© unknown
"It's Not Left Vs Right Anymore, it's Anti-Establishment Versus Pro-Establishment."Karma is God's hickory switch, and almost always applied with a cosmic chortle. Things come around when a certain excess cargo of cognitive dissonance breaks the brains of those just struggling to carry on. The country has had enough — enough walking-talking hypocrisies, enough trips laid on it, enough Tik-tok lectures from the nose-rings-for-lunch-bunch. We're at the end of something and the beginning of something new. As in: an ass-beating is coming down.
— Glenn Greenwald
Cue one Oliver Anthony, southern country boy with a flaming red beard and a new anthem for millions sore-beset by the relentless effronteries of the ruling elites. Rolling Stone Magazine, a ruling elites house organ, played the phenomenon this way:
Perhaps the final insult galvanizing all this sentiment in a song was Merrick Garland's devious Friday afternoon announcement — when, theoretically, no one was paying attention — that he appointed US Attorney David Weiss as Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden matter. This is the same David Weiss, you understand, who oversaw the Hunter Biden investigation for the past five years before ascertaining anything that might be chargeable from a vast inventory of financial crimes with an overlay of documented sex and drug transgressions. The same David Weiss who let the statute of limitations run out on many of those crimes while he dawdled and frittered in Wilmington. The same David Weiss who cooked up a wrist-slap plea agreement on all this, with a hidden Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free clause inserted slyly in the fine print of the so-called 'diversion agreement' that would have immunized Hunter B against any further inquiries — which Judge Maryellen Noreika discovered only by chance at the last moment, scotching the deal. (And yet, the government now claims that the diversion agreement — and Hunter B's immunity from further charges — "stands alone," is "in effect" and "still binding." Hmmmm....)
This sort of in-your-face audacity sums up Mr. Garland's reckless, lawless run as a rogue attorney general. But then who do you appeal to for relief? Anybody wondering why there is actually no justice in America these days need seek no further. By the way, the appointment of Mr. Weiss was patently illegal. The Special Counsel statute states plainly that the post can only be occupied by someone not in the employ of the government. Does Mr. Garland not know how this works?
What the AG also flung in America's face was the "ongoing investigation" dodge that supposedly would allow the DOJ to avoid answering any congressional inquiries into Hunter Biden's tangled financial crimes, which, after all, were committed in the service of the Biden family global racketeering operation. Has a cover-up ever been more blatant? And so now the time has come to impeach Merrick Garland for breaking the special counsel law and obstruction of justice. It's pretty cut and dried, and it should be the first order of business when Congress returns from its August recess making the rounds of the county fairs. The second order of business should be the impeachment of "Joe Biden," if he hasn't resigned before Labor Day.
*
On a different but hugely consequential note, and related to the long-running outlandish mendacity of the US government, an attorney for the Federal Drug Administration told a federal appeals court in Louisiana hearing a lawsuit last week that the agency actually had no policy against the use of ivermectin for Covid-19.
"FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs. These statements are not regulations - they have no legal consequences - they don't prohibit doctors from prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose. Quite to the contrary there are three instances I'd like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID."How true is that? The FDA coerced Blue Cross and other insurers to warn doctors not to prescribe ivermectin for Covid-19, and likewise the Federation of State Medical Boards and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to not fill doctor's prescriptions for ivermectin for Covid-19 patients, despite the fact that it was among the best, most effective, and safest treatments for the disease. The FDA put out public service announcements telling Americans not to take ivermectin. The net effect was that state medical boards persecuted doctors for prescribing the drug (e.g., Maine Medical Board's persecution of Dr. Meryl Nass). Also that hundreds of thousands of Covid-19 patients were denied early treatment, many of whom died.
We all know why the FDA pretended that ivermectin was not allowed to be used. Because it would have removed the Emergency Use Authorization that designated mRNA shots as the sole response to Covid, and it would have obviated the pharma companies' liability shield for anything that went wrong. Of course, the whole damn thing went wrong and millions are now paying the price. Is this the beginning of the unwind of a colossal crime by those Rich Men North of Richmond against the people of this land?
