President Joe Biden said the U.S. national emergency that was declared in early 2020 due to COVID-19 will be extended beyond March 1, citing what he called a “risk to the public health and safety.”
In a letter released on the White House website, Biden told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that “there remains a need to continue this national emergency.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation. More than 900,000 people in this Nation have perished from the disease, and it is essential to continue to combat and respond to COVID-19 with the full capacity and capability of the Federal Government,” he wrote, adding that his office has “determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared” almost two years ago.
As of late last year, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Johns Hopkins University showed that there were 60,000 more COVID-19 deaths under the Biden administration than under the Trump administration.
President Donald Trump had declared a national emergency, which allowed the freeing up of about $50 billion in federal aid.
The emergency would have been automatically terminated unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president sent a notice to Congress stating it would continue beyond the anniversary date.
“For this reason, the national emergency declared on March 13, 2020, and beginning March 1, 2020, must continue in effect beyond March 1, 2022,” Biden wrote in another statement, adding that the notice will be published in the Federal Register.
His decision to extend the emergency comes as several Democratic governors moved to rescind COVID-19 mandates, including mask rules, in recent days. The governors of New York and Massachusetts announced last week that they would end certain mask mandates in their states, following similar moves by New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Delaware, and Oregon.
Meanwhile, federal health officials last week indicated during a White House briefing that they were preparing for the next phase of the pandemic, as Omicron cases have dropped.
One of those officials, White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci, told MNSBC on Feb. 15 that he doesn’t believe political sentiment is the reason mandates are being dropped nationwide.
Some critics have said, however, that Democratic leaders are turning away from COVID-19 rules because they fear losing control in either the House or Senate in the 2022 midterms.
A Jan. 31 Monmouth University Poll showed that about 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “It’s time we accept that COVID is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives.”
Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.<
>
<
>
<
>
Devastating news out of Germany on Covid vaccines:
FYI, PEI=Paul-Ehrlich-Institut which is a German ministry responsible for promoting the vaccines
Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Ryan Cole: CDC committing ‘scientific fraud’:
https://rumble.com/vvjid8-dr.-robert-malone-and-dr.-ryan-cole-cdc-committing-scientific-fraud.html
How ridiculous and how terrible it is that in the same moment that the medical establishment has made a new move to try to destroy the reality that IVM works they would treat the Queen of England with this drug. I would naturally not begrudge the most ancient of ruling figures in the world from being treated with a life saving treatment, except I am reminded that in England no one can be prescribed IVM as a treatment for Covid. The Covid death rolls are, of course, intentionally filled with those who die from anything so long as a positive test can be claimed, but there are, in fact, many who do actually die from Covid. There are also those who die from other diseases due to Covid causing their ongoing battle with heart disease, cancer or something else, to be destabilized enough to allow the battle to be ended. Beyond those who die either from or with Covid, there are those who survive from their non-treatment regimen to have significant lung compromise or life long lingering health detriments that will have a serious impact on the quality and longevity of a significant life and livelihood. None of these people are allowed to be treated with IVM, not one of them. But, alas, none of them are as important, as connected and as privileged as the Queen of England. How can this medical charade continue to be left unresolved.
Dr. Peter McCullough Weighs In On The AMA And JAMA’s Underpowered Ivermectin Study:
https://rumble.com/vvm1aa-dr.-peter-mccullough-on-the-ama-and-jamas-underpowered-ivermectin-study.html
8th Grader responds to Fauci:
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/attention-fauci-an-8th-grader-drew-this/
@Bear
Yes, there have been many meta analyses done on IVM.
There was one conducted by WHO (can’t recall the author), one by Bryant, one by Hill, one by Kory and the one you cited from IVMmeta.com among others.
