objective truth. Keep up the good work.


Came for the comments. Not disappointed.

Looks like the “Shame on you World for printing these lies” commenters are slightly ahead of the “Thank you World for printing the truth” commenters. No, I didn’t actually do a count, so might be wrong.

I’ve said elsewhere, the pandemic has become a huge experiment in natural selection. I personally have not yet decided which way I think it will go. But I expect even when MUCH MORE is known about covid, its long-term effects, the variants, the vaccines, their efficacy, and their long-term effects, people will still be arguing from both (all) sides, “that’s a pack of lies/conspiracy, government efforts to control us etc. “

I’ll add that it’s alarming that in none of the comments did I see any reference to the United Nations tracking microchip that is being injected into people via the vaccine. Cmon folks! That’s the biggest concern of all! (snicker)


Thank you, Dr. Horton and World, for giving us facts and links on this important issue.

John Ronning

World needs a new medical correspondent, or at least another one - this is just a hit piece and unworthy of a Christian magazine. Mention of Ivermectin was pitifully inadequate, and no mention of doctors in various places around the world treating thousands of patients successfully, often thousands with little or no hospitalizations and death, by going beyond (or ignoring) the criminally negligent advice coming from our public agencies (no treatment until you can't breathe). One could start with a serious look at flccc.net. There is a lot more than Ivermectin. One would hope that a Christian magazine would carry a story like a NY Times reporter wrote about getting medicine to a dying loved one against the rules of a hospital bureaucracy, getting a court order - it's a thrilling story with a happy ending, ignored by the world (and World). https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/i-dont-know-bigger-story-world-right-now-ivermectin-nytimes-best-selling-author


Our family has subscribed to World for over 30 years, and like others, this is the first time I have ever written or wanted to write about a concern regarding World’s reporting. That’s a great track record and we’re grateful for your commitment to thorough and truthful reporting! Right now, we are disappointed and concerned that World doesn’t appear to be giving a voice to other medical doctors or professionals on the topic of Covid-19. While there is no doubt that Dr. Horton is a dedicated, sincere anesthesiologist, how can he be the only source on this controversial, complex topic? The controversial nature and importance of this topic is all the more reason for a journalistic approach that digs deep to find answers to difficult questions, or at least to fairly represent different views. There are many physicians treating Covid patients and researching Covid treatments, and we’d like to suggest that you interview some of them, including Dr. Peter McCullough in Texas. Dr. McCullough is a cardiorenal specialist with a master’s degree in public health in additon to his M.D. He is president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and Cardiorenal Medicine. His works have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Lancet among others. His credentials are impeccable. He has treated Covid-19 patients and in December 2020 published an updated protocol, written with 56 other authors who also had extensive experience treating COVID-19 outpatients. An interview with Dr. McCullough would be part of a healthy journalistic approach on this highly important and relevant topic.

John RonningDKMED

Yes, McCullough is brilliant - and like many critics of these vaccines, he himself was vaccinated early on and gave it to his patients, then started to see the warning signs which our public agencies turn a blind eye to: “This is far and away THE MOST LETHAL, TOXIC BIOLOGIC AGENT ever injected into a human body in American history.” https://twitter.com/RiG8r/status/1420779061387923460


What a kind, thoughtful, and intelligent piece of constructive criticism for World to consider. I, too, have been disappointed that World is not giving much voice to some of the legitimate reasons some are concerned about the vaccine and/or about the
rhetoric being used to pressure people into getting it (regardless of age, risk/benefit analysis, etc.) I am not anti-vax in general, but do not plan to get this shot any time soon for many reasons. People need to have all the information on risks, unknowns, etc. and feel free to make the decision that is best for them. I hope World can be the one journalistic body to speak up for the vaccine hesitant and not just imply they are acting politically or believing misinformation and conspiracies.

Kim M

Dear Dr. Horton, Thank you for your thorough response! Your interview on World's podcast this week was spot on. You've been a breath of fresh air since you first spoke on World. I appreciate you wading through the criticisms and giving a comprehensive response. I suspect the silent majority just don't have the time to write and thank you. Please, keep up the good work! We need you. 

