© Ruben Bonilla Gonzalo/Getty Images
We are talking about a corruption that is beyond the capacity of many Americans to comprehend.
The FDA, Fauci, the CDC, Biden, the entire U.S. medical system and the corporate media mind-controlled millions of Americans into believing that using the well-known anti-microbial drug Ivermectin was a laughingstock perpetuated by quacks and conspiracy theorists.
They kicked to the curb any physician who sought to prescribe Ivermectin to his or her patients infected with Covid. Despite the fact that Ivermectin has been FDA-approved for use in humans for decades, this same deep-state apparatus made it sound like Ivermectin was just a "horse drug" that stupid people were dangerously ingesting in a failed attempt to ward off Covid.
They mocked and derided us. Telling us we were using "horse paste" that was meant solely for livestock, when it was a known fact that Ivermectin, while used to protect equines and bovines from various viral infections, is just as effective in humans.
Now comes the bombshell report we've all been waiting for, exposing who the real quacks have been all along, detailing how they suppressed the administering of a well-known, very effective drug during the heat of the Covid pandemic that could have saved millions of lives.
The Epoch Times reports that doctors are now free to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, more than two years after millions were killed by doctors listening to advice from Fauci and the FDA to not treat them with a known effective drug.
It all came out this week in litigation against the FDA.
A lawyer representing the FDA said "FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID."
That lawyer is Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA. She made her comments during oral arguments on August 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The government is defending the FDA's repeated exhortations to people to not take Ivermectin for COVID-19, including a post on Twitter that said "Stop it."
Three doctors brought the case against the FDA, alleging the federal agency unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with its repeated statements blasting and denigrating the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid patients.
Why did it take this long, you ask? Because a federal judge dismissed the case on December 6, 2022, prompting an appeal.
Jared Kelson, representing the three doctors, told the appeals court:
"The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no."The FDA on August 21, 2021, wrote on Twitter: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."
The post, which linked to an FDA page that says people shouldn't use Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, went viral.
In other statements, the FDA said Ivermectin "isn't authorized or approved to treat COVID-19" and "Q: Should I take Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No."
The plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter. They say they were professionally harmed by the FDA's statements, including being terminated over efforts to prescribe Ivermectin to patients.
Other doctors were threatened with having their licenses revoked if they prescribed Ivermectin for Covid.
The Epoch Times article cites Dr. Marik, chairman of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, as noting that a number of studies support using Ivermectin against COVID-19, as the FDA itself has acknowledged.
Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, attorney Jared Kelson said. A version of the drug for animals is available, but Ivermectin is fully approved by the FDA for human use against diseases caused by parasites.
Honold, the FDA lawyer, argued that the FDA didn't require anyone to do anything or to prohibit anyone from doing anything.
"What about when it said, 'No, stop it'?" Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, on the panel that is hearing the appeal, asked.
"Why, isn't that a command? If you were in English class, they would say that was a command."
Honold described the statements as "merely quips."
So they were just playing with us. They were just making quips, playing with our minds and trying to influence us not to use Ivermectin, but they weren't "requiring" us to do anything.
Remember that next time you hear anything come out of the FDA, or any government agency for that matter.
Below is just one of the hundreds of corporate media reports mocking Ivermectin as a drug "intended for barnyard animals," and citing the FDA as the authority warning Americans not to take it.
Fauci's hands are also full of blood. He was routinely bashing Ivermectin as a viable treatment for Covid during the peak of the pandemic. In an interview with CNN's Chuck Todd, Fauci also said, "Don't do it."
The interview appeared totally staged. Todd phrased the question this way:
"Cases are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called Ivermectin to treat coronavirus. What would you tell someone who is considering taking that drug?"
"Don't do it. There is no evidence whatsoever that that works and it could potentially have toxicity because they've taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick, and there's no clinical evidence that indicates that this works."The reason Fauci, the FDA and the entire mainstream corporate media had to destroy the credibility of Ivermectin was because they had the real toxic drug — mRNA jabs — ready and waiting to be deployed, the one that indeed had "no clinical evidence" of efficacy or safety.