The one completed by the WHO curiously only considered the least positive trials of IVM in their analysis. Their negative review of the drug drew the attention of Dr. Lawrie, whose company routinely does meta analyses of drugs for the WHO. Lawrie’s interest was piqued by the claim that IVM caused harm and upon a close analysis of the work by the WHO she found several concerning issues with the WHO meta analysis. Given her close association with both the authors and the WHO, she reached out with her concerns , and she was quite surprised to have no response to any of her attempts at inquiry – something that is quite normally done. There were 15K people dying per day and Lawrie grew concerned that there might be some benefit being overlooked by the WHO analysis, so on her own, at her own expense, she conducted her own meta analysis. Simultaneously, Andrew Hill conducted a separate meta analyses of IVM. She consulted with Hill and they each had reports of strong efficacy of IVM towards the end of 2020. She hoped to have the two studies published jointly to provide a strong statement on IVM as she felt that doing so would bring England, at least, to begin using it on their patients. In Dec 2020, however, Hill began to change his opinion on IVM’s strong efficacy without explanation. Lawrie recorded a confession by Hill on a zoom call as to his being pressured by a company (Unitaid) owned by Bill Gates to release a negative review of IVM which he did ultimately do. The two groups ultimately released separate studies and Hill shortly afterwards was awarded a $40 funding grant, coincidentally. There was always a chance that IVM might not work against covid, in spite of good research showing that it did, but the drug was completely safe (see below). Furthermore, the use of fraudulent studies and this recent BS research paper being you saw which was rubber stamped with Peer Review without recognizing that it did not prove anything all leads to the obvious conclusion that the studies demonstrating that it does in fact work are likely accurate. If IVM really did not work, they wouldn’t need fraud to cover its lack of efficacy against Covid – they could just demonstrate that it doesn’t work.
There is, however, no money in proving that it works, and proving that it works will cost billions of dollars in revenues, not only to Pharma but others such as Blackrock and other financial giants.
Regarding the side effects of IVM, they are pretty mild. It usually includes GI upset, skin rashes, headaches – the study you shared noted that diarrhea was the most common side-effect noticed. In the 40 yrs since it has been used I believe it has been linked to 60 deaths total. There is a genetic disease that allows IVM to affect the brain and is found in about 1 out of every million or so people – definition of rare occurence. It can be used in pregnant women, new borns and nursing infants, though you will find statements to the contrary in a quick internet search.
Here is the link for Bryant et al [came from Lawrie’s company]:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Here is the link for Kory et al [note Kory is behind the AFLCC]:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
@Bear
.
It’s not an opinion.
If you read the actual study it reports the p-value of 0.25. From the study :
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P=.25).
You can ask anyone who does research or statistics, you need a p-value less than 0.05. This is not some higher powered modeling. It is the most basic level of statistics that anyone who reads medical literature should be very well aware and which can be explained in three sentences as I did in my previous post. They missed any mark of statistical relavence and needed a larger study size to gain a statistically significant result. They knew this, and so did the Peer Review. But they published it in any case without commenting on its lack of relavence. Both the fact that they published this without comment and that the Peer Review did not object to it not being highlighted are significant.
**Note, I cited the p-value in my earlier comment as 0.09, but that was for the secondary outcome. Sorry for the typo. The p-value as bolded in the quote above was 0.25 reveals really really bad results – they are meaningless. It wasn’t a statistically significant result or even close to being close to being significantly relavent.
@Bear
.
It’s not an opinion.
If you read the actual study it reports the p-value of 0.25. From the study :
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P=.25).
You can ask anyone who does research or statistics, you need a p-value less than 0.05. This is not some higher powered modeling. It is the most basic level of statistics that anyone who reads medical literature should be very well aware and which can be explained in three sentences as I did in my previous post. They missed any mark of statistical relavence and needed a larger study size to gain a statistically significant result. They knew this, and so did the Peer Review. But they published it in any case without commenting on its lack of relavence. Both the fact that they published this without comment and that the Peer Review did not object to it not being highlighted are significant.
**Note, I cited the p-value in my earlier comment as 0.09, but that was for the secondary outcome. Sorry for the typo. The p-value as bolded in the quote above was 0.25 reveals really really bad results – they are meaningless. It wasn’t a statistically significant result or even close to being close to being significantly relavent.
@Bear
I hope you are correct about the study not being large enough and therefor statistically inadequate.
It’s not an opinion.
If you read the actual study it reports the p-value of 0.25. From the study :
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P=.25).
