FDA loses its war on ivermectin, agrees to remove all social media posts and false claims regarding ivermectin and COVID

Well, well, well. I’m not a doctor, and I don’t issue medical advice. But hopefully I helpfully helped some folks in the early 2020s seeking alternate opinions on, you know, the thing. -nvp

FDA Settles Ivermectin Case, Agrees to Remove Controversial ‘Stop It’ Post

By Zachary Stieber

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to remove social media posts and webpages that urged people to stop taking ivermectin to treat COVID-19, according to a settlement dated March 21.

The FDA has already removed a page that said: “Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? No.”  Within 21 days, the FDA will remove another page titled, “why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” according to the settlement announcement, which was filed with federal court in southern Texas.

“The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals,” the page currently states. It also says that data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, despite how some studies it cites show ivermectin is effective against the illness.

The FDA in the settlement is also agreeing to delete multiple social media posts that came out strongly against ivermectin, including one that stated: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history,” Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, one of the doctors, said in a statement. “This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship.”

“We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the settlement as it is a victory for every doctor and patient in the United States,” added Dr. Paul Marik, chief scientific officer of the FLCCC Alliance and another plaintiff. “The FDA interfered in the practice of medicine with their irresponsible language and posts about ivermectin. We will never know how many lives were affected because patients were denied access to a lifesaving treatment because their doctor was ‘just following the FDA.’”

14 thoughts on “FDA loses its war on ivermectin, agrees to remove all social media posts and false claims regarding ivermectin and COVID”

  1. Now it must filter down by snail, because no mainstream outlet will report it and doctors who care more about their bank account than they ever did about their patients who trusted them, will not read about the change in status for Ivermectin. Everyone must educate their own doctors and PA’s. God bless Dr Marik and the few great men and women who fought for this.

  2. Too little, too late. Dozens of people at the FDA and hundreds at the CDC, big pharma, academia, the media and in the federal government should be publically executed for crimes against humanity, right after Fauci, Birks, Bill and Melinda Gates.

  3. This is not related, well it is a little bit since Ivermectin fights cancer (but not Turbo Cancer). Kate Middleton came out yesterday and said she has cancer. I surmised as much. And I bet it’s from the vaccine. In fact, I know it is.

    However, many people were wondering if she’s having chemo, why is her hair still on her head? Well, the explanation could be be she has colon cancer, and the chemo for that , Oxaliplatin, doesn’t make your hair fall out.

    But it could also be something more strange, and trust me, I hate going down rabbit holes. If you type in “Heads Together” in Youtube, you come across a video by Kate Middleton and the Royals promoting some charity that involves running. Kate is wearing the exact same outfit, and looks exactly the same. In fact, I think it is her.

    I think Kate is dead. I think they took an old video of her, put on an AI face and weathered it a little, and sent it out. IN a little while they’ll announce her death.

    Sounds crazy, but go head and look it up on Youtube. I can’t link here for some reason.

    We are living in the stranges, most evil, most gaslit times.

    1. I found the video. It’s seven years old, and she looks almost exactly the same, right down to the same striped shirt.

      It’s gotten to the point where I don’t even discuss most of things that I suspect are being faked. Not even anonymously on the internet. Most of it, I just keep to myself.

      It’s not even a matter of going into rabbit holes and creating elaborate theories. It’s simply a matter of looking at a thing, seeing how absurd and illogical that thing is on its face, and coming to the conclusion that someone faking the thing and lying about it (for whatever reason) is the only answer that makes any sense.

      I seem to be applying this thought process to just about everything anymore.

      1. Well I think the evil running earth at the moment, unleashed by Bergoglio worshipping and consecrating Pachamama in 2019 wants us to know these videos are fake. Wants us to see how obvious it is. They get a rush out of getting away with it.

        Bergoglio laughs at the getting away with it. Klaus Schwab, Yuval Hariri, Bill Gates, Fauci, Birx laugh at the getting away with it. And they adore gaslighting you too.

    2. Other possibilities – not exhaustive:
      1. Kate has started chemotherapy, but her hair has not fallen out yet. It can take a few weeks before it does. She did imply that she’d had to regain strength after the longer than expected surgery before starting chemotherapy. Kate and the Royals would have wanted to record the message at or around her maximum fitness to do it after surgery and before the full impact of chemotherapy sequelae, “side effects” and symptoms.
      2. Kate has access to a good wig maker, hairdresser and makeup artist.
      3. Kate has not and will not lose her hair. Not everyone suffers all the same side effects of any given chemotherapy cocktail, even those that typically do cause hair loss. However, a specific individual’s reaction to specific chemotherapy cocktails may not be accurately predictable before treatment commences.
      Similarly, whether hair returns after a chemotherapy course has finished and if so, what colour, density and texture it is are all unpredictable.

