Author Topic: The Covid Emergency is Over  (Read 47964 times)

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #350 on: October 03, 2025, 02:21:44 PM »
I don't even know how it's possible to give someone a preemptive pardon.

Apparently, this is possible because U.S. presidents have the authority to issue preemptive pardons for federal offenses that have already occurred, but for which no charges have yet been filed.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #351 on: October 03, 2025, 02:24:11 PM »
Apparently, this is possible because U.S. presidents have the authority to issue preemptive pardons for federal offenses that have already occurred, but for which no charges have yet been filed.

Says who?

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #352 on: October 03, 2025, 02:35:06 PM »
Says who?

Says Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

Article II  Executive Branch
Section 2 Powers
Clause 1 Military, Administrative, and Clemency
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2

The Supreme Court:
Ex parte Garland (1866): The Supreme Court affirmed that the president's power to pardon is broad and can be exercised "after the commission of an offense," but not for future offenses.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #353 on: October 03, 2025, 02:39:24 PM »
Says Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

Article II  Executive Branch
Section 2 Powers
Clause 1 Military, Administrative, and Clemency
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2

Which part of Article II says the pardon power applies to offenses someone has not been charged with? 

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #354 on: October 03, 2025, 03:02:00 PM »
Which part of Article II says the pardon power applies to offenses someone has not been charged with?

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, all of Article II, section 2 applies.

Apparently, you missed part of my previous post which refers to The Supreme Court's take on this:

Ex parte Garland (1866): The Supreme Court affirmed that the president's power to pardon is broad and can be exercised "after the commission of an offense," but not for future offenses. Note: the Anthony Fauci preemptive pardon, issued in January 2025, was a blanket clemency for any potential federal offenses Fauci may have committed during his public service between January 1, 2014, and the date of the pardon. 

The phrase "Offenses against the United States" is broad enough to include offenses for which a person has not yet been charged.
The Supreme Court has confirmed the broad scope of this power, noting that a pardon "blots out the offense" and can cover all types of pardons known at common law.

As a result of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic which held a hearing titled “A Hearing with Dr. Anthony Fauci" in 2024, has Dr. Fauci been charged with crimes? If a Presidential preemptive pardon is not valid as you suggest, why has he not been so charged?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #355 on: October 03, 2025, 03:03:02 PM »
You missed part of my previous post which refers The Supreme Court:
Ex parte Garland (1866): The Supreme Court affirmed that the president's power to pardon is broad and can be exercised "after the commission of an offense," but not for future offenses. Note: the Anthony Fauci preemptive pardon, issued in January 2025, was a blanket clemency for any potential federal offenses Fauci may have committed during his public service between January 1, 2014, and the date of the pardon. 

The phrase "Offenses against the United States" is broad enough to include offenses for which a person has not yet been charged.
The Supreme Court has confirmed the broad scope of this power, noting that a pardon "blots out the offense" and can cover all types of pardons known at common law.

Link please.  I'd like to read exactly where you are getting this from.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #356 on: October 03, 2025, 03:37:38 PM »
Link please.  I'd like to read exactly where you are getting this from.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/%5B%27pardon%27,%20%27constitution%27%5D#:~:text=In%20the%201886%20case%20Ex,alter%20it%20with%20certain%20conditions.

"In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.3 Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to 'forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions."

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #357 on: October 03, 2025, 03:44:59 PM »
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/%5B%27pardon%27,%20%27constitution%27%5D#:~:text=In%20the%201886%20case%20Ex,alter%20it%20with%20certain%20conditions.

"In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.3 Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to 'forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions."

Thanks.  I read it.  This is helpful.  I think this part actually supports the "preemptive" pardon:

"Beyond textual limits, certain external constitutional and legal considerations may act as constraints on the power. For instance, the Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission,8 reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct."

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26160
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #358 on: October 03, 2025, 04:15:17 PM »
Children’s Health Defense
@ChildrensHD

Fauci said the shot would add to natural immunity.

The reality? It weakened it.

The vaccine antibodies hijack the virus, blocking your natural ones (the ones that actually work).

The result? Lower immunity. More sickness.

Fauci’s advice didn’t just fail—it left people worse off.

Why are people are still taking this shot?

https://x.com/ChildrensHD/status/1973372699251552566



Prime will disagree with you he's right now feverishly Googling
long articles to copy & paste on here   ::)

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #359 on: October 03, 2025, 04:19:14 PM »
Thanks.  I read it.  This is helpful.  I think this part actually supports the "preemptive" pardon:

"Beyond textual limits, certain external constitutional and legal considerations may act as constraints on the power. For instance, the Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission,8 reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct."

Glad you were able to decipher this out of all the legal jargon. I had to read it over several times and frankly it was still rather confusing. But then, I am neither a legal or constitutional expert, just an ordinary person trying to understand this.

