I’m not sure why Brandon and his people, along with Congressional Democrats, want to keep the doom and gloom from COVID going: more Americans died under Biden’s watch than Trump’s, and infection rates skyrocketed twice, one way higher than while Trump was president, despite knowing way more than in 2020, forcing masking, and all the vaccines, and way more infections than during 2020. You’d think would want to forget about that. But, he doesn’t
White House warns of ‘severe consequences’ as Congress cuts COVID aid
After a prolonged back and forth, Congress passed a $1.5 trillion government spending bill last week but dropped from the final package $22.5 billion in pandemic relief that Democrats wanted to include.
On Tuesday, the same day as President Joe Biden signed the 2,741-page bill into law, his aides warned that the omission could “have severe consequences as we will not be equipped to deal with a future surge.”
The U.S. could soon run out of funding for COVID responses such as booster shots, treatments efforts, and tests if the legislation remains stuck in Congress, officials warned. The warning — which came in the form of a letter to Congressional leadership and a press release — focused on the possibility of future variants as current caseloads have dropped since the record-breaking omicron-fueled numbers from over the winter.
Vaccine “shortages will be even more acute if we need a variant-specific booster vaccine,” the White House noted. Moreover, Biden aides warned, a lack of funding could thwart efforts to develop a “pan-COVID vaccine” to stop a range of variants.
This is all being blamed on Republicans, of course, because that’s politics, forgetting that Democrats can pass just about anything they want in the House, as they have the majority, and same in Senate, as long as every Democrat votes “yes”.
The White House announced other consequences Tuesday including the canceling of plans to purchase additional monoclonal antibody treatments and the expiration of a fund that reimburses doctors caring for uninsured individuals.
That’s just spiteful, because he didn’t get his way. There’s certainly plenty of funds left from all the previous bills.
Republicans have been largely unified in opposing the funds. Sen. Richard Shelby (R- AL) sounded skeptical to Punchbowl News on Monday, saying: “If there’s a need for it and they can show there’s a need, you’d get — I think — overwhelming votes up here. But there’s a doubt there that they need this money, with a lot of us.”
Do we need it? How about getting rid of a lot of the wasteful spending in the bill. Most of the ‘climate change’ garbage could have been cut. If we need it, Congress does know they are able to pass a stand alone bill, right? Without all sorts of stupid stuff and pork?
Maybe people are finding out they have been lied to about the so-called vaccines.
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/the-new-vaccines-dont-stop-covid?s=w
Or…
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/fox-news-and-newsmax-took-biden-money?s=w
#LetsGoBrandon
#FuckJoeBiden
Bwaha! Lolgf
How many times will ShitLips repeat this discredited BS from the disgraced Emerald Robinson? Her lies were even too much for NewsMax!!
#LetsGoPuppies
#FuckPorterGood
Bwaha! Lolgf
Discredited by whom?
Seems Rimjob still cannot produce anything other than ad hom.
He seems to use it quite often.
Thanks, dumbass.
#LGBFJB
#Bwaha! Lolgf
ShitLips,
We went through this the other day. Look it up. This is anti-vax propaganda. It is not factual.
Emerald Robinson is wrong, wrong, wrong on all her claims. I linked to the actual articles so you can read them and do your own research.
There are no luciferase genes in the mRNA vaccines.
The mRNA is not reverse transcribed and inserted into human DNA.
Rodent studies DID show trace lipid nanoparticles in liver and other tissues, but rodents are not humans. The doses used in rodents are fold higher than in humans.
There is no credible evidence that the mRNA are any more toxic than any other vaccine.
Uh no, we didn’t go through anything the other day except you making various claims without any citations.
Robinson provides all of hers.
Again the old Rimjob claim that “there is no credible evidence” blah, blah rant except when there is.
There is no credible evidence that you have the faintest acquaintance with reality.
BTW, how’s your Galera stock doing?
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
One lie at a time…
Does this put to rest, in your estimation, Emerald Robinson’s conspiracy tale that luciferase enzyme code is included in the mRNA vaccines?
Again Rimjob proves he hasn’t the faintest acquaintance with reality.
