Biden Extends US National Emergency Over COVID-19

18 Comments / 18 Comments

1. Devastating news out of Germany on Covid vaccines:
   FYI, PEI=Paul-Ehrlich-Institut which is a German ministry responsible for promoting the vaccines

   Spoilers: the numbers are not for the faint of heart.

   …As of the last safety report, there have been 244,576 suspicious activity reports since the start of the vaccination campaign (14 months) – nationwide, which includes a population of 82 million people.

   In the first 2 ½ quarters of 2021 (7.5 months) alone, the BKK accounted for 224,360 vaccination complications – with almost 11 million members:

   Based on these figures, one can now calculate the incidence of vaccination complications for both populations. Then there are 0.29% according to the PEI and 2.05% according to the billing system:

   Already in the first half of 2021, according to the health insurance company’s billing system, the frequency of vaccination complications was 7 times higher than what the PEI indicates for the year as a whole! (2.05/0.29). Now, assuming that the frequency of side effects from the vaccination has not decreased in the second half of the year and as part of the booster campaign, we can use these figures to extrapolate to the PEI reporting period (14 months) and the total population:

   The result is shocking: Based on the available figures, there would have been over 3.1 million vaccination complications over the entire course of the vaccination campaign.

   These are not wild speculations – but rather conservative calculations based on the available hard numbers. I will explain why conservative at the end. We have to assume that the current figures from the PEI are at least 13.86 times too low. If this factor is applied to the reports of suspected serious and fatal complications, the following picture emerges:

   According to this, there have been over 400,000 serious and over 31,000 fatal vaccination complications in Germany since the beginning of the vaccination campaign.

   If that seems unrealistically high: It would fit seamlessly into the mortality tables of the Federal Statistical Office – since the beginning of the second half of 2021, they have shown a steadily increasing, mysterious excess mortality of up to 26% per calendar week. Puzzling in that it cannot be explained by Covid (maximum 8%).

   It is highly probable that part of this excess mortality will also be due to the lockdown measures. Otherwise, the list of population-wide, death-related events is quite short: The vaccination campaign. This is also illustrated by the comparison with the previous year.

   For the 11 million BKK insured persons, the following figures result in a year-on-year comparison (entire year 2020, two and a half quarters of 2021) for all “vaccination complications” accounting figures:

   As if all of this weren’t tragic enough, we must unfortunately assume that the figures as we now overlook them are dramatically too good. Why? Because certainly not all doctors classify vaccine damage as such. Example: A young man develops myocarditis a few days after vaccination. It would be correct to state “myocarditis” as the main diagnosis and “suspected complication following a Covid vaccination” as a secondary diagnosis.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. CDC Lowers Standards for Early Childhood Development Due to Covid Masks and Lockdowns

   Kids always pay the price for bad adult decisions
   By
   Nate Ashworth –
   February 21, 2022

   There is no coincidence this news dropped heading into a holiday weekend with very little surrounding information or context. There is also no coincidence that, suddenly, due to what speech therapists, educators, and parents have seen over the past two years, this is unrelated to imposing Covid lockdowns and masks on schools.

   Everyone knew it, but few cared to admit it or do much about it, especially public health bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony Fauci. Parents watched children suffer in virtual schooling and watched the youngest age ranges suffer in their speech and cognitive development due to masks inhibiting visual learning.

   Some schools are already lowering standards for kindergarten admission due to the same issues.

   Now, the CDC is being forced to reckon with the damage inflicted on children in the name of Covid:

   There isn’t much context provided, either, just lower standards and little explanation as to why. The only obvious and blaring causative reason is the damage done to education since March of 2020 when children were interrupted in the middle of their school or prevented from entering a school at very young ages.

   It’s akin to child abuse, especially since children aged 0 to 18 are rarely susceptible to Covid-19 in a severe form. The amount of childhood deaths from Covid pales in comparison to practically anything else, including influenza, yet we decided to destroy a generation of kids and set them back for nothing:

   Before, the milestone guidelines said that at 24 months, or two years of age, a child should be able to say more than 50 words. This milestone has been pushed back to 30 months.

   One Twitter user by the name of Karen Vaites, who has spoken out before regarding masking and how this affects children development in learning and speech, noted that the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, or ASHA, still says that speaking less than 50 words by the age of two is cause for concern.

   Vaites previously slammed the CDC for quietly updating its masking guidance to include clear masks as an allowable option for students.

   Vaites noted that “masks have become so politicized” that “we are not allowed to talk about the downsides/risks of masking children. Even when they are in plain sight.”

   There’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence floating around for a while now mostly from actual doctors who deal with young children and their speech and cognitive development. These are practicing doctors, mind you, not the behind-the-desk bureaucrats running our healthcare policy and guidelines:

   Masks have been and continue to be extremely damaging for young children. There has been no viable reason to continue using them in the classroom setting for so long when vaccines are available to any adult of teaching age.

   Children can’t vote, however, and they can’t forcibly fight back. Parents, feeling like kids are better off in a masked classroom than being on a computer at home, submitted to this hygiene theater.

   In the end, children have paid the price with lowered standards due to a poor quality education received during two years of an overblown pandemic.

6. 8th Grader responds to Fauci:

   https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/attention-fauci-an-8th-grader-drew-this/

7. @Bear

   Do you know of any metadata studies on Ivermectin effectiveness and side effects?

   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/

8. @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.

9. @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.

10. @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.

11. @Bear

    Do you know of any metadata studies on Ivermectin effectiveness and side effects?

    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/

12. @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.

13. 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.

    Existence of some lower quality studies is typical in large evidence bases. The percentage of studies with issues is not greater than reported averages, and is not close to removing evidence of efficacy (and may actually improve evidence as detailed below). We performed an absolute worst case sensitivity analysis, where positive studies are excluded in order of the effect size, with the largest effect first. 79%, or 62 of 78 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy (this is in addition to the four papers not in this analysis).

14. @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/

15. @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?

16. Important message from Dr. Malone – “We the people, demand to see the data!
    CDC withholding evidence concerning COVID vaccine safety is scientific fraud.”

    The US government appears be complicit in the creation of this virus. Again, the people are being manipulated. The NIH and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency at the US Department of Defense must be held accountable and they must release the data as to what they have funded and what they knew when – about the creation of SARS-CoV-2. It is time for our government to come clean. It is time for an investigation. Congress must lead the way. They can not shirk their responsibility any longer.

    Read his full statement at
    https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/we-the-people-demand-to-see-the-data?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozODI1NDcxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDkxMjAyNjEsIl8iOiJqUERMTCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NTUxNDQxMSwiZXhwIjoxNjQ1NTE4MDExLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTgzMjAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.wmawhZxi1jNzst7idbOcoA5PiRPVUpt2yKiOaF0CVms&utm_source=url

17. @Bear
    Not to worry, IVM still works, though it seems neither Bennett nor Bibi will support its use.

    Patients administered Ivermectin had a “notably higher” incidence of adverse events.

    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.

18. New study finds Ivermectin ineffective in treating COVID-19
    Patients administered Ivermectin had a “notably higher” incidence of adverse events.

    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