Right now, I have one family member ordering cow medicine from Amazon that is used to treat parasites (ivermectin). She plans to take it as a preventative measure every three days because she's sure the vaccine is unsafe. Her logic is beyond my comprehension. 

Another family member quoted a doctor in our state as saying natural immunity was stronger than vaccine immunity against the delta variant. Per my request, she provided a video link; the doctor said the exact opposite of what she claimed! I was incredulous. When I gave timestamps and direct quotes, she conceded but still maintains that I haven't heard all he's said. I've heard enough from her preferred doctor to hear him say what she's unwilling to hear: the best protection against the delta variant is getting vaccinated and wearing a mask indoors during this spike. He repeated this several times in different ways quoting many different scientific studies. 

These family members are both believers. After talking to them the last two days and then reading all the negative comments here, I am more concerned than ever about the state of the church in America. A science fiction author could not create a more tragic plot than what is unfolding among believers. 

Truth matters.

How we sort through information and make decisions about what is the most accurate has significant repercussions...not just about covid, but also about faith, culture, life.

World, more than ever the body of Christ needs you to stand strong in your determination to gather information, sift for facts, proclaim truth and uncover falsehoods. I wouldn't be surprised if this onslaught of negative feedback causes you to question if you are doing any good.  Please know that you have a tremendous impact and so many like me are very grateful for your labors. I will be praying for you to have wisdom, strength, and integrity in these tough, divisive times. May the Lord continue to guide the World team in truth!

John RonningKim M

I assume it's actually Ivermectin for horses, not cows. It's the same medicine used in humans, just much cheaper and also quite user friendly (plunger marked off in pounds) - no doctor will recommend using animal stuff because it's possible there's something in it that's not good for you, but many people are using it with no problems. You say you don't see the logic - the logic is that in combination with vitamin D, zinc, and a few other things it works. The Japanese scientist who got a shared Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering Ivermectin for use against parasites in humans is quite happy it's being used for Covid-19. see flccc.net for more info

Kim MJohn Ronning

The logic that I can't comprehend--and still don't from your explanation--why treat a virus with a parasite medicine? If there is something to the treatment that has an effect, why follow a few random doctors when there is very large consensus among most medical doctors (for me, doctors that I personally know and trust) that vaccines are safe and very effective? And if it does work on viruses, why treat a human with livestock medicine? My daughter-in-law who is a vet says that treating cats and dogs with ivermectin that's produced for large livestock can be dangerous and cause neurological damage in small animals. I will not be surprised if time bears out that people who decide to use livestock ivermectin as a preventative medicine against covid are using a "cure" that is worse than the illness.

Kim MKim M

Also, from a logic standpoint, how many people have been part of the ivermectin studies compared to the vaccine studies? Have the studies with ivermectin been as rigorous and comprehensive as those done with vaccines? Current ivermectin treat-yourself recommendations need to take into consideration that mistakes will be made in dosage...and those mistakes could cause great harm.

John RonningKim M

Ivermectin is from a molecule first found in the soil in Japan. As someone pointed out, it did not come with a label "this is for treating parasites only." It is surprising I suppose that it does double duty but if it had first been tried and proved successful as an anti-viral (by the way it's working for other viruses also) then we'd be surprised that it also works on parasites. But there's more - for several years it has also been studied as a potential anti-cancer agent, so maybe it will get the triple crown.

There are in fact many studies of Ivermectin, mostly small ones, and doctors have put together various protocols (what to use along with it) and studied different dosing strategies. One could start with all the material gathered at flccc.net (with links to many other web sites which includes those listing such studies, as well as those of many other drugs, and lists of doctors who will prescribe Ivermctin [for humans], which has been shown to be effective at "normal" doses [i.e. those used for parasites], and safe for doses above normal - there is some concern about long term use so some may wish not to use it for prophylaxis but only for actual infection). The vaccines are killing people by the thousands, while Ivermectin is as safe as aspirin.

Kim MJohn Ronning

This morning at church, my husband asked our family doctor (who is also an elder at our church) about ivermectin studies. He said that a large study showing ivermectin's effectiveness was recently retracted due to ethical concerns and directed us to this article: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658 This article states: "Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn on July 14 'because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the paper.' "

When you say vaccines are killing people by the thousands, can you please link to a fact-checked source? Thousands probably have died since receiving the vaccine but that's a very different matter. Vaccines are not going to stop death, but they are extremely effective at preventing people from dying of covid.