      I believe 1. and 2. are both likely, even in combination. Usually there are warning signs that hair loss will occur, with wisps of hair coming out during activity, brushing and combing before the “deluge”.

    3. Regarding that striped top: There is a video I saw while wandering around on the internet that took a photo of Princess Kate that was on the cover of Vogue years ago and placed it over her face on that famous photo of her and her children (the one she (?) later said (electronically, not in person) that she had photoshopped — George’s head too big among other things — and no Prince William) and some photo experts said that her face in that photo is the Vogue photo. Certainly the British royals must be able to get computer/Photoshop people who could do a much better job? So they want it to be questionable –they want some people to recognize it’s fake and to be told they’re conspiracy theorists (as if that’s a bad thing) and then that others will shrink from recognizing the truth.

      1. I think the idea is to make if obvious they’re faked. Whoever is running this evil circus wants you to know that they know you know and you can’t stop them.

        I believe Kate is dead, personally.

        1. The first thing that comes to mind when you say this is the dozens (hundreds?) of elaborately choreographed Tik Tok dance routines by “nurses” in empty hospitals during the peak of COVID mania.

          They knew we knew… and they delighted in rubbing our faces in it.

  4. Yet this WHO essential medication with a better safety profile than Tylenol and just about anything else FDA approved, remains prescription only in the Former United States of America.

    I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. Guard your food supply

  5. Making matters worse…

    Those Who Are ‘Vaxxed And Boosted’ May Have ‘Immune Imprinting’ That Ignores New Jabs

    “Immune imprinting occurs when previous infections or vaccinations leave such a strong immune memory that the body continues to produce immune cells and antibodies targeting the previous immune experience—even when exposed to a new variant or vaccine.

    “[Immune imprinting] could be a problem if the person was unable to mount a useful immune response against a new variant,” Dr. Stanley Perlman, an immunologist and microbiologist at the University of Iowa, told The Epoch Times. He was not involved in the study.

    While that did not occur in this study, most of the antibodies made following vaccination targeted the original COVID-19 variant and not XBB.1.5.

    Surprising Findings
    “Imprinting is not a new concept, but the situation we are looking at seems to be quite unique,” said David Veesler, who has a doctorate in structural biology, is a professor and chair in the Department of Biochemistry at UW, and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, in a press release.

    Immune imprinting is a well-recognized phenomenon that can occur with other infections and viruses.

    New influenza infections distinct from previous variants can overcome imprinting from influenza vaccinations and infections.

    However, in the UW study, immune imprinting persisted even among those infected with new omicron variants.

    “It is completely different from what we know from the influenza virus,” said Mr. Veesler.

    “There are two leading hypotheses about what we are seeing,” Mr. Veesler said in the press release, “and I don’t know which of the two options explains it yet.”

    One hypothesis is that residents of Seattle, where most of the samples came from, were exposed to the virus so many times—mainly through vaccination but also infection—that they developed antibodies and immune memory cells preferable to the original virus.

    “People in Seattle, including myself, have been so compliant,” Mr. Veesler said. “We have been exposed many, many times over the past four years through vaccination and usually at least one infection. And that’s very unusual to have so many exposures in such a short amount of time—up to seven vaccine doses in the cohort we analyzed.”

    Another reason is that the mRNA vaccine creates a more robust immune imprinting effect than previously known vaccines. The authors cited another study that found inoculating with killed COVID-19 viruses rendered a reduced imprinting effect in humans.

    “Inactivated vaccines induce a weaker immune response, so there is less opportunity for the response to be biased [toward one variant],” Dr. Perlman said.

    “mRNA vaccines may have been so good and elicited such strong immune responses that the imprinting may be stronger than what we have been used to seeing with vaccines for other viruses such as for influenza virus,” Mr. Veesler said.”

    1. Immune imprinting isn’t that big of a deal if you’re dealing with an airborne virus. When Covid 19 first came out, even if it was engineered, people who had already been exposed to Coronaviruses like SARS Cov1 had robust immunity to the new variant.

      A a virus mutates it becomes weaker. Immune imprinting is not that big of a deal…UNLESS:

      You’re immune system is being altered artificially. But even then a new variant of Covid won’t kill you. What will kill you is the Covid 19 vaccine, any vaccine, as it puts to sleep your immune system.

      That’s the big issue.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.