You can ask anyone who does research or statistics, you need a p-value less than 0.05. This is not some higher powered modeling. It is the most basic level of statistics that anyone who reads medical literature should be very well aware and which can be explained in three sentences as I did in my previous post. They missed any mark of statistical relavence and needed a larger study size to gain a statistically significant result. They knew this, and so did the Peer Review. But they published it in any case without commenting on its lack of relavence. Both the fact that they published this without comment and that the Peer Review did not object to it not being highlighted are significant.
**Note, I cited the p-value in my earlier comment as 0.09, but that was for the secondary outcome. Sorry for the typo. The p-value as bolded in the quote above was 0.25 reveals really really bad results – they are meaningless. It wasn’t a statistically significant result or even close to being close to being significantly relavent.
@Bear
Yes, there have been many meta analyses done on IVM.
There was one conducted by WHO (can’t recall the author), one by Bryant, one by Hill, one by Kory and the one you cited from IVMmeta.com among others.
The one completed by the WHO curiously only considered the least positive trials of IVM in their analysis. Their negative review of the drug drew the attention of Dr. Lawrie, whose company routinely does meta analyses of drugs for the WHO. Lawrie’s interest was piqued by the claim that IVM caused harm and upon a close analysis of the work by the WHO she found several concerning issues with the WHO meta analysis. Given her close association with both the authors and the WHO, she reached out with her concerns , and she was quite surprised to have no response to any of her attempts at inquiry – something that is quite normally done. There were 15K people dying per day and Lawrie grew concerned that there might be some benefit being overlooked by the WHO analysis, so on her own, at her own expense, she conducted her own meta analysis. Simultaneously, Andrew Hill conducted a separate meta analyses of IVM. She consulted with Hill and they each had reports of strong efficacy of IVM towards the end of 2020. She hoped to have the two studies published jointly to provide a strong statement on IVM as she felt that doing so would bring England, at least, to begin using it on their patients. In Dec 2020, however, Hill began to change his opinion on IVM’s strong efficacy without explanation. Lawrie recorded a confession by Hill on a zoom call as to his being pressured by a company (Unitaid) owned by Bill Gates to release a negative review of IVM which he did ultimately do. The two groups ultimately released separate studies and Hill shortly afterwards was awarded a $40 funding grant, coincidentally. There was always a chance that IVM might not work against covid, in spite of good research showing that it did, but the drug was completely safe (see below). Furthermore, the use of fraudulent studies and this recent BS research paper being you saw which was rubber stamped with Peer Review without recognizing that it did not prove anything all leads to the obvious conclusion that the studies demonstrating that it does in fact work are likely accurate. If IVM really did not work, they wouldn’t need fraud to cover its lack of efficacy against Covid – they could just demonstrate that it doesn’t work.
There is, however, no money in proving that it works, and proving that it works will cost billions of dollars in revenues, not only to Pharma but others such as Blackrock and other financial giants.
Regarding the side effects of IVM, they are pretty mild. It usually includes GI upset, skin rashes, headaches – the study you shared noted that diarrhea was the most common side-effect noticed. In the 40 yrs since it has been used I believe it has been linked to 60 deaths total. There is a genetic disease that allows IVM to affect the brain and is found in about 1 out of every million or so people – definition of rare occurence. It can be used in pregnant women, new borns and nursing infants, though you will find statements to the contrary in a quick internet search.
Here is the link for Bryant et al [came from Lawrie’s company]:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
Here is the link for Kory et al [note Kory is behind the AFLCC]:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
@Bear
It’s not an opinion.
If you read the actual study it reports the p-value of 0.25. From the study :
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P?=?.25).
You can ask anyone who does research or statistics, you need a p-value less than 0.05. This is not some higher powered modeling. It is the most basic level of statistics that anyone who reads medical literature should be very well aware and which can be explained in three sentences as I did in my previous post. They missed any mark of statistical relavence and needed a larger study size to gain a statistically significant result. They knew this, and so did the Peer Review. But they published it in any case without commenting on its lack of relavence. Both the fact that they published this without comment and that the Peer Review did not object to it not being highlighted are significant.
**Note, I cited the p-value in my earlier comment as 0.09, but that was for the secondary outcome. Sorry for the typo. The p-value as bolded in the quote above was 0.25 reveals really really bad results – they are meaningless. It wasn’t a statistically significant result or even close to being close to being significantly relavent.