How’s your Galera stock?
#LetsGoBrandon
#LosingTheNarrative
Bwaha! Lolgf
Note that ShitLips will not answer even the simplest of questions…
Are there firefly luciferase genes in Covid mRNA vaccines? Yes or no. This is a lie told by Emerald Robinson who ShitLips repeatedly cites.
We’ve found that to avoid a Gish Gallop of objections we must try to defang One Lie at a Time with propagandists such as little ShitLips.
#LetsGoPorter
#WonTheNarrative
Bwaha! Lolgf
Rimjob using his little deflection technique along with more ad hominem.
You really should seek professional help.
BTW, how’s your Galera stock doing?
#LetsGoBrandon
#LosingTheNarrative
Bwaha! Lolgf
Joe Biden said, “For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death… for themselves, their families and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm,” yet it’s still winter, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and cases are dropping as fast as they rose. Cities and states have been dropping the hated mask mandates, vaccine mandates have been dropped many places and failed in others. Why, it’s almost as though nothing government did or can do made or cam make much difference.
Viruses are like criminals: they don’t obey the law. Vaccinated people caught the virus, vaccinated people spread the virus, masked people caught the virus, and masked people spread the virus; the masks most people used were declared insufficient by the CDC, because they just didn’t work against the
XiOmicron variant.So, now even the authoritarian Democrats are dropping mandates, to try to mitigate their anticipated electoral losses, just as we are hearing about a potential “Deltacron” variant. I’m surprised that no one wants to call it the Putin variant, but whatever. If this “deltacron” proves to be as contagious as Omicron and serious as Delta, the authoritarians are going to want to impose societal restrictions again, and they’ll lose even more seats in November.
Unvaccinsted people are 25 times moreikemy to die as vaccinated
Trump says get vaccinated obey your leader
9 oy of the top 10 states with the highest per capita death rates are Red states. Only NJ is in the top 10 and that is because they got hit very hard before a vaccine was available. And surgical marks were available only for hethcsre workers not even for essential workers
Johnny. Johnny….what is your criteria for a red state? How it went in the last election? Who’s Governor? Legislature?
If you’re going by the election, there’s 3 blue states in the top ten-NJ, Arizona and Michigan. But Johnny- what state don’t you see in the top 10? Or top 15? Florida-which was open the whole time and has an elderly population, didn’t come in till 18th or so
But shocking that you may have your statistics messed up a bit-that never happens…. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
Teach may be brain-damaged from Covid or his hatred of liberals…
GOPhers be crazy.
Sure, why in the world would we want funds to cover the potential next wave? Wait for it to happen and THEN respond. Better to be sorry than safe!
We get it. Transparently, nuCons such as Teach CRAVE a new wave to kill another million Americans in hopes it will enable a future nuCon/nuGOP takeover. CRAVE the WAVE!! The URGE to SURGE!!
nuRightists (more putinish than reaganish) would LOVE to have mandates to campaign against regardless of how many Americans must die to satisfy their powerlust!
Are you off your meds again you little bitch? Why do little bitches like you always accuse everybody of the things they want to do? You are like the slut girls in school calling everyone else Whores.
When you start your shit you literally sound insane and totally psychotic. You need to calm down wacko.
Lets go Brandon, more power in FEAR PORN than in real life adult conversation. Just call everyone names and declare victory. That’s what dOwd does.
Brand0, you whiny little bitch!
Just call everyone names and declare victory. That’s what Brand0 does!
Jeff,
Why not throw money at the common cold and the yearly flu? Or how about revising our approach to this minor illness that has been over hyped.
Porter,
Your Russky botboy routine is tiresome. We don’t remember the last time the common cold killed 1 million Americans.
We get it. You hate America and democracy.
But jeff, you know nothing about medicine. So how would you know what the common cold does?
Porter,
Your bot keeps repeating the same message! Is davidovbot really arguing that the common cold kills 50,000 Americans a year???
Perhaps your bot needs a tune-up.
Yep,
Very close to actual COVID mortality.
Has the davidovbot2020 been programmed to say that 74 million is greater than 81 million?