John RonningKim M

One withdrawn study doesn't nullify the others, just as one anti-Ivermectin or HCQ study shown to be faked doesn't prove that they actually work. Interesting, though, which gets reported to us. A convenient place where such studies are summarized for us is https://c19ivermectin.com/ - 67 studies and counting (this is also accessible through the link I gave earlier, flccc.net). More relevant as far as I'm concerned are results of doctors treating patients successfully, e.g. with a track record of 66,000 patients and just 4 deaths with this protocol: https://ippocrateorg.org/en/2020/12/15/how-to-treat-covid-19/ Bryan Tyson and George Fareed also have an awesome track record in Orange County, CA.

For vaccines killing thousands - there are more than 12,000 deaths in the VAERS database, and similarly horrendous numbers are in databases kept by the UK, EU, Switzerland, etc. Some of these will turn out not to be connected to vaccination but it's generally assumed that VAERS seriously undercounts adverse events. Steve Kirsch, who is sort of an "anti-Bill Gates" (i.e. Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur turned philanthropist, but on the opposite side concerning these vaccines, has a somewhat preliminary report on estimating post vax deaths (he has a more up to date one which he'll be putting out soon suggesting US deaths at more like 150,000 using all source reporting and means of estimating). For now there's this: https://trialsitenews.com/are-the-covid-19-vaccines-safe-and-effective/

Then there are many many many places on the web where faces and names are put to these numbers. Here's one of many; sad to realize that very very few of these people knew that this kind of thing could happen to them for doing, in their minds, their part to end the pandemic: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100068922816380

PNIC9738Kim M

Here, you can go look at the studies themselves and decide


PNIC9738Kim M

Cleveland Clinic has confirmed that natural immunity is much more effective than the vaccines. Other similar data is also available from Israel. Do some research before showing your ignorance to the world.

not silentPNIC9738

I am going to quote from a statement by Cleveland Clinic dated June 9, 2021:

"'Cleveland Clinic recommends those who are eligible receive the COVID vaccine.'

We recently shared research that provides insight into how the immune system protects the body after a confirmed COVID infection. The study followed Cleveland Clinic caregivers over five months as the vaccine process was beginning. The data showed that the vaccine was extremely effective in preventing COVID infection. In addition, we found that none of the previously infected employees who remained unvaccinated were re-infected over the course of the study. This information could help guide vaccination efforts should there be a shortage of vaccination supply and in countries where vaccine supply is limited."

Please note that the first thing Cleveland Clinic says in their statement is to recommend that all who are eligible get the vaccination. Also note that this statement does not say that natural immunity is "more effective" than vaccination.

The reason I looked this up is that I am a patient at Cleveland Clinic, and they have consistently advised me and other patients to get the vaccine; however, they did not have any vaccine on hand to give us for quite a while due to limited supplies. If there is another statement by Cleveland Clinic that says otherwise, please provide a link.

Nanamironot silent

Yes, but why do they insist on immune people being vaccinated? Do they have evidence that someone with natural immunity is at a high enough risk of hospitalization or death from Covid , if they actually got it, to risk taking a vaccine only approved for emergency use and not approved by the FDA? I have seen no data showing recovered Covid patients later getting Covid and dying. It may exist, but I have not seen it. I have however seen lots of data showing fully vaccinated people dying from Covid.
We need to make informed, thoughtful, individual medical decisions for ourselves and our families.

not silentNanamiro

Nanamiro, I can't speak for Cleveland Clinic; but I suspect they are being cautious because they literally don't know who is "immune" or how long immunity lasts. (This is very personal for me because I have an immune disorder and they are TRYING to figure out how much immunity I have but they don't have a reliable way to measure immunity. It's not nearly as black and white as people seem to think.)

However, the data have been pretty clear that the majority of deaths, hospitalizations, and serious illnesses recently from COVID have been in unvaccinated people. I grew up in the 1960's, and we were all vaccinated against polio and smallpox. No one in their right mind would have said not to get vaccinated against smallpox or polio because catching the disease imparted "natural immunity"!

