But before I get to the crux of the article, I'd like to piggyback something onto this.
Quinine, Quinine has been an amazing drug for decades fighting Malaria, proven to work with few side effects.
I suffered from back spasms from my injuries in the army, the damn stuff was amazing, even my heart calmed down while on it.
But out5 of the blue, the Fed outlawed it, and the claim was it slowed the heart. Well Fuckin DUH! That was a benefit!
But with hindsight being 20/20, I realize why they had to do away with it, it fought the Commie Flu withiut incident.
Bet you hadn't heard this anywhere else...
Now to the article.
This month, lawyers for the Food and Drug Administration admitted in a U.S. court that doctors "do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID", an admission that stands at stark odds with a multiple year campaign to misinform, misalign and tarnish the reputation of one of the world's most successful drugs, which could have been used to save hundreds of thousands of lives during the pandemic.
"FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine," Ashley Cheung Honold, lawyer representing the FDA said this month.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/unforgivable-ivermectin-swindle
Quote from: Solar on August 18, 2023, 09:46:36 AMBut before I get to the crux of the article, I'd like to piggyback something onto this.
Quinine, Quinine has been an amazing drug for decades fighting Malaria, proven to work with few side effects.
I suffered from back spasms from my injuries in the army, the damn stuff was amazing, even my heart calmed down while on it.
But out5 of the blue, the Fed outlawed it, and the claim was it slowed the heart. Well Fuckin DUH! That was a benefit!
But with hindsight being 20/20, I realize why they had to do away with it, it fought the Commie Flu withiut incident.
Bet you hadn't heard this anywhere else...
Now to the article.
This month, lawyers for the Food and Drug Administration admitted in a U.S. court that doctors "do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID", an admission that stands at stark odds with a multiple year campaign to misinform, misalign and tarnish the reputation of one of the world's most successful drugs, which could have been used to save hundreds of thousands of lives during the pandemic.
"FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine," Ashley Cheung Honold, lawyer representing the FDA said this month.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/unforgivable-ivermectin-swindle
I am seeing more survival lists that are recommending this drug. Not only for what occurs naturally, but for what our government will produce.
Quote from: Possum on August 18, 2023, 09:52:21 AMI am seeing more survival lists that are recommending this drug. Not only for what occurs naturally, but for what our government will produce.
We used it on the ranch like candy for all animals. We never needed a vet, ever, and never had a case of a grass born parasite, something many horses suffer with.
I took it back then when I came down with some strange malady, the owners wife swore by it, said whatever you contracted, it came from the cattle, so take this for a few days, and the first night it was gone and fever broke instantly.
I wish I had remembered it when the CCP flu first broke here in Ca, a month or more before it was news on the world stage.
Hell, had they not outlawed Quinine, I'd probably never even contracted the bio weapon in the first place.
I know the the CDC didn't approve Ivermectin as a treatment for covid, because research didn't show it was effective, but I don't believe doctors were ever told they couldn't prescribe it. I don't know if the CDC or FDA can tell doctors that they can't prescribe it.
A state medical board might technically be able to take action against a doctor for prescribing a medicine that hasn't been shown to work, but I've never heard of that happening.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 18, 2023, 12:30:50 PMI know the the CDC didn't approve Ivermectin as a treatment for covid, because research didn't show it was effective, but I don't believe doctors were ever told they couldn't prescribe it. I don't know if the CDC or FDA can tell doctors that they can't prescribe it.
A state medical board might technically be able to take action against a doctor for prescribing a medicine that hasn't been shown to work, but I've never heard of that happening.
Look again.
Quote from: Possum on August 18, 2023, 01:13:20 PMLook again.
I have. That's why I said what I said. Like I said, the FDA/CDC doesn't have the authority to tell doctors to do anything. It's the individual state medical boards.
Physicians prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 despite FDA warninghttps://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/physicians-prescribing-ivermectin-for-covid-19-despite-fda-warning.html
The Arkansas Medical Board is investigating after a doctor said he prescribed an anti-parasitic drug "thousands" of times for treatment of COVID-19, including to inmates in an Arkansas jail.https://www.wbaltv.com/article/doctor-under-investigation-for-prescribing-ivermectin-thousands-of-times-for-covid-19/37411494#
Quote from: ZenMode on August 18, 2023, 01:28:10 PMI have. That's why I said what I said. Like I said, the FDA/CDC doesn't have the authority to tell doctors to do anything. It's the individual state medical boards.