We must also remember that hospitals only received their bonus cash payouts if they used the vaccines and an expensive new drug called Remdesivir, which in many cases led to kidney organ failure. And many states barred pharmacies from filling prescriptions for Ivermectin even when doctors prescribed it.
These were crimes against humanity on a scale the world has never seen.
As a result, millions died.
Reader Comments
Maybe ‘we the people’ should be holding people to account then? “Never ask someone to do something you yourself can do”
They found a new antibiotic in 2021 that has shown progress with Lyme disease.
The new antibiotic may not only work to cure Lyme disease but may also help eradicate its occurrence from the environment.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits in state court seeking damages for a child’s injuries or death from a vaccine’s side effects.
The Vaccine Act that Congress enacted makes it not possible to find them liable.
>science
>TM (trademark)
My observation is that they’re all shit, and their therapies are too. But, you’re 100% right.
You mean when Merck & Co. donated four billion doses of ivermectin to prevent river blindness and other diseases in areas of the world, such as Africa, where parasites are common?
The Nobel Prize was for abermectin. Ivermectin is a derivative that was created later.
Thanks.
Actually the horse paste version works just as good. Merck (the manufacturer) wouldn’t risk killing someone’s $250k purebred horse. Tractor Supply, no prescription and half the price of the human pills.
I hope the Federal Death Administration and Center for Decease Creation get sued into oblivion!
>but the institutions you work for do
Regulatory capture. Simple as.
Oh and I'm retired. I work for no institutions.
An unapproved new use of a drug, also known as an off-label use, is a use not mentioned in the drug's approved labeling. Although a physician may prescribe a drug for off-label uses, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may not market or promote uses of a drug other than those on the label—those uses approved by the FDA in the application.
This is from the 2009 Congressional Research Service records.
I note you never refuted efficacy, and you “appealed to authority” with the ‘sage and effective’ shit. Fda can choose to not approve something, NOT based on its safety or efficacy, but on LITERALLY anything it chooses. If I were getting millions to say or do something I STILL wouldn’t approve. Are you saying they’re doing to for money?
I don't play video games so I don't know anything about GTA3.
Efficacy trials determine whether an intervention produces the expected result under ideal circumstances.
Vaccine efficacy is a measure of how well a vaccine lowers the prevalence of a disease under ideal, controlled conditions. In other words, it is a measure of how well a vaccine prevents the spread of a virus when tested in a research laboratory or highly controlled study.
Vaccine effectiveness is a measure of how well a vaccine lowers the prevalence of a disease under “real world” conditions. In other words, it is the measure of how well a vaccine prevents the spread of the disease when actually used out in society.
We're on our own, and likely better for it.
I wish this were a joke: [Link]
Many of us noted during the course of the pandemic that ivermectin’s efficacy was being ignored because it would have stopped Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines in their tracks - they couldn’t have sold the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization if there were other efficacious medicines available. And if Pfizer and Moderna were stopped in their tracks, how could the “giant sucking sound” of billions of dollars in treasury cash making their way to the pharmaceutical industry have taken place?
Those of us who followed the obvious money trail and pointed out what can only be described as the glaringly obvious were ignored and ridiculed. In fact, many of us were banned from our social media accounts.
And the “grand conspiracy” narrative at the time, as Joe Rogan correctly referred to it as in September 2021, was:
“One speculation involves the EUA for the vaccines. In order for their to be EUA there has to be no treatment for a disease. Because there is this treatment, there’s a lot of pushback against potential treatments in pretending they don’t work or that they’re conspiracy theories. This is the the grand conspiracy…that the pharmaceutical companies are all in cahoots to try and make anybody who takes this stuff look crazy.”
Today it doesn’t look so crazy. Lo and behold, the truth finds a way to make its way out:
The United States’ top Covid experts during the pandemic cashed in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars during the pandemic, even as they were recommending measures that included “lockdowns.” Records have unveiled that Dr. Francis Collins, previously the NIH Director, and Dr. Tony Fauci, former NIAID Director, made substantial profits from royalty checks during the Covid pandemic. These documents prove that the former leaders of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) benefitted financially from the Covid pandemic. [Link]
And here are the stunning numbers from the pharmaceutical executives, courtesy of comrade Bernie Sanders. [Link]
Lets review:
Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca wanted to sell their experimental vaccines in the absence of long-term safety data.