Nanamironot silent

They don't know how immune or how long immunity lasts for vaccinated individuals either. Everyone is different. They are already saying boosters may be necessary because of waning vaccine effectiveness.
Sure, unvaccinated people, hopefully, are making up the majority of cases and deaths right now (this shows the vaccine is having some benefit, though the study out of Massachusetts that the CDC just put out doesn't look great for the vaccinated).
First off, smallpox and polio were MUCH more severe diseases for all ages and health conditions. Covid-19 is not. Secondly, no one was telling people who had recovered from polio or smallpox to now be vaccinated for it! Nor were vaccinated people testing positive for smallpox and polio like they are for Covid-19. These are very different diseases and vaccines and situations.

NanamiroKim M

Kim-Here are some articles regarding natural immunity and the efficacy of the vaccines against the Delta variant.

Natural immunity:
Vaccines and Delta:

Alan Versaw

John 13:34-35. It's worth thinking about as a matter of first importance, and especially so at times like this.

CJAlan Versaw

Amen. That has crossed my mind as well.


I am disappointed in this article for many reasons. Starting out by smearing the character of the one woman as a strawman fallacy almost made me stop reading. So the definition of vaccine was changed in 2016 to be so broad as to include that which never would have been called a vaccine prior. That does nothing to convince me. I read Pfizers reports on this technology on its own website going clear back to late 1990's. There is much to be concerned about. Also, Pfizer has very little if any integrity. The lawsuits this company is under for misconstruing research results and outright lying about its products is seriously concerning but not mentioned here. This is why we need the Holy Spirit and we need to be in prayer for all of our decisions. No one should rely on an article such as this or put their trust in any of man's words in order to make their decision. "Do not rely on your own insight, but acknowledge God in all of your ways." I just pray that the Truth will prevail and that we will retain our right to autonomy over our own bodies. It is looking like we will have to face the decision to put whatever substance they mandate into our bodies in order to buy and sell, get an education and leave the country.


How about writing about the FLCCC's record & successes? There was merely a brief mention (10th paragraph). We need a message of hope, not a lengthy expose of another group with a similar name. You are misleading just as you accuse AFLDS of doing by not clarifying the difference between FLCCC & AFLDS, allowing readers to think they are the same. Poor reporting; also in some of your references.


I read the article with great interest. I am not a physician nor have any relevant medical training. As a consequence, I am in need of sources I can trust. With three physicians in the family (split 2 for, 1 against), I need to know the best choice to advise my autoimmune diseased wife. Other than that, I have no dog in the fight. I haven't had the vaccine and am researching to see if the information provided by most media outlets is all the collective wisdom offered or not.
The problem I have with the article is the strawman arguments used throughout.
The author of the article, Dr. Horton, takes his first shot at America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) because one doctor has some rather eccentric views. Does that reflect the entire AFD community? This is a classic strawman argument. [Students of Logic will remember strawman arguments are logical fallacies.] Certainly, as a member of the church, the church has been attacked for some of its rather eccentric members. Like family, can't always pick and choose who you want in the group. The article’s 2nd argument addresses the founder of AFD. It does not, however, include her credentials, the purpose of the organization, or even anything the size of the group? (If 3 doctors make up the entire AFD community that is one thing: if 3000, another.)
After reading all of the comments (at that time) following the article and seeing someone - presumably from WORLD- asking those with negative responses if they had read the linked articles, I thought it wise to read the originating document published by AFD. It is a 22-page document so not for the faint of heart. While Dr. Horton stated he was unable due to the length of his response to address all of the issues AFD raised, he might have been a little more selective and complete. It appears that he missed a major thread of AFD’s intent: with the very high likelihood of survival of COVID of those under 50, indeed to well into the ’70s, why should a new vaccine be pushed to those most likely to survive COVID and gain immunity from the natural processes of our immune system?
Instead, Horton focuses on things like name-calling. Literally. He belittles AFD for wanting us to call the vaccine an experimental vaccine, properly citing the declaration that the vaccines have been Approved for Emergency Use. As we used to say in my writing classes: a writing instructor changing my “happy” to “glad” means nothing as either term reflects the same thing.
Nor does Horton address the historical tendency of new vaccines to have unforeseen repercussions, typically years after they have been administered. The most disturbing one is related to infertility. While Horton brings that up, no one who has opted to be vaccinated has yet been 5 to 6 years down the path. If even 20-30% of our female population is suddenly unable to fully gestate their children, we are headed for some serious repercussions as a nation. We currently don’t know anything about the longitudinal effects of these vaccines. Nor can we. That is a serious issue.
Some of Dr. Horton's points are worth reading and I am glad I read them. But it falls far short of WORLD standards of objectivity and journalism. In short, while Dr. Horton’s article is well written – as writing goes – it doesn’t actually examine (as he said he would) “the most salient” points in AFD’s position paper. I have been a WORLD reader for years and don’t plan to quit now but I would like a more salient review of the most serious objects raised not just by AFD but whoever has a dog in this fight. Can you do that WORLD?