Wait for it…
Ivermectin use in Africa and Brazil for 6 months in 2020.
ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.
Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts
Results
223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered
159,561 included in the analysis
113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users
45,716 (23.3%) non-users
Of these
4,311 ivermectin users were infected, (3.7% infection rate)
3,034 non-users (6.6% infection rate)
A 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate
Risk ratio (RR), 0.56
The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality
Deaths
25 (0.8%) deaths in the ivermectin group
79 (2.6%) among ivermectin non-users
RR, 0.32
p less than 0.0001
When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70%
There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate
44 in the ivermectin group
99 in non ivermectin users
After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67%
p less than 0.0001
Conclusion
In this large study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
Est,
We found your study but are not familiar with the medical journal, naturecoastradio. Cureus is a prepublication journal that is either not peer-reviewed or his minimal peer review. The journal uses the comments section as subsequent peer-review, and those who reviewed in comments have questions regarding the quality of the data and especially why the authors have not released the raw data for review. In addition, it was pointed out that authors F.A. Cadegiani and P. Kory are associated with the Ivermectin team from Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance), the anti-VAX, anti-mask, pro-ivermectin, pro-HCQ org. It is poor form for authors on scientific papers to lie about their connections.
You should read the post-reviews in the comments section.
The guy in the video stated up front that he no longer believed the study from Africa since the abstract had been retracted. Did you watch the video?
This kind of semi-prospective study is difficult to assess (see the comments) especially outside the auspices of the U.S. FDA, E.U. or Japan.
High quality prospective studies (randomized, placebo controlled etc) revealed that neither ivermectin nor HCQ offered significant benefit as treatment or prophylaxis. In fact, Dr Kerr, the lead author of this Brazil-IVM paper says HCQ causes blindness in almost all patients!!
Notice that Jeff discounts journals from populations with brown people. Clearly racist.
Notice Porter’s bot has no idea what it’s talking about. It needs reprogramming. Most Brazilians are European-American.
My room mate in college was from Brazil and would differ. Dumbass.
Did Porter’s bot, The Davidov3000 ‘read’ the Cureus ‘journal’ article? If so, what was the breakdown of the subjects by race?
Dumbass bot. ‘Roommate’, LOL.
Hey, Dowd how about a link to all these studies?
High quality prospective studies (randomized, placebo controlled etc) revealed that neither ivermectin nor HCQ offered significant benefit as treatment or prophylaxis.
It is my understanding that no one bothers to study Ivermectin and when they do you debunk it.
Secondly, why do you bait and switch to HCQ when clearly the study was about Ivermectin and not Hydroxychloroquine?
FM: Hey, Dowd how about a link to all these studies?
Hey FM, see the link in the earlier comment. Also, go to pubmed, and search for ‘ivermectin’, ‘covid’ ‘2022’ and you’ll find others. Do your own research!
FM: It is my understanding that no one bothers to study Ivermectin and when they do you debunk it.
Your understanding is not my responsibility. Go to pubmed and search as advised.
FM: Secondly, why do you bait and switch to HCQ when clearly the study was about Ivermectin and not Hydroxychloroquine?
Sorry for the gratuitous swipe at HCQ. But the statement is still true. Neither ivermectin nor HCQ have been shown to be effective in well-designed, well-conducted studies.
From the abstract of the study you linked. You claim STUDIES then link one study of INVITRO activity.
High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a HIGH CONCENTRATION VS a minimal prophylactic dose that was given once every two weeks. I had to go find the study he was referring to myself.
Yours is an IN VITRO STUDY. This was performed on real people.
Two totally different things. EST pointed out that this was
FACTS MATTER.
The good old CDC:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiDah0FcWKNcgT8IiSD0mDSIk1aD5hpfCvkOxKZBBAdmfwMOW2fL4jdP5mfT4T-jDKSQKBgor7eyKsoXOQmegCwomHPrO4NEZddcg0OsGVNdLkBPR1UgdM0rYKgAwsErK5yJrwGMPiENAlZXN2cCkMOwSnCsHgknR2gxPkr6B4UoQI-gGPb3EaITsbp3g=w578-h640
Brand0,
Emerald Robinson is a proven lying sack-o-shit.
