Quote from: Solar on September 06, 2023, 12:44:14 PMIt sees what it wants to see.      

  If anyone wants to know what the liberal talking points are, or what the liberal strategy will be to talk down any item, just look at his posts. Hell, he might just put CNN out of business. of course that bar is set pretty low.   

Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 12:57:50 PM  If anyone wants to know what the liberal talking points are, or what the liberal strategy will be to talk down any item, just look at his posts. Hell, he might just put CNN out of business. of course that bar is set pretty low.   

It lives in such a small bubble. 
This is what happens when a Marxist tries to use ChatGp to write it's replies.

This information has been out for years. The FDA, the CDC, all knew how safe ivermectin was.

Quote"It is noteworthy that no deaths have seemingly ever been reported after an accidental or suicidal overdose of Ivermectin. No greater toxicity of Ivermectin has been substantiated in elderly people despite repeated assertions that an ageing blood-brain barrier might lead to increased Ivermectin toxicity level. The positive clinical experience accumulated with Ivermectin administration led many medical experts to break away from early adamant contra-indications in pregnant women. Finally, several national pharmacovigilance networks around the world released information and opinions to ascertain Ivermectin safety in human subjects. So far, there are no critical safety limitations to Ivermectin prescription in current indications.

I also want to point out that no severe adverse event has been reported in dozens of completed or ongoing studies involving thousands of participants worldwide to evaluate the efficacy of Ivermectin against COVID-19."

QuoteThe only thing it isn't? 👉Profitable for BigPharma

Ahhhh, now you see why they hated it so much.

Safe and effective?

NOT liked by the FDA:

When you are talking about the left, it's ALWAYS about the agenda, not the truth.

Quote from: Possum on September 08, 2023, 01:04:10 PMThis information has been out for years. The FDA, the CDC, all knew how safe ivermectin was.

When you are talking about the left, it's ALWAYS about the agenda, not the truth.

"The only thing it isn't? 👉Profitable for BigPharma"

That's what it's always been about for these crony scum.
Like I say, Always Follow the Money!

Appeals Court: Doctors Can Sue FDA for Condemning Ivermectin as a COVID-19 Treatment, Resulting Reputational Harm
'Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority,' the appeals court held.

The lawsuit stems from a series of FDA posts advising consumers not to take horse ivermectin but failing to acknowledge the existence of a human ivermectin formulation, including one tweet advising consumers, "Hold your horses, y'all":


The trial court dismissed the doctors' lawsuit after finding sovereign immunity barred their three claims. The appeals court reversed on one claim, finding plausible the argument the FDA exceeded its statutory authority by offering medical advice instead of medical information:

FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA's Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to. . . . Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority. (emphasis original)

The FDA argued its posts were purely informational, which the appeals court rejected:

On the contrary, all six of the Posts contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example: "Stop it," "Stop it with the #ivermectin," and "Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.") For that reason, we are unable to draw any analytical distinction between FDA making the Posts versus FDA telling Americans to "Stop it" with acetaminophen or antibiotics.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/09/appeals-court-doctors-can-sue-fda-for-condemning-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-treatment-resulting-reputational-harm/

Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2023, 06:45:26 AMAppeals Court: Doctors Can Sue FDA for Condemning Ivermectin as a COVID-19 Treatment, Resulting Reputational Harm
'Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority,' the appeals court held.

The lawsuit stems from a series of FDA posts advising consumers not to take horse ivermectin but failing to acknowledge the existence of a human ivermectin formulation, including one tweet advising consumers, "Hold your horses, y'all":


The trial court dismissed the doctors' lawsuit after finding sovereign immunity barred their three claims. The appeals court reversed on one claim, finding plausible the argument the FDA exceeded its statutory authority by offering medical advice instead of medical information:

FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA's Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to. . . . Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority. (emphasis original)

The FDA argued its posts were purely informational, which the appeals court rejected:

On the contrary, all six of the Posts contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example: "Stop it," "Stop it with the #ivermectin," and "Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.") For that reason, we are unable to draw any analytical distinction between FDA making the Posts versus FDA telling Americans to "Stop it" with acetaminophen or antibiotics.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/09/appeals-court-doctors-can-sue-fda-for-condemning-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-treatment-resulting-reputational-harm/

Correct.  The FDA and CDC didn't go after doctors.  The three doctors are claiming indirect reputational harm because the FDA made fun of people taking horse ivermectin and killing themselves.

Quote from: ZenMode on September 11, 2023, 07:04:48 AMCorrect.  The FDA and CDC didn't go after doctors.  The three doctors are claiming indirect reputational harm because the FDA made fun of people taking horse ivermectin and killing themselves.

Did you even grasp the severity of what they did? The court found they overstepped their authority.

The FDA argued its posts were purely informational, which the appeals court rejected:

On the contrary, all six of the Posts contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example: "Stop it," "Stop it with the #ivermectin," and "Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.") For that reason, we are unable to draw any analytical distinction between FDA making the Posts versus FDA telling Americans to "Stop it" with acetaminophen or antibiotics.

The firm Boyden Gray, which represents the doctors, issued a press release praising the decision:

In a matter critical to stopping federal overreach into the practice of medicine, Boyden Gray PLLC welcomes a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . . . rejecting the government's blanket assertion of sovereign immunity and allowing the case to proceed.

The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which submitted a brief supporting the doctors, also praised the decision.

"We are very pleased with this development and extremely proud of our colleagues for taking a stand against a government health agency that is clearly overstepping its authority," FLCCC president and chief medical officer Dr. Pierre Kory said

Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2023, 07:11:47 AMDid you even grasp the severity of what they did? The court found they overstepped their authority.