One thing about constitutions and bylaws I have noticed is the more they are amended the more complicated they are to make sense out of. Every year prior to the Oregon School Employees  Association conference (OSEA) members and chapters submit resolutions which when passed at conference change the language in the OSEA constitution, usually adding more language intended to clarify the constitution and bylaws. Rather than clarify these "amendments" often have the opposite affect.


herne

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 152191
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #360 on: October 04, 2025, 10:16:23 AM »
.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #361 on: December 19, 2025, 01:40:44 PM »
EXCLUSIVE: Trump Nixes COVID-19-Era ‘Regulatory Burden’ on Early Education Program
Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell | December 19, 2025
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/12/19/exclusive-trump-nixes-covid-era-regulatory-burden-on-early-education-program/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #362 on: January 26, 2026, 05:11:48 PM »
Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox

Bill Maher Delivers a Brutal Message to the COVID “Experts” Who Got It Wrong

“A lot of the dissenting opinions that were suppressed and ridiculed at the time have proven to be CORRECT.”

This includes, but is not limited to:

• COVID came from a lab
• Ivermectin worked
• Masks offered no benefit and were harmful
• Should have never kept kids out of school
• Natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity
• Long COVID is often a symptom of long vax
• Hospitals murdered COVID patients
• COVID fatality rate and death count were highly inflated
• Unvaccinated were scapegoated for the failure of the shots
• Early treatment was suppressed to make way for a “vaccine”
• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
• Vaccine mandates are wrong
• More shots = more risk of infection
• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2012614508078916064

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26160
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #363 on: January 26, 2026, 07:52:39 PM »
Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox

Bill Maher Delivers a Brutal Message to the COVID “Experts” Who Got It Wrong

“A lot of the dissenting opinions that were suppressed and ridiculed at the time have proven to be CORRECT.”

This includes, but is not limited to:

• COVID came from a lab
• Ivermectin worked
• Masks offered no benefit and were harmful
• Should have never kept kids out of school
• Natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity
• Long COVID is often a symptom of long vax
• Hospitals murdered COVID patients
• COVID fatality rate and death count were highly inflated
• Unvaccinated were scapegoated for the failure of the shots
• Early treatment was suppressed to make way for a “vaccine”
• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
• Vaccine mandates are wrong
• More shots = more risk of infection
• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2012614508078916064


Where is Prime or Agnostic to vehemently refute all of the above. 

🤡 ' S

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10796
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #364 on: Today at 05:21:00 AM »
Vigilant Fox 🦊
@VigilantFox

Bill Maher Delivers a Brutal Message to the COVID “Experts” Who Got It Wrong

“A lot of the dissenting opinions that were suppressed and ridiculed at the time have proven to be CORRECT.”

This includes, but is not limited to:

• COVID came from a lab
• Ivermectin worked
• Masks offered no benefit and were harmful
• Should have never kept kids out of school
• Natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity
• Long COVID is often a symptom of long vax
• Hospitals murdered COVID patients
• COVID fatality rate and death count were highly inflated
• Unvaccinated were scapegoated for the failure of the shots
• Early treatment was suppressed to make way for a “vaccine”
• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
• Vaccine mandates are wrong
• More shots = more risk of infection
• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2012614508078916064

his includes, but is not limited to:

• COVID came from a lab
- k

• Ivermectin worked
- studies show it doesn't work, cite your source

• Masks offered no benefit and were harmful
- harmful?

• Should have never kept kids out of school
- probably, in retrospect initially they were a strong vector for it as kids are. I would probably agree with this


• Natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity
- not sure what that even means, natural immunity carries the risk of death and higher incidence of sequalae. If you are saying it produces more antibodies, then obviously, hence the higher burden of disease


• Long COVID is often a symptom of long vax

- retarded

• Hospitals murdered COVID patients
- LOLOLOLOLOL


• COVID fatality rate and death count were highly inflated

-According to what data

• Unvaccinated were scapegoated for the failure of the shots

- not in any other country.

• Early treatment was suppressed to make way for a “vaccine”

- retarded

• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
- the studies were out there from the start you can see the risks, they were clearly stated. The rapid nature of the vaccine pushed by trump obviously skewed things

• Vaccine mandates are wrong

- in what sense

• More shots = more risk of infection

- data?

• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

- incorrect. You realize tylenol is the number one cause of liver failure worldwide right? but its both safe and effective within a reasonable margin. It kills people daily.

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26449
  • SC è un asino
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #365 on: Today at 06:27:03 AM »

• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
- the studies were out there from the start you can see the risks, they were clearly stated.



This one is horseshit.

Folks pointing out the risks were vilified, demonetized/banned on social media, called conspiracy theorists, and labeled "anti-vaxxers".  And this continued well into the Biden admin, and even today.

In addition, those who had legitimate vaccine injuries were ignored, and their stories were not amplified in the traditional media.

And when you message "safe and effective" ad-nauseum,  the average person takes that as they don't have a chance of getting injured.


• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

- incorrect. You realize tylenol is the number one cause of liver failure worldwide right? but its both safe and effective within a reasonable margin. It kills people daily.

So people get killed daily from taking one dose of tylenol, when taken in the correct dosage range?  No, they don't.

Y

chaos

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61223
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #366 on: Today at 06:38:21 AM »
his includes, but is not limited to:

• COVID came from a lab
- k

• Ivermectin worked
- studies show it doesn't work, cite your source

• Masks offered no benefit and were harmful
- harmful?