More Big Pharma propaganda published in World. Very disappointing. Since the vaccines have now been shown not to prevent infection, how are they still "vaccines' per the definition that you quoted so authoritatively above?


Very disappointed in this article, it is very biased. It's the typical argument that you hear from the group that wants everyone vaccinated.

Pastor Tim

You helpfully explained Cause of Death and its use, but you missed the point. The point is: Will the U.S. deaths for any reason in 2020 be 600,000 more than the U.S. deaths for any reason in 2019? I seriously doubt it. O.K. if Covid is the last straw then call it cause of death. But then don't use that number as justification for drastic measures! Covid didn't kill 600,000 people that would not have died anyway in the same year. This article has given us some helpful steps in bridging the current gap of thinking and philosophy between the medical community and the skeptics. But we still have a ways to go. You're asking the skeptics to give in but the medical community needs to give to--such as on the use of cause of death and the counting of covid deaths to creating alarm. Thanks for your contribution.

CMAN2105Pastor Tim


CMAN2105Pastor Tim


CMAN2105Pastor Tim


Grandpa Davey

Dr.Horton sounds just like someone from the media espousing the virus/vaccine narrative. Truly sad that World subscribes to his opinion. How does Dr.Horton justify his stand when the PCR test has been shown to be a scam? Also, how can he take his stand that vaccinations help to contain the spread of the virus when it now is shown that just as many of those vaccinated get covid as the unvaccinated. And please, don't tell me that the vaccination is safe. This is a lie in itself. I believe the lies of the media and the CDC/WHO are really what we should be looking at.


I read Dr. Horton's article with great interest. It shed some light on the identity of the "Frontline Doctors" but still left key questions unanswered. I am a 78 year old family physician who practiced in a small town for decades. My wife and I received our covid vaccinations (Pfizer brand) as soon as it was available in February of this year. I have a son who is a PhD and worked on the development of the Moderna vaccine. Also, I have been taking HCQ for about 10 years. It was prescribed by a rheumatologist for systemic arthritis, and I have visual testing every six months. I collected and read almost all the medical articles concerning the use of HCQ + Zn for treatment of covid-19 infections. I grew quite frustrated looking for a large, prospective RCT that looked at the efficacy of using the standard protocol for HCQ+ZN+AZT in the treatment of "early" covid infections in elderly or vulnerable patients. I finally gave up on the project. The articles I found either did not include Zn + AZT in the regimen, or they only included patients who had been admitted to the hospital. One study done from an ER seemed to add the HCQ as last rites for the very sick patients. I must confess that I still don't know for sure if the protocol of using HCQ+ZN+AZT for early covid infections in the outpatient setting is efficacious or not. However, I am confident that the three vaccines for covid-19 that are available in the U.S. are very effective and safe. The benefit/risk ratio for getting the vaccine is much greater for the former than for the latter, except for a very few patients on immunosuppressive medications.
If you have a reference for an unbiased trial of HCQ+ZN+AZT given to "vulnerable" outpatients who have a firm diagnosis of acute covid-19, with mild to moderate symptoms, I would be glad to read it. For now, I no longer pursue that unicorn study.


That study would be very difficult to design, wouldn't it, since so many people recovered from mild -moderate symptoms without any treatment at all, including people with risk factors.