When one reads below the conclusion I quoted of the study one finds the following negative commentary of the study. Also I may add myself the study includes nothing on side effects of the drug.
@Peloni I found a metadata study of intermectin but it does not appear to be published in any medical journals. This is a study of 78 studies
is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [53?72%] and 83% [74?89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 51 studies from 47 independent teams in 22 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (38 for primary outcomes, and 35 for the most serious outcome). Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 62 of 78 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
https://ivmmeta.com/
@Peloni I hope you are correct about the study not being large enough and therefor statistically inadequate.
Do you know of any metadata studies on Ivermectin effectiveness and side effects?
Important message from Dr. Malone – “We the people, demand to see the data!
CDC withholding evidence concerning COVID vaccine safety is scientific fraud.”
Read his full statement at
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/we-the-people-demand-to-see-the-data?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozODI1NDcxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDkxMjAyNjEsIl8iOiJqUERMTCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTUxNDQxMSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ1NTE4MDExLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTgzMjAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.wmawhZxi1jNzst7idbOcoA5PiRPVUpt2yKiOaF0CVms&utm_source=url
@Bear
Not to worry, IVM still works, though it seems neither Bennett nor Bibi will support its use.
This is not what was proven by the researchers, though it is in fact what the researchers wrote.
The use of scientific research to change reality will never end as long as only the headlines of these studies are used as evidence. The headlines are never proof of anything beyond the opinion of those writing the headlines. The use of Peer Review should add some credence to the headline as being substantiated by the data collected, but as this current study, and too many other studies to count, demonstrates, Peer Review is only as useful as the review is rigorously applied. The data either supports the headline or it does not, and in this current Peer Reviewed article, it clearly does not.
This trial was badly underpowered (too few subjects were tested to prove the hypothesis), using only 490 subjects. To gain an insight, the number of subjects needs to be high enough to show that there is a statistically significant result, ie to prove that the results are not simply due to random chance. To phrase this better, the study clearly did not have enough subjects to prove the primary hypothesis being tested, ie the use of IVM. The researchers clearly proved their study was underpowered as their p-value, a statistically calculated value used in research to prove the results are due to more than chance. A chance occurrence is usually 1 or more out of 20, or 5% or 0.05 occurrence. So for any result to be concluded as being more than chance, the p-value must be below 5%, or <0.05. The p-value in the current study shows a p-value of 0.09 and that means that any conclusions drawn from the tested hypothesis has still not been proven and this specifically relates to the claim that "Patients administered Ivermectin had a "notably higher" incidence of adverse events". This is very basic and there is no chance that this was overlooked by either the researchers or the Peer Review.
In any case, a single study is only a single study and needs to be interpreted based on the comprehensive body of evidence related to the subject, the use of IVM in this current study for instance. There are now over 70 controlled studies demonstrating that IVM is effective. To stand on a single study to overturn the preponderance of this data, a challenging finding would need to be beyond doubt, and as I have shown, it is far from achieving this. Worse than this, the Peer Reviewed study, both the researchers and the Peers involved in the Peer Review know this – JAMA is a very highly revered medical journal, but like Lancet and Nature, and others, they are not beyond the controlled influence of Pharma to wield their propaganda.
The secondary endpoints of this study do actually show that IVM does, in fact, work and this is demonstrated beyond the possibility that it is due to chance, ie p-value is <0.05. Anyone curious should read the following articles where this is well explained:
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/the-disinformation-campaign-against?utm_source=url
a
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/lets-talk-about-risk-ba-by?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozODI1NDcxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDkwMTg0OTIsIl8iOiJqUERMTCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTQ2OTMyMSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ1NDcyOTIxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTE2ODk2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.zFsHwd_9K5q0gjGHnDEzWYCjexf83c3lDDEvhW4AM4o&utm_source=url
These Pharma attack results are just more propaganda, in which lives are being manipulated to see Pharma as their only tool to personal salvation.
https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027?_ga=2.229138780.1381636344.1645353071-1229034299.1617710680&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Pro-Russia+forces+commit++false+flag++op%2C+fire+from+civilian+areas+-+Ukraine+MoD&utm_campaign=February+21%2C+2022+Day