From The FDA's Official Website, Dec 10, 2021:
Reader Comments
The National Poison Data System recorded an eightfold increase in reported ivermectin cases from August 2020 to August 2021.
So yea they followed them in order to stop the poisonings that had drastically increased.
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Sound familiar?
An eightfold increase is horribly ambiguous. Eightfold of what? Was the previous period composed of one reported incident - and currently there are eight? This would be insignificant when considering the total population. Without a numerical value reference point the "eightfold increase" is nonsense. Such is the state of government reportage today.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plato
Do you hear that? That's your brain trying to contemplate its own stupidity.
When the CDC gets a report of 20 cases of smallpox happening in a week when there's on average 1 or 2 do you think they just shrug their shoulders and say "Ah it's probably nothing to worry about?" Your idea of a what is a dangerous outbreak is nonsense. Your thinking is if 8 people were poisoned it's too small of a number to affect the population. Do you know that e.coli outbreaks usually only get 5 or 6 people sick and do you know why? Because they tell people to stop eating what is making others sick!
To be equally clear Mcsnacks and in demonstration that you did not read the article, my response was purely to highlight that the FDA who "had no policy" influenced Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, among other nations to also "have no policy" and therefore, all are guilty of coercion and mendacity as outlined in the above article.
On a more personal note Mcsnacks, others like you have come before, we trust that you'll learn a lot while you're here
Here in South Africa In 2022 the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority terminated the controlled Compassionate Use Access Programme, saying there's no credible evidence it helps treat COVID-19.
As a consequence, physicians were prohibited from prescribing Ivermectin for any purposes. But to argue that such prohibition is not tantamount to banning, is pure sophistry - a la Mcsnacks.
The unidentified woman whom Dr. Scott C. Miller had also allegedly treated with ivermectin died about a week later.That same month, according to a statement of charges released by the State of Washington Medical Commission, the family of an unvaccinated man hospitalized with coronavirus symptoms filed an emergency injunction requesting the hospital give him ivermectin. Miller, who had never treated or examined the man, his wife said, had recommended that course of action, the document states. The family later dropped the request. The patient died on Aug. 2. In September, another unvaccinated man who had been taken to the emergency room because of respiratory failure declined intubation and left the hospital against medical advice, records state. Miller, who had never examined him, had allegedly recommended an ivermectin treatment the man was interested in pursuing. Miller prescribed the man ivermectin for “head lice,” the commission found. He died at a hospital days later.
If Ivermectin threatened it then why did they in December 2021, the FDA granted emergency use authorizations for new antivirals like Pfizer's Paxlovid and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics and Merck's molnupiravir for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease?
Riddle me that.
Hopefully you can learn that you are brainwashed and not as knowledged as you think.
The findings of two large clinical trials conducted in 2021 also did not support the use of ivermectin for patients with Covid-19.
No new applications for importation of unregistered ivermectin products have been received since August last year, said Sahpra.
A marked decline in the number of health facilities applying for permission to hold bulk stock was noted after August 2021.
It wasn't being requested to be used anymore by doctors and hospitals. This is what you do when a drug fails trials.
Given that there is currently no credible evidence to support a therapeutic role for ivermectin in Covid, Sahpra has decided to terminate the programme with immediate effect.
They tried it and it wasn't working so they stopped. That simple.
So what are you talking about? .
Ivermectin is the generic ingredient in four branded drugs marketed by Merck Sharp Dohme, and is included in nine NDAs. There are twelve patents protecting this compound.
Studies on whether ivermectin is beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients haven’t been conclusive.[Link]
Again what are you talking about? It has 77 patents internationally. 12 are in the US.
The compound has mainly been used in humans as an oral medication for treating filarial diseases but is also effective against other worm-related infections and diseases, plus several parasite-induced epidermal parasitic skin diseases, as well as insect infestations. It is approved for human use in several countries, ostensibly to treat Onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis (also known as Elephantiasis), strongyloidiasis and/or scabies and, very recently, to combat head lice.