Millions of high-risk individuals have been diagnosed over the last year. A real study of early treatment with HCQ, Ivermectin, or whatever, would have been simple. Why it was never done, I don't understand. Millions of nursing home/assisted living residents could have been given the option to treat their Covid in a study. I know I would have done it, rather than wait until I was dying and had to be hospitalized.

John RonningLDUV7753

A recent trial of Quercetin (high bioavailable brand) showed "spectacular results" in early treatment. Accomplishes the same purpose as HCQ (gets the zinc in the cell to stop the virus from entering), without need of prescription and without safety issues of HCQ. As for the safety of the vaccines, a lot of evidence suggests otherwise, such as them killing about 1 out of 1000 pilots in British Air and Jet Blue (we used to stop vaccines after killing 1 out of 1 million; these healthy pilots were at less than 1 out of 1000 risk of dying from covid). https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1412451506012491776


I think AFLDs is probably is more concerned with Constitutional rights than anything. You may see that as good or bad. There's no doubt that last year infringed on the basic rights of Americans, and that is concerning.

Dr. Horton said, "The paper often twisted true statements to promote misleading ideas about vaccine safety." This may be true. However, I read all of the citations by the CDC concerning the efficacy of masks (about 45 of them) and I could say the exact same thing about the CDC. Most of the studies were merely textile analyses or analysis of how many respiratory droplets a mask withheld when a person sneezes. I didn't see a lot of people going around sneezing in public last year.

Dr. Horton also referred to "quality research" concerning HCQ studies. The one he cited studied only hospitalized Covid patients. Not early intervention. I can't tell from his link if they used zinc with their treatment, which also is necessary. Any negative study about HCQ I have found does the same thing. No zinc and only after hospitalization of the patient. Sorry, I'm not convinced and I think we should have been trying to treat high-risk people over the last year, not discouraging treatment.

I'm not against the vaccine, however I don't agree with coercing, bribing, shaming or forcing people to receive medical interventions that are still in trial stages and not approved by the FDA, especially when their risk of serious effects from the virus are small (ie healthy children, adults).

John RonningNanamiro

Dr Vladimir Zelenko began using nebulized HCQ early on to get the drug to the lungs in one hour as opposed to 80 hours, with great success. He describes the "hit job" that the NIH did on HCQ by running a "trial" using toxic doses as well as administering late in the disease where it's less likely to work. Quite an informative thread here (information not available to World readers otherwise, sadly): https://twitter.com/I7Bomb/status/1406418701096656896


Thank you for the article World and Dr. Horton. Honest question... something I've wondered about.... is it possible to untangle how much of the decrease in cases/deaths (in the US for starters) has been due to vaccination v. natural immunity from prior infection? I'm not sure it's possible for that to be untangled but it would be interesting to know if such analysis has been attempted. My aim in that question is not to show the vaccine to be ineffective or not somehow responsible for the improvements realized. It very well be mostly responsible for it. But I still would love to know to what extent naturally acquired immunity from infection was responsible.


Well written, Michael D.
Dr. Horton,
From what I gather from your article, you are apparently ignorant of early treatment and go along with the medical establishment’s concerted effort to reject it. You did not research beyond Hydroxychloroquine, otherwise, you would have addressed that problem as observed by BSCH9546 who wrote about this nation’s “bewildering protocol of "go home and isolate unless you become very, very sick, when you must come back ...").
Failing to address that so very important protocol makes the entire article suspect as to your level of real understanding of the failures of this nation’s medical establishment to this pandemic.
Here’s just one of many references to this fact. Michael Capuzzo’s article, The Drug that Cracked COVID, hoghlights the importance of early treatment.
“The cocktail of safe, cheap, FDA-approved generic drugs—the steroid Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Thiamine (Vitamin B1), and the blood thinner Heparin—was the first comprehensive treatment using aggressive corticosteroid and anti-coagulant treatments to stop COVID-19 deaths. Both were novel approaches strongly recommended against by all national and international health care agencies throughout the world, but later studies made both therapies the global standard of hospital care. In addition, Kory, Marik, et. al published the first comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and early treatment protocol (which they would eventually call I-MASK). It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press, though it may well have saved the president’s life while he was instead touting new big pharma drugs.”
America’s Front Line Doctors circled the wagons to help establish early treatment protocols and as a result saved many lives. That fact is conspicuously absent in your article.
You are categorically wrong to say that “strong data supporting [ivermectin] use remain elusive.” See this article and do more research using the references provided.
“Dr. McCullough’s peer-reviewed published rationale for early treatment and the algorithm of available medicines being used successfully was published in the August 2020 issue of the highly respected American Journal of Medicine.”