They couldn’t do it under Emergency Use Authorization if ivermectin and other early treatments were found to have efficacy.
Ergo, the media, sponsored by these same pharma companies launched a malicious misinformation campaign in the face of demonstrable proof of both efficacy and safety for ivermectin.
This campaign knowingly mislabeled a drug with a decades-long history of success in humans as horse medicine. As this took place, additional “rigged” clinical studies, many of which with significant conflicts, tried to paint a picture of ivermectin not being efficacious through dishonest means (learn all about this here).[Link]
From there, government worked with social media to stifle and censor anyone who raised critical questions or told the inconvenient truth in the midst of the pandemic.
Finally, after all the damage was done and the vaccine grift ended, the FDA casually and cavalierly admitted that doctors “do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid.” [Link]
If your eyes aren’t open after understanding what just happened here, you are not paying attention.
I, and many others, used to get "all my shots".... No longer. The sins of the Big Harma/Fda/cdc murder complex are now being exposed .
Have buddy, doctor prescribed him Ivermectin. His insurance would not pay for it, his pharmacy would not fill the prescription, Amazon pharmacy refused as well. Eventually he got Rite Aid to fill this prescription for cash. If this is not government interference... what is?
Or molnupiravir (Lagevrio)? Or remdesivir? They were approved starting in 2020. Kinda blows your vaccine narrative out of the water. 😂
Originally developed to treat hepatitis C (didn't work)
Ssubsequently investigated for Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus infections (didn't work)
The drug was pulled from an Ebola study because more than 53 percent of remdesivir recipients died.
The FDA approved the re-purposing of this antiviral for COVID-19 on October 22, 2020
Meanwhile, Ivermectin, which proved itself via an indirect Clinical Trial in Africa was denied the re-purposing.
Paxlovid should be used soon after viral infection.
Its clinical trial reported 89 percent efficacy with side effects of dysgeusia and diarrhea.
Paxlovid doesn’t work in younger patients.
In a real-world study, the drug showed limited effectiveness.
Finding “treatable” patients has proven challenging.
Drug resistance is a major concern.
Another major concern is Paxlovid’s interaction with other drugs.
Natural immunity influences the success of Paxlovid and other antivirals.
Co$ts $550 per treatment
Ivermectin inexpensive, cost effective is superior.
There were some living in a specific region of Cameroon – and who died after falling into a coma within four days of treatment
[Link]
Pop that Ivermectin cherry of yours.
[Link]
BTW: The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law in December 2016, was created to help accelerate medical product development and “bring new innovations and advances” to patients quicker and more efficiently. Yet some researchers suggest the law is being used to bypass the once rigorous and evidenced-based standards for new drug approvals, allowing novel drugs to flood the market without adequate data and public transparency. [Link]
According to a research letter published on August 8 in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open (JAMA), 24 of the 37 drugs approved in 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were based on a single study, with only four drugs having more than three studies to support their approval. [Link]
“I’m not surprised,” David Gortler, a pharmacologist, pharmacist, and FDA reform advocate at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Rand Paul in Congressional session. As a former senior advisor to the FDA commissioner, Mr. Gortler said he saw the agency grant expedited approval to a medication called aducanumab—used to treat Alzheimer’s disease “based on zero positive studies.”
“ They did the same with other monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease ,” Mr. Gortler said.
According to a research letter submitted, most of the 413 studies evaluating the 37 drugs approved in 2022 were sponsored by the industry—meaning they were manufactured, funded, and analyzed by the company producing the product, seeking FDA approval, and standing to benefit financially from the drug. [Link]
Of the studies available for analysis, only 25 percent of study results have been made publicly available, with the results of six percent of those studies published after the FDA had already approved the drug for use.
Bonus Link: All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]