« First « Previous Comments 507 - 546 of 628 Next » Last » Search these comments
Watch the new short film by Oracle Films, Dr. Tess Lawrie recites a letter to Dr. Andrew Hill and asks him what made him turn his back on a potential cure for Covid-19.
In October 2020 Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.
But on January 18th 2021, Dr. Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigor, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr. Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”
The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. What were his reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?
FDA Embarrassingly Claims Ivermectin Doesn’t Work While Linking to Studies That Prove It Does
June 7, 2023 • by The Vigilant Fox
Is the FDA doing science or peddling narratives? Because it looks like the agency has been caught in one of the biggest lies of the century.
Case in point: over on the FDA’s website, they maintain a page called: “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”
However, when you dig into it, you’ll find that the clinical trials that the FDA points to (the ones that are listed on that page) say the exact opposite.
As ridiculous as it sounds: the FDA claims that ivermectin does not work against COVID-19, but in order to prove that point, they link to studies that say that it does.
It all sounds too hilarious to be true, but remember, this is the same Federal agency that wrote, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” ...
“Here is a list of compelling studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19: https://sensereceptornews.com/?p=954,” added Twitter user Sense Receptor. ...
So, we must ask, where did the FDA’s “data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19” conclusion come from? Because when the agency links trials that indicate the exact opposite, it suggests it isn’t even reading the studies. How embarrassing.
I argue that this is not an “oops” or “we overlooked that data.” This is criminal negligence, at the very least. How many lives and taxpayer dollars could have been saved if a cheap, effective medication was readily available to the American people? And for that reason, the FDA, starting with those in leadership positions, must be held accountable.
RFK Jr. Reveals Why Ivermectin Had to Be Destroyed
THE VIGILANT FOX
JUN 20, 2023
Ivermectin is often recognized – 2nd to penicillin – for having the greatest impact on human health. And its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015.
But its existence threatened a $200 billion vaccine enterprise.
“The Federal Emergency Use Authorization Statute says that you cannot issue an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is an existing medication that has been approved for any purpose that is demonstrated effective against the target illness,” explained Kennedy.
“So they had to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit it. And they had to tell everybody it’s not effective. Because if they had acknowledged that it’s effective in anybody, the whole $200 billion vaccine enterprise would have collapsed.”
Here’s the video transcript for those who want to read more: ...
KENNEDY: They had to do it. They had to discredit Ivermectin because there's a federal law. The Federal Emergency Use Authorization Statute says that you cannot issue an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is an existing medication that has been approved for any purpose that is demonstrated effective against the target illness. So they had to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit — and they had to tell everybody it's not effective. Because if they had acknowledged that it's effective in anybody, the whole $200 billion vaccine enterprise would have collapsed.
Ivermectin for COVID-19
99 studies from 1,089 scientists
137,255 patients in 28 countries
Statistically significant improvement for mortality, ventilation, ICU, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance.
85%, 62%, 41% improvement for prophylaxis, early, and late treatment CI [77-90%], [51-70%], [27-52%]
55% improvement in 46 RCTs CI [40-66%]
49% lower mortality from 51 studies CI [35-60%]
COVID-19 IVERMECTIN STUDIES. AUG 2023. C19IVM.ORG
Doctors are free to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a lawyer representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week.
“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said during oral arguments on Aug. 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 that said “Stop it.”
The case was brought by three doctors who allege the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with the statements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2022, prompting an appeal.
“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,” Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, told the appeals court.
The FDA on Aug. 21, 2021, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter:
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Liberals would rather that millions die than that Trump be allowed to be right about anything. They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.
"Doctors are free to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a lawyer representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week."
"Doctors are free to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a lawyer representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week."
As a partial answer, causing everyone in the area to suddenly drop their phones and pens in shock and surprise as though an actual horse had just trotted into the courtroom, the FDA’s lawyer glibly explained, the “FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.”
Oh. Do they. Unfortunately, that information might have been very useful to a lot of people a couple years ago. But I suppose it’s progress. This new FDA statement will be particularly helpful to heterodox doctors whose licenses and certifications are still being challenged for their positions on covid over the last three years.
In a Fox interview about the story with Maria Bartiromo, Senator Ron Johnson pointed out the biggest problem with the FDA’s belated admission: thousands of people’s lives might have been saved if the FDA weren’t undermining ivermectin the whole time.
People are dead now because of what the FDA did. But the needle just moved a little in the right direction. The ivermectin horse is out of the barn. The FDA looks like a jackass.
We may not have any prosecutions yet, but we’re that much closer.
FDA officials need to be tried and hanged for the mass murder they abetted for the profits of Pfizer.
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?
I thought we could force the government to reform, I thought shame would work, but the only way we'll get justice will be revolution and street justice, unfortunately.
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?
richwicks says
How's this going to happen when the government was cooperating with them?
I thought we could force the government to reform, I thought shame would work, but the only way we'll get justice will be revolution and street justice, unfortunately.
Think about an abusive relationship such as a domestic kind. The abuser gets confused then upset as far as the victim not fully complying. Such as the victim questions the abuser's authority. The abuser lashes out and beats the victim.
Think of the movie Sleeping With The Enemy. The husband in that movie was that much of a sociopath and psychopath that every amount of manipulation and abuse seemed natural or second nature for him.
That is what you are up against as far as collective abusers.
.
We all model other people based off from ourselves. I can understand psychopaths, but only abstractly.
richwicks says
We all model other people based off from ourselves. I can understand psychopaths, but only abstractly.
Its not hard to understand this behavior without modeling after ourselves. Read about their manipulative behavior and lack of empathy. Its all about winning by any means necessary.
And they do feel, and they do care; its just that they only care about themselves, and their family as well as close-circle of friends.
And if they work for the government, then they have a cult mindset as far as affection of the agency, whereas the "needs of the agency or service" trumps everything else including the Constitution.
.
Stop thinking of them as "people like you" - they aren't.
richwicks says
Stop thinking of them as "people like you" - they aren't.
You are again wrong as far as saying I think of them as people like me. I loath them because are hardly like me as far as values and character.
Logic and rigid thinking beyond your own concepts and beliefs is BASIC in science. I've over-ridden my own biases many times, to my benefit. It's a way of thinking, and Tyson has abandoned it.
"I have recently seen Neil deGrasse Tyson tell me that gender is a spectrum. He's a FUCKING SCIENTIST. Logic and rigid thinking beyond your own concepts and beliefs is BASIC in science. I've over-ridden my own biases many times, to my benefit. It's a way of thinking, and Tyson has abandoned it."
The FDA does not really have the power to control what doctors can prescribe.
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?
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?
Patrick says
Hey, does this invalidate the Pfizer EUA which let them murder people by vaxx with no liability at all?
It doesn't approve Ivermectin as a treatment, it just allows doctors to prescribe it off-label. They never said it works, and if you ask the FDA, I'm certain they will say it doesn't work.
So, the EUA can still be used.
« First « Previous Comments 507 - 546 of 628 Next » Last » Search these comments
And HCQ falls into that same bucket. Even worse - to admit HCQ works would be to admit Trump was right about something.
Liberals would rather that millions die than that Trump be allowed to be right about anything. They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.