John RonningRTHO8372

That article, "The Drug That Cracked Covid," is indeed a wonderful article - I lament that it was written by a secular writer (NY Times reporter) for a secular magazine, as opposed to a Christian bringing salt and light in a Christian magazine. One small point - when he writes that Trump secretly received Ivermectin, I think he's confusing a report from 2018 that says Trump took Ivermectin - but that was for his skin condition - topical, nothing to do with covid.

not silent

I think this debate shows how much we need all God's help and grace. I pray for God's truth to prevail and for any lies and misinformation to be exposed, and I beseech him to show us all how to live in these times in a way that pleases him and brings him glory.

2thdocnot silent

Agree! My daily prayer since March 2020 has been for all of us to seek the truth, speak the truth, discern the truth, and stand by the truth; and for all lies and motives to be revealed.

My Two Cents

Unfortunately, Covid, vaccines, face masks, etc. have already been politicized by the experts and the media. It’s not just one side that is politicizing it. Every time I read an article that hasn’t been deemed “misinformation,” it reads like a report, until the final paragraphs. To summarize, the articles might be talking about vaccination rates, and mention the states with the lowest rates voted for Trump. If that isn’t a political statement, I don’t know what is.

I remain ambivalent, sitting squarely on the fence. We have a virus. There is a vaccine available. Get the vaccine if you want, don’t get it if you don’t want. There is pure conjecture and anecdotal stories on both sides. I think we can allow for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people to occupy the earth without name calling and shaming. Dr. Horton expressed his opinion based on his specialized knowledge. I don’t have to agree with him to still respect his opinion. On the other hand, unvaxed people are SHAMED and called selfish and even unChristian for not doing something all of society expects them to do. Let’s please stop! God doesn’t call us to be vaccinated. He calls us to love as Christ loves. Admission to heaven will not require proof of vaccination.

2thdocMy Two Cents

excellent points!

Michael D

As a long-time subscriber and Christian I am disturbed by your one-sided approach to this very important topic. Of course, after 18 months I think people have pretty much made up their mind which side they are on. However, just in case you are listening to your readers, I would say that there are ways to twist peer-reviewed literature references and follow "the science" in a way that is untrue. As a pharmaceutical-trained MD, it is apparent to me that Dr. Horton is staying true to his training and bias.

I'll state my position, so you can at least see my bias: I am a PhD research scientist, specializing in nutrition and health for the last 24 years, with a bent towards alternative medicine and natural plant-based nutrition, with a large family. I am suspicious of government intervention, and tend to believe former President Ronald Reagan when he said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I am from the government, and I'm here to help.' " I see a socialist/globalist/technocratic agenda in the whole pandemic that is supported by lies that have a kernel of truth in them, but are twisted in a way that are not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am bit surprised by WORLD's coverage, given Marvin Olasky's background.

This is just a brief summary of the lies. The full article is 4 pages long and has over 30 peer-reviewed references. Each of these points is a lie that has been refuted, following the science method. A hypothesis is stated and tested with observations, and then checked to see if the hypothesis is correct. The lies below were really just hypotheses sold to us as facts, without further testing to see if they were true. They are not.

Here are the 10 Lies that our world has been fed:
1) We are facing a very severe infection.
2) There are no effective treatments, especially early treatments. (Probably the biggest lie.)
3) PCR is a valid method for determining infections.
4) People without symptoms can spread respiratory infections.
5) Quarantine of healthy people slows the spread of infections.
6) We are facing a novel virus.
7) This virus naturally arose from bats and evolved to infect people.
8) Variations of the original virus can escape natural immune detection.
9) Getting the Shot is more protective than natural immunity. Everyone should get the Shot.
10) Children need to get the Shot.

