Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD<\/p>\n
By now millions of Americans well informed about the pandemic know that the cheap, safe and effective generic medicine ivermectin was blocked for wide scale use from the very beginning by the federal government.\u00a0 It was a critical but medically wrong tactic of the waiting for the vaccine strategy.\u00a0 Preventing early use of IVM has surely killed and harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans.\u00a0 A few courageous doctors have successfully been using IVM during the pandemic.\u00a0 But most feared punishment as they lost their medical freedom.<\/p>\n
Now comes a mind boggling statement from an attorney defending the FDA in a lawsuit brought by three doctors. The following statement should be copied and used by both doctors and individuals to freely prescribe and use IVM in the earliest stage of COVID infection as an antiviral.\u00a0 It always should have been seen as an alternative to experimental, unsafe and ineffective COVID vaccines.<\/p>\n
Here are the amazing words of the federal attorney:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe cited statements were not directives. 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,\u201d\u00a0 Isaac Belfer, a lawyer defending FDA, told the court. \u201cThey did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it\u2019s prohibited or it\u2019s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe Ivermectin.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Imagine that!\u00a0 So, let truth prevail.\u00a0 Let national access to IVM begin!<\/p>\n Here is the whole story.<\/p>\n Federal lawyers recently argued in a Texas courtroom \u2014 and apparently with straight faces \u2014 that the government\u2019s war on ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic was a figment of our collective imagination. What a load of BS. From the very beginning of the pandemic Fauci made sure to block wide use of IVM.<\/p>\n At issue is a lawsuit brought by three doctors against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The doctors maintain that the FDA wrongfully interfered with their ability to treat their patients with claims that IVM was useless to stop or cure COVID. And they were correct. Medical freedom was intentionally killed.<\/p>\n The FDA is being sued by Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona. The three plaintiffs claim the FDA illegally prohibited them from prescribing the drug to their patients. This was true for both patients seen in doctors\u2019 offices and in hospitals.<\/p>\n Yet during a hearing earlier this month, the Biden administration\u2019s lawyers maintained the agency\u2019s rejection of IVM was simply a \u201crecommendation.\u201d Probably a few hundred thousand Americans have died unnecessarily because of how the federal government actually blocked easy and early use of IVM by physicians.<\/p>\n Listen to the words again:<\/p>\n \u201cThe cited statements were not directives. 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,\u201d\u00a0 Isaac Belfer, a lawyer defending FDA, told the court. \u201cThey did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it\u2019s prohibited or it\u2019s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe Ivermectin.\u201d<\/p>\n If Belfer\u2019s assertion is true, it raises a very urgent question: On what legal grounds did hospitals all over the United States (where most COVID deaths have occurred) refuse to administer IVM to severely ill COVID-19 patients, even when patients and their family members begged for the drug to be administered? Many lawsuits were used by families to get deathbed patients access to IVM. But only a few succeeded, and in several cases patients walked out of the hospital in a few days. Hospitals used enormous resources to fight these cases.<\/strong><\/p>\n If IVM was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Paul Marik\u2019s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. Mary Bowden reported to the Texas Medical Board for disciplinary action when she prescribed it? Why did many pharmacists fear losing their licenses if they filled IVM prescriptions for treating COVID-19?<\/p>\n Because the FDA did just that with the help of Fauci at NIH and the CDC.<\/p>\n Here are multiple examples of how IVM was blocked.<\/p>\n On the FDA\u2019s official Twitter account, the agency wrote a post with the headline, \u201cWhy You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.\u201d An accompanying tweet stated, \u201cYou are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y\u2019all. Stop it.\u201d<\/p>\n Another post, later on, added, \u201cHold your horses, y\u2019all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn\u2019t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.\u201d<\/p>\n The FDA created an actual Q&A webpage devoted to IVM. The first question: \u201cQ: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.\u201d\u00a0 The government was not content with blocking access to IVM.\u00a0 It also wanted to cut demand for it.<\/p>\n That answer also noted, \u201cWhile there are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals, it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source.\u201d<\/p>\n The website also suggested ivermectin might be a \u201cfraudulent\u201d COVID treatment. Talk about intentional misinformation.<\/p>\n In response to the FDA\u2019s argument, the p[laintiffs\u2019 lawyer, Jared Kelson, replied that the FDA \u201cclearly convey(ed) that this is not an acceptable way to treat these patients.\u201d<\/p>\n IVM became a favorite and repeated target of criticism from leftists, especially after former President Donald Trump suggested it might work \u2014 as many, many studies and clinical experience in a number of countries, such as India. It must be administered early enough and at a high enough dose.<\/p>\n Liberals ridiculed Trump and other advocates of the drug for prescribing people a horse dewormer. People who suggested online that IVM could be used for COVID saw their accounts blocked or eradicated for spreading \u201cmisinformation.\u201d<\/p>\n In August 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN of IVM, \u201cDon\u2019t do it; there\u2019s no evidence whatsoever that it works and it could potentially have toxicity\u2026 with people who have gone to poison control centers because they\u2019ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.\u201d These were simply lies. Just another example that everything Fauci supported was WRONG.<\/p>\n Last year, Republican Sen. Rand Paul noted that \u201chatred for Trump\u201d had \u201cderanged these people so much that they\u2019re unwilling to objectively study\u201d IVM as a possible treatment.<\/p>\n Now, in a classic case of gaslighting, the government proclaims it never told anyone not to use the drug. Still more reason for the public NOT to trust the government.<\/p>\n As the FDA lawyer Belfer told U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, the statements on IVM \u201cdid not set agency policy,\u201d and \u201csimply provide(d) nonbinding recommendations to consumers.\u201d Sure. What FDA actually did killed many Americans.<\/p>\n What many patients and their families asked for was to be allowed to try the drug (FDA-approved for River Blindness, Elephantiasis, and Scabies) for COVID. The patients and their kin gladly indemnified the hospitals and arranged to have their independent doctor deliver and administer the drug. Nevertheless, here are the ugly truths:<\/p>\n No matter what is now being said as some type of excuse for killing people, what should remain a priority is criminally prosecuting Fauci.<\/p>\n\n