Joel S. Hirschhorn shares jaw-dropping quote from federal attorney defending FDA in lawsuit
By now millions of Americans well-informed about the pandemic know that the cheap, safe and effective generic medicine ivermectin (IVM) was blocked for wide-scale use from the very beginning by the federal government. It was a critical but medically wrong tactic within the wait-for-the-vaccine strategy. Preventing early use of IVM has surely killed and harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans. A few courageous doctors have successfully been using IVM during the pandemic, but most feared punishment as they lost their medical freedom.
Now comes a mind-boggling statement from an attorney defending the Food and Drug Administration (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. It always should have been seen as an alternative to experimental, unsafe and ineffective COVID vaccines.
Here are the amazing words of the federal attorney:
Imagine that! So, let truth prevail. Let national access to IVM begin!
Here is the whole story.
Because of a credible lawsuit, the federal government now is lying in a most amazing way. It says it really did not say what it has been saying for more than two years.
Federal lawyers recently argued in a Texas courtroom – and apparently with straight faces – that the government’s 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 Anthony Fauci made sure to block wide use of IVM.
The doctors who have sued the FDA maintain that the agency 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.
Have federal government officials become the consummate masters of deception? Yes No
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’ offices and in hospitals.
Yet during a hearing earlier this month, the Biden administration’s lawyers maintained the agency’s rejection of IVM was simply a “recommendation.”
If attorney Belfer’s 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.
If ivermectin was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Marik’s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. 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?
Because the FDA did block the medication, with the help of Fauci at NIH and the CDC.
Here are multiple examples of how IVM was blocked.
On the FDA’s official Twitter account, the agency wrote a post with the headline, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” An accompanying tweet stated, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Another post, later on, added, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”
The FDA created an actual Q&A webpage devoted to IVM. The first question: “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.” The government was not content with blocking access to IVM. It also wanted to cut demand for it.
That answer also noted, “While 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.”
The website also suggested ivermectin might be a “fraudulent” COVID treatment. Talk about intentional misinformation.
In response to the FDA’s argument, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Jared Kelson, replied that the FDA “clearly convey(ed) that this is not an acceptable way to treat these patients.”
IVM became a favorite and repeated target of criticism from leftists, especially after former President Donald Trump suggested it might work – as many, many studies and clinical experience in a number of countries, such as India, showed. It must be administered early enough and at a high enough dose.
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 “misinformation.”
In August 2021, Fauci told CNN of IVM, “Don’t do it; there’s no evidence whatsoever that it works and it could potentially have toxicity … with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick,” he said. “There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.” These were simply lies. Just another example that everything Fauci supported was WRONG.
Last year, Republican Sen. Rand Paul noted that “hatred for Trump” had “deranged these people so much that they’re unwilling to objectively study” IVM as a possible treatment.
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.
As the FDA lawyer Belfer told U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, the statements on IVM “did not set agency policy,” and “simply provide(d) nonbinding recommendations to consumers.” Sure. What FDA actually did killed many Americans.
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:
- Hospital administrators absolutely refused to grant this wish. At best, they said they were following federal guidance against using IVM.
- Hospital attorneys fought tooth and nail against using IVM to treat critically ill COVID patients, doing everything in their power to challenge patient lawsuits and appeal court orders to administer the drug. They disregarded many studies and reports showing that IVM worked.
- Even when hospital doctors acknowledged that the patients were dying, they insisted it was better to let the disease take its natural course rather than allow patients to try ivermectin. Pure malpractice.
- Even when patients’ families succeeded in getting a court order to administer the drug, most hospitals still refused, even at the risk of being held in contempt of court. They were content with patients dying.
No matter what is now being said as some type of excuse for killing people, what should remain a priority is criminally prosecuting Anthony Fauci.