In the mid-1990s, ivermectin was found to be an excellent treatment for Lymphatic filariasis, leading to the donation program being extended to cover this disease in areas where it co-exists with Onchocerciasis. In 2015, almost 374 million people required ivermectin for Lymphatic filariasis, with 176.5 million being treated. In 2015, 120.7 million ivermectin treatments were approved for Lymphatic filariasis, an accumulated 1.2 billion treatments being authorized since the drug donation program was extended to cover the second disease in 1998.
In 2006 ivermectin’s use in the human field, adverse reactions occurred in 50% or more of the population and ivermectin was “tainted” with a high adverse reaction profile.
I live here and I know what happened and I know how the media distorted most facts about Covid and the supposed "vaccines" and the actual benefits of (properly administered) Ivermectin. I also know the extent to which adverse comment and criticism were censored by the presstitutes of the local MSM - especially Daily Maverick (Soros owned)
Agnosco out.
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
And i included the African studies
you’ll find this quote in the linked article. Once again, with ivermectin being a threat to the vaccine’s emergency use authorisation conditions that “no other substance is available to treat Covid” then you’ll find many western studies claiming that Ivermectin is not a viable off-label therapeutic option.
Ivermectin ban lifted in Australia
Doctors will be free to prescribe ivermectin 'off-label' from June 1st 2023, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced today. This is a reversal of a national ban on...Covid deaths plunge after Mexico City introduces ivermectin, hospitalizations down 76%
A citywide initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths, two studies found. Hospitalizations were down by as much as...The third thing is conflict of interest.
Like the one that only considered adverse reactions from people who self administered ivermectin intended for livestock, and overdosed?
Or the one that concludes the adverse events from the study are possibly explained by a concomitantly administered drug and high burden infection? 👇
"In conclusion, there is evidence that serious neurological adverse events can occur with ivermectin beyond the treatment of O. volvulus complicated by concomitant high burden L. loa infection. Potential explanations include concomitantly administered drugs which inhibit CYP3A4 and polymorphisms in the mdr-1 gene."
Or the one where in the conclusion it was admitted ivermectin has an "excellent safety profile"? 👇
"While our results do not put in question ivermectin’s excellent safety profile, they show that as for all drugs, appropriate pharmacovigilance for adverse reactions is indicated."
Once the FDA has approved a drug for a disease or medical condition, health care providers generally may prescribe or administer the drug in clinical practice for an unapproved use not described in the approved labeling (i.e., "off-label") based on their medical judgment, recognizing that the FDA has not assessed the safety or effectiveness of such use.
This is why the doctors who sued them lost their case in December 2022.
The court documents from November 2022:
The cited statements were not directives," said Isaac Belfer, one of the FDA's lawyers. "They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it's prohibited or it's unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin."
So how does your vaccine narrative have any reasoning or truth since the FDA never had — or even asserted that it had — the authority to block off-label use of FDA-approved drugs, and because the FDA had repeatedly reaffirmed that fact throughout the pandemic.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)62668-2/fulltext
And in Brazil
[Link]
[Link]
Content current as of:
12/10/2021
"The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals"
Sounds like they sort of asserted authority to me. But whether or not the FDA has the authority to, or asserted that they did, isn't the main issue. Doctors and pharmacists were inhibited from prescribing or fulfilling prescriptions out of fear of losing their jobs or licenses because their employers look to official FDA guidance, especially large corporate chains or facilities to cover themselves. I know this for fact, first hand from a doctor who informed me that many pharmacists/ pharmacies/ doctors would NOT prescribe or fulfill an ivermectin prescription for that reason. So the effect is the same, whether or not the FDA had or asserted it had the authority to do so.
McSnatch is a creep and a troll who masturbates each time he gets a reply in his mommy's basement.
There is a picture of him on the Hunter Biden laptop.
His older sister shared this with me, and he is on a FBI watch list.
"Clinical review of the cases within this case series has focused largely on three important confounders: co-administered drugs with known CNS effects, overdosing, and evidence of secondary impairment of the blood-brain barrier"
You're a broken record.
How about this one? 👇
"Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.57)" [Link]
The FDA wouldn't fire them or take their license because they don't have that power.
As to your other comment, I am referring to employers and medical boards/ commissions. Do a search for doctors fired for prescribing ivermectin, you will find all the examples you want.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30326-6/fulltext