Physicians prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 despite FDA warning
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/physicians-prescribing-ivermectin-for-covid-19-despite-fda-warning.html
The Arkansas Medical Board is investigating after a doctor said he prescribed an anti-parasitic drug "thousands" of times for treatment of COVID-19, including to inmates in an Arkansas jail.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/doctor-under-investigation-for-prescribing-ivermectin-thousands-of-times-for-covid-19/37411494#
Did you happen to notice that for his actions the Dr. in Arkansas is being investigated. The CDC and the FDA both forbid it's use. Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice?
Quote from: Possum on August 18, 2023, 02:13:33 PMDid you happen to notice that for his actions the Dr. in Arkansas is being investigated. The CDC and the FDA both forbid it's use. Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice?
Nope. The CDC and FDA did not "forbid" it's use. They don't have the authority to forbid it's use. They look at the data and decide if they support the use of any drug to treat any ailment.
Yes, each state has a medical board that has the authority to take action against a doctor if they deem it to be necessary. That is a good thing. We want oversight.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/surgeon-loses-medical-license-after-streaming-surgeries-on-tiktok/
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 04:13:54 AMNope. The CDC and FDA did not "forbid" it's use. They don't have the authority to forbid it's use. They look at the data and decide if they support the use of any drug to treat any ailment.
Yes, each state has a medical board that has the authority to take action against a doctor if they deem it to be necessary. That is a good thing. We want oversight.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/surgeon-loses-medical-license-after-streaming-surgeries-on-tiktok/
And yet we are in the middle of a court case stating just that.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/can_your_doctor_now_prescribe_ivermectin_.html
QuoteFDA is the decision maker: It decides which drug(s) to grant EUA or approval.
It is the FDA and the CDC which warned Dr.'s not to approve or prescribe ivermectin for covid.
QuoteAMA (and other medical societies and licensing boards) is the enforcer. It threats doctors with discipline including disbarment if they dare prescribe ivermectin off-label for COVID. It is this that prevented many patients from gaining access to ivermectin.
And this is why Dr.'s are being "investigated". Your right on one point, a Dr. was free in this country, by law to prescribe ivermectin, but reality said he would come under investigation for doing so. Which is why the vast majority
did not do so. In some of the threads on this forum were many articles about ivermectin, most dealt with Dr.'s who were saying they could not prescribe it, to articles where feed stores were "encouraged" to pull it off their shelves. Trump was ridiculed by the press, the CDC and Fauci for suggesting it's use. End result, if you were looking to get a prescription for ivermectin, you would have to look far and wide for a Dr. who would give you one.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 04:13:54 AMNope. The CDC and FDA did not "forbid" it's use. They don't have the authority to forbid it's use. They look at the data and decide if they support the use of any drug to treat any ailment.
Yes, each state has a medical board that has the authority to take action against a doctor if they deem it to be necessary. That is a good thing. We want oversight.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/surgeon-loses-medical-license-after-streaming-surgeries-on-tiktok/
Sure makes for deceptive headlines, doesn't it?
But the truth is, they were banning it, along with the WHO and CDC.
https://richardsonpost.com/katie-spence/30071/fda-says-it-didnt-ban-ivermectin-finds-its-pants-are-on-fire/
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2023, 05:26:22 AMSure makes for deceptive headlines, doesn't it?
But the truth is, they were banning it, along with the WHO and CDC.
https://richardsonpost.com/katie-spence/30071/fda-says-it-didnt-ban-ivermectin-finds-its-pants-are-on-fire/
The CDC didn't ban it! Neither did the FDA. All they can do is say "We think it works and should be used" or "We don't think it works and we don't recommend using it". State medical board have their rules and I suspect one of them is not allowing doctors to experiment on people. To rational people, that is a good thing!
"Thomas Fritch, for example, was dosed without his knowledge with 2.75 times the amount of ivermectin required to treat a parasitic infestation, Edrick Floreal-Wooten was secretly dosed with 3.4 times the approved dosage of ivermectin, and Dayman