SOURCE:
The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court (substack.com)
In ordinary times, your average “thinking” person ought to stand up and, well, think - what the hell is going on? - when a professional medical association sues the public health authority. You would think?
Although these are not ordinary times, the sad reality is that the majority of people are simply not the thinking type.
My mum used the argument several times over the last couple of years that she did not read my work because it was too difficult for her to understand. Probably true but no excuse to ignore it when it so often directly contradicts the official narrative with hard evidence.
Also no excuse to ignore everything else I share based on the assumption that it will also be too difficult for the old noggin to rationalise. Inevitably, I’ve shared plenty on early treatment too. No data analysis to grapple with. Not even tremendously big words. The difficulty of comprehension is a cognitive dissonance that comes from within.
Nevertheless, the absurdity of the original juxtaposition - association of medical physicians sues public health authority - is all that “we” need to prove we are on the right side.
My conversations with my mum start and end with these one-liners now (I’ve finally got down to her level). Whatever nugget of old propaganda she kindly shares with me from the BBC, I just go back to her with one of these. If there is no narrative or agenda, why is an 80 year-old medical association suing a public health authority?
If you do manage to get even a thread of further interest, here’s the context:
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country
Our motto, “omnia pro aegroto” means “all for the patient.”
The FDA is responsible for promoting the interests of big pharmaceutical companies who largely fund them.
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug. After its discovery in 1975, its first uses were in veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis.
Approved for human use in 1987, today it is used to treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.
It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites, and can be taken orally, or applied to the skin for external infestations.
William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent.
In 2018, it was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 100,000 prescriptions. It is available as a generic medicine.
And that is all you need to know because AAPS covers the rest in its legal action:
Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing.
Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.
In other words, the FDA has absolutely no business interfering in the physicians decision on how to treat their patient.
Which brings us back to the question, if there is nothing untoward going on here at the level of public health, why is a medical association representing physicians who actually treat patients suing the agency tasked with ensuring the “safety, efficacy, and security” of drugs (not treating patients) for interfering with their ability to use a drug that has been used safely and effectively in humans for over 35 years?
Why?
If the normie hasn’t slipped back into denial, follow up with, how does this screenshot result in being the first returned even by a “safe” search engine like Brave:
FDA does Big Tech collusion too!
If you’re feeling really lucky, you might be able to squeeze in the question as to how that same regulatory agency - the FDA - not only did authorise (not approve) a novel, experimental therapy with a significantly worse safety record to treat the same disease (so bad, in fact, that in the short few months of available data, related adverse events are still of the scale after increasing the scale tenfold compared to other drugs) but is actively promoting it, despite its unapproved status?
Whilst actively interfering with the use of a drug that was approved for human use over 35 years ago by claiming it’s a horse or cow dewormer?!
Seriously, y’all? FDA does gaslighting too!
Recap for the normie:
FDA says drug approved for human use for over 35 years with a very strong safety record is only for cows and horses and can “b (sic) dangerous and even lethal” for COVID-19.
Doctors sue FDA for being bloody stupid and interfering with their job of treating patients.
Think about that for a moment. Extraordinary times. Stupid people.
