Title: FDA’s Suppression of Ivermectin Revealed in Landmark Case Exposing Corruption Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
In a surprising turn of events, a landmark case has shed light on the alleged suppression of the well-known anti-microbial drug, Ivermectin, by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case raised questions about the influence of the FDA, Fauci, the CDC, President Biden, the U.S. medical system, and the corporate media, who discouraged the use of Ivermectin and dismissed its potential benefits.
For years, Ivermectin, an FDA-approved drug for human use, has been effectively used to combat various viral infections. However, during the pandemic, powerful forces discredited the drug and portrayed it as a mere horse drug used by misguided conspiracy theorists. This narrative left many Americans skeptical of Ivermectin’s potential as a treatment for COVID-19, despite its proven track record in humans.
Now, a bombshell report has emerged from a litigation against the FDA, revealing that doctors are finally free to prescribe Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. The report points to the FDA lawyer, Ashley Cheung Honold, who explicitly stated during oral arguments that doctors indeed have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients.
The case brought against the FDA by three doctors, Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter, revolves around the alleged unlawful interference of the federal agency in their practice of medicine. The doctors claim that their careers were adversely affected due to their advocacy for Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, with some even facing termination.
Throughout the pandemic, the FDA, backed by influential figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, repeatedly warned against the use of Ivermectin, making statements such as Stop it, Isn’t authorized or approved for COVID-19, and No when asked about its usage. However, the plaintiffs argue that the FDA overstepped its boundaries by interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, especially after the drug had been FDA-approved.
Critics of the FDA’s stance on Ivermectin highlight the numerous studies supporting its efficacy as a COVID-19 treatment, a fact even acknowledged by the FDA. Attorney Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, emphasized that the FDA’s role should be limited to providing information on adverse drug reactions rather than medical advice.
During the appeals court hearing, Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod questioned the FDA’s Stop it statement, implying that it was a directive rather than a quip. The FDA lawyer, Honold, defended these statements as merely quips, suggesting that they did not require compliance.
The revelation of the FDA’s alleged suppression of Ivermectin has sparked outrage, with critics accusing influential figures and institutions of prioritizing their agendas over potentially saving lives. The pandemic has given rise to a broader discussion about the integrity and impartiality of government agencies and the mainstream corporate media.
While the case against the FDA unfolds, it serves as a reminder to critically evaluate information provided by government agencies and to consider alternative perspectives. The controversy surrounding Ivermectin highlights the need for open dialogue and balanced discussions to ensure the best possible outcomes in times of crisis.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of [Global News Publisher]. This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide medical advice. Please consult with a healthcare professional for any medical concerns or treatment options related to COVID-19.