Emerald Robinson is a proven lying sack-o-shit
Then the two of you seem to have something in common!!
It’s unclear what you’re trying to say.
We did not cite an in vitro study. In vitro refers to studies NOT conducted in animals (including human clinical studies).
Here’e the title: High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial
You copied the first 2 sentences from their abstract and misinterpreted the writing. Was it a mistake or intentional? Facts matter.
Title of the article explains it.
Good for you for finding the Brazilian clinical study. I also linked to it.
We compared a high quality CLINICAL STUDY conducted in Europe to a low quality CLINICAL STUDY conducted in Brazil.
Facts matter, Facts Matter!
Our advice is to read more carefully. Take it or leave it.
We did not cite an in vitro study. In vitro refers to studies NOT conducted in animals (including human clinical studies).
High quality prospective studies (randomized, placebo controlled etc) revealed that neither ivermectin nor HCQ offered significant benefit as treatment or prophylaxis. In fact, Dr Kerr, the lead author of this Brazil-IVM paper says HCQ causes blindness in almost all patients!!
YOU pointed to the link which was highlighted as ivermectin.
I clicked on it. This is what it says.
Abstract
High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial………
WOW….JUST WOW……………From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load.
EIGHTY-NINE PARTICIPANTS VS 100’s of thousands around the world.
Secondly again….EST pointed out this was a prophylactic not given to people that already HAD COVID.
Again you keep pointing to apples vs oranges as you try desperately to destroy the credibility of a drug that is being used all over the world because your benefactors want to charge billions for drugs that actually might not even be needed since Covid has effectively neutered itself for us.
YOUR FIRST LINK……High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial
This first trial used *89* participants. The second studied 223,128 subjects.
YOUR SECOND LINK……Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
First trial was EARLY TREATMENT of COVID
Second Trial was PROPHYLAXIS…OR TREATING BEFORE THEY GET SICK.
FACTS MATTER!!
Sorry DOWD but you continue to misdirect, conflate and bait and switch in your desperate attempt to destroy the credibility of a drug being used around the world.
The problem with prophylaxis, especially prophylaxis with scant evidence of effectiveness, is that it needs to be administered repeatedly to millions of people who are not ill.
FM,
Progress! You admit you were wrong and that it was a clinical study. That’s a start! Apology accepted.
Please read the entire article (pdf linked below), and we can discuss.
They administered ivermectin at 0.6 mg/kg (roughly 30-40 mg/subject) or 1.2 mg/kg (60-80 mg) to subjects recently confirmed (PCR) positive for Covid. The study was double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized and prospective. They measured viral load, plasma ivermectin etc, which the Brazil study did not. They discussed other published work for comparison:
If you’re interested you can follow their references from the paper.
You can imagine the problems with a prophylaxis study where the researchers cannot determine who did or did not take the drug when distributed free to a hundred thousand people.
BTW, reference 27 from the Brazil study has been retracted.
RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article
Asiya Kamber Zaidi & Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki
The Journal of Antibiotics volume 75, page122 (2022)
Note the participants were self-selected, that is the subjects decided if they wished to take IVM. Was there a difference in previous infections between the IVM-takers vs non-takers (were more already immune)? Were there behavior differences between the IVM-takers vs non-takers (did IVM-takers, more concerned about Covid than non-takers, practice social distancing, masking etc?).
Anyway, we hope you get the idea. The Brazil study is suggestive but hardly definitive. They have yet to publish a corrected final version, and probably will not. The did not evaluate over 200,000 subjects, since only some 7,000 reported being infected. They claimed that 6.6% of non-ivermectin group were infected but only 3.7% of ivermectin group were infected.
It is possible that ivermectin as a prophylactic agent has a modest effect on the spread of Covid, but it is not been shown in high-quality studies.
Well-controlled, well-run studies do not support the use of ivermectin for Covid. We appreciate that many nations were/are desperate for preventatives and treatments, but facts matter.