• Should have never kept kids out of school
- probably, in retrospect initially they were a strong vector for it as kids are. I would probably agree with this


• Natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity
- not sure what that even means, natural immunity carries the risk of death and higher incidence of sequalae. If you are saying it produces more antibodies, then obviously, hence the higher burden of disease


• Long COVID is often a symptom of long vax

- retarded

• Hospitals murdered COVID patients
- LOLOLOLOLOL


• COVID fatality rate and death count were highly inflated

-According to what data

• Unvaccinated were scapegoated for the failure of the shots

- not in any other country.

• Early treatment was suppressed to make way for a “vaccine”

- retarded

• Risks of the jab were intentionally hidden from the public
- the studies were out there from the start you can see the risks, they were clearly stated. The rapid nature of the vaccine pushed by trump obviously skewed things

• Vaccine mandates are wrong

- in what sense

• More shots = more risk of infection

- data?

• COVID shots are neither safe nor effective

- incorrect. You realize tylenol is the number one cause of liver failure worldwide right? but its both safe and effective within a reasonable margin. It kills people daily.
Big pharma shill ^^^^
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #367 on: Today at 01:30:33 PM »
COVID's long shadow looms over a new generation of college students

FILE: Students walk near the Sather Gate on the UC Berkeley campus in Berkeley, Calif., on Aug. 24, 2021.
By Madilynne Medina,
News Reporter
Jan 26, 2026
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/covid-cohort-college-students-21309223.php

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10796
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #368 on: Today at 01:36:47 PM »
Meta-Analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD015017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Maria Popp 1, Stefanie Reis 1, Selina Schießer 1, Renate Ilona Hausinger 2, Miriam Stegemann 3, Maria-Inti Metzendorf 4, Peter Kranke 1, Patrick Meybohm 1, Nicole Skoetz 5, Stephanie Weibel 1
Affiliations Expand
PMID: 35726131 PMCID: PMC9215332 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3
Abstract
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

Main results: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

Authors' conclusions: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.


This is the highest level evidence that we produce in medical research.

Guess people like dos equis live in la la land and get their medical advice from tik tok.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #369 on: Today at 01:42:33 PM »

Where is Prime or Agnostic to vehemently refute all of the above. 

🤡 ' S

Why bother?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 67785
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #370 on: Today at 01:50:55 PM »
Meta-Analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD015017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Maria Popp 1, Stefanie Reis 1, Selina Schießer 1, Renate Ilona Hausinger 2, Miriam Stegemann 3, Maria-Inti Metzendorf 4, Peter Kranke 1, Patrick Meybohm 1, Nicole Skoetz 5, Stephanie Weibel 1
Affiliations Expand
PMID: 35726131 PMCID: PMC9215332 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3
Abstract
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

Main results: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

Authors' conclusions: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.


This is the highest level evidence that we produce in medical research.

Guess people like dos equis live in la la land and get their medical advice from tik tok.

What are you babbling about?

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26160
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #371 on: Today at 01:55:46 PM »
Why bother?


Stupid answer as you bother with so much other stuff that's Trump or Loony Leftist related
& 99.9% of Getbig wish you didn't bother.

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26449
  • SC è un asino
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #372 on: Today at 02:03:24 PM »
Meta-Analysis Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2022 Jun 21;6(6):CD015017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Maria Popp 1, Stefanie Reis 1, Selina Schießer 1, Renate Ilona Hausinger 2, Miriam Stegemann 3, Maria-Inti Metzendorf 4, Peter Kranke 1, Patrick Meybohm 1, Nicole Skoetz 5, Stephanie Weibel 1
Affiliations Expand
PMID: 35726131 PMCID: PMC9215332 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3
Abstract
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

Main results: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

Authors' conclusions: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.


This is the highest level evidence that we produce in medical research.

Guess people like dos equis live in la la land and get their medical advice from tik tok.

Honest questions:

How does a study like this guarantee all participants are given the drug during the "early stage window" which is hypothesized when Ivermectin's viral disrupting mechanism is effective?

Was the dosage consistent across all these studies?  I have read where the dosages were suboptimal in certain cases.

Do you put any validity into real world evidence provide by doctors who treated thousands of patients successfully utilizing ivermectin and other methods - steroids, etc?

Ivermectin has one the best safety profiles in terms of risk.  Why were pharmacies not filling scripts for it even before all these studies were done?  It's a "free shot", and doctors are supposed to try off label uses when other remedies are failing.
Y

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 43313
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #373 on: Today at 02:06:55 PM »

Stupid answer as you bother with so much other stuff that's Trump or Loony Leftist related
& 99.9% of Getbig wish you didn't bother.

You do realize your response has nothing to do with your questions about COVID, don't you?

illuminati

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26160
  • The Strongest Shall Survive.- - Lest we Forget.
Re: The Covid Emergency is Over
« Reply #374 on: Today at 02:11:53 PM »
You do realize your response has nothing to do with your questions about COVID, don't you?


YES - just doing what you always do when you  reply  😊  👍🏻