The FDA argued its posts were purely informational, which the appeals court rejected:

On the contrary, all six of the Posts contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example: "Stop it," "Stop it with the #ivermectin," and "Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.") For that reason, we are unable to draw any analytical distinction between FDA making the Posts versus FDA telling Americans to "Stop it" with acetaminophen or antibiotics.

The firm Boyden Gray, which represents the doctors, issued a press release praising the decision:

In a matter critical to stopping federal overreach into the practice of medicine, Boyden Gray PLLC welcomes a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . . . rejecting the government's blanket assertion of sovereign immunity and allowing the case to proceed.

The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which submitted a brief supporting the doctors, also praised the decision.

"We are very pleased with this development and extremely proud of our colleagues for taking a stand against a government health agency that is clearly overstepping its authority," FLCCC president and chief medical officer Dr. Pierre Kory said

The courts found that the case can continue.  They haven't ruled on anything yet, have they?

It's odd that of ALL the doctors in the country, only3 are taking issue with this.

Quote from: ZenMode on September 11, 2023, 07:12:56 AMThe courts found that the case can continue.  They haven't ruled on anything yet, have they?

It's odd that of ALL the doctors in the country, only3 are taking issue with this.

You only need one. What good does a class action do, when just a handful can bring about the same results?
Your point is irrelevant.

Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2023, 07:15:04 AMYou only need one. What good does a class action do, when just a handful can bring about the same results?
Your point is irrelevant.

sure... but the FDA isn't targeting individual doctors and the courts have not ruled any wrong doing on the FDA's part. They have only ruled that the case can move forward.

Quote from: ZenMode on September 11, 2023, 09:08:39 AMsure... but the FDA isn't targeting individual doctors and the courts have not ruled any wrong doing on the FDA's part. They have only ruled that the case can move forward.

Can you not grasp the point, the FDA overstepped their authority. Because of the propaganda the FDA was spreading, many Dr.'s would not prescribe ivermectin and many pharmacies would not fill a prescription for it. You can dance all you want about how in YOUR opinion the FDA did nothing wrong, but the courts have already stated otherwise and THAT is why the case will continue.

Quote from: Possum on September 11, 2023, 09:31:24 AMCan you not grasp the point, the FDA overstepped their authority. Because of the propaganda the FDA was spreading, many Dr.'s would not prescribe ivermectin and many pharmacies would not fill a prescription for it. You can dance all you want about how in YOUR opinion the FDA did nothing wrong, but the courts have already stated otherwise and THAT is why the case will continue.

No court has ruled that the FDA overstepped its authority.  That will be decided in court.  IF they did overstep their authority, it was indirectly, not by going after individual doctors.

Quote from: ZenMode on September 11, 2023, 10:57:10 AMNo court has ruled that the FDA overstepped its authority.  That will be decided in court.  IF they did overstep their authority, it was indirectly, not by going after individual doctors.

The 5th court of appeals stated that. It is now part of their reasoning on why the case should be allowed to continue. This is the third time you have been told that. Nobody said it was ruled. You are moving the goalposts again claiming something was said that wasn't in a futile attempt. Can you not have a discussion with what is actually said instead of making it up? 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/fifth_circuit_rebukes_fda_for_banning_ivermectin_for_covid19.html

QuoteUnder FDA regulations, any licensed physician may prescribe "off label" any medication the FDA has approved, even if the FDA has not approved the medication for the illness for which the physician is writing the prescription. In 1996, the FDA approved ivermectin to treat in humans parasitic diseases caused by parasites. For daring to ignore the FDA's vociferous public relations campaign demonizing the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the Courthouse News Service reported "a major Houston hospital system forced Talley Bowden to resign her privileges; Apter was referred to physician regulatory boards of Arizona and Washington state for discipline; Marik was forced to resign from his post at Eastern Virginia Medical School, where he was a medical professor and chief of pulmonary and critical care." Pharmacies across the nation quit filling prescriptions for ivermectin to treat COVID-19 based solely upon the FDA's stridently broadcast admonitions not to do so.

This has been our point all along. Had the FDA not pulled this crap, pharmacies would not have refused to fill prescriptions, LEGAL prescriptions for their customers. Dr.'s would not have been disciplined for prescribing it. We all know the reason why, if ivermectin was authorized for use against Covid, the jab would not have had immunity from lawsuits. The FDA was NOT acting in anybody's best interest except the pharmaceutical companies.

The good news, now Dr.'s who care about their patients may prescribe Ivermectin for them, and pharmacies' have lost their b.s. reason for not honoring a Dr.'s orders.     

Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2023, 02:19:43 PMhttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/fifth_circuit_rebukes_fda_for_banning_ivermectin_for_covid19.html

This has been our point all along. Had the FDA not pulled this crap, pharmacies would not have refused to fill prescriptions, LEGAL prescriptions for their customers. Dr.'s would not have been disciplined for prescribing it. We all know the reason why, if ivermectin was authorized for use against Covid, the jab would not have had immunity from lawsuits. The FDA was NOT acting in anybody's best interest except the pharmaceutical companies.

The good news, now Dr.'s who care about their patients may prescribe Ivermectin for them, and pharmacies' have lost their b.s. reason for not honoring a Dr.'s orders.     

You Me and the world knows what happened, but Marxist deniers like Zen will throw their Huggies at you in defiance of the truth.
By the way, Zen won't be posting anything until he either proves the Dim lied about her assault, or admits he was wrong.