WAKE UP before it is too late. Ask yourself, "Where is this going? Why the massive censorship? Why are we being pushed so hard (coerced really) to get the shot? People are being threatened with job loss if they don't get it. Why? Why are we being pushed toward a vaccination passport? Do we trust the government to do no harm with such a system of control? (Oh, so Oracle or Big Tech will run it, so it isn't really the government, you say. You really believe that?) It is so easy to add further controls to such a passport system, down to who is allowed to buy and sell food. Do you really want to support this? We should resist and stand for truth.

Kenneth B

I appreciate World publishing an article that will annoy a sizable part of its customer base. Gutsy. Keep up the good work.


As a physician myself, I greatly appreciate Dr. Horton's step-wise approach to addressing AFLDS's assertions, and his touching on how statistics can be at best misunderstood, and at worst manipulated to paint a very different picture from what the facts present. One of the most discouraging aspects of the pandemic for me has been to see how science and medicine have been politicized and weaponized by individuals and groups on either end of the political spectrum. As a Christian, I think that we need to be salt and light especially at times like these, and NOT buy into the fear mongering on either side.

Kathy Hilliard

Thank you for your readable and well-researched article; we have known World to tell the (sometimes difficult) truth on issues for years, even when they may lose some support or readers. This article aligns with the studies, research and reports of reputable scientists in related fields whom I have been following throughout the pandemic. I shared your article and pray it will answer questions for some who are genuinely interested in examining the facts. I am thankful for your biblical faith and sound journalism.

Kim MKathy Hilliard

Yes! I agree. I'm so very thankful for World.


Thank your Doctor Horton for continuing to promote the truth. Unfortunately, many readers have already drunk the cool aid of lies about scientifically disproven alternatives and their minds are already closed.
Having worked with numbers and statistics for over 40 years, I find that most people’s lack of knowledge and understanding allows then to be easily swayed by a false or misleading presentation of those numbers. So I appreciate you forthright statements on the numbers here.


Thank you, Dr Horton, for embedding links to your sources so that readers can independently ready and consider to evidence.


Wow, World, you have prompted me to leave my first comment on an article. I've been a supporter and subscriber for many years and lean to you for a (what is becoming less-so) balanced perspective on what the mob media is telling us. I read this article with eager anticipation because I have followed AFLDS somewhat cautiously, as I find some of their claims questionable. But this article was a poorly written opinion piece, lacking cohesion and logic. The takeaway paragraph doesn't even make sense. It have nothing to take away from this article except that I'm disappointed in World.


How is the article "lacking in cohesion and logic?" Please cite specifics.


If I want to be euthanized, I'll be sure to look up anesthesiologist Dr. Horton. In a writing of this import, you should be talking to the physicians in the heartland who are having fabulous results with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The key is to treat early and do all you can to boost the immune system. The flaw of the hydroxychlotoquine study Dr Horton mentions is its trial on patients in late stages of the disease or already on ventilators. Also, when an article addresses an important issue like COVID, I expect to see full citations of source material, not an op-ed.


Re citations: Did you follow the links embedded in the article to the source material?

John RonningCJ

Dr Horton chose to interact with a particular group and ignored much more important and influential advocates for early treatment, which is very disappointing - see flccc.net

Shelley Tuttle

A question for Dr. Horton: Do you believe the vaccinations for this virus should be mandatory?


Thank you for this piece. I appreciate the review of the group's origins and connections.

One disappointment I have is the quoting of "quality research" on HCQ on hospitalized patients in the UK. This is not the protocol recommended by the advocates of HCQ and Ivermectin. By the time hospitalization occurs, many have testified it is too late. The protocol advocated is immediate and early use (if not even as a prophylactic, by others) within the first 5 days. This is as opposed to the bewildering protocol of "go home and isolate unless you become very, very sick, when you must come back and be put on berthing assistance, etc."). I would advocate relooking at how the medication is to be used, rather than a stacked deck against its effectiveness by using a treatment that not even the advocates of HCQ recommend.


I believe you are way off on this article, WORLD! You really do not have much information to back up what you are saying here! Not a good article at all.


Did you follow the embedded links to read the source articles Dr Horton referenced? Please state the errors you found in those articles.

D & C Morton

Thank you for writing and publishing this clear and concise article. I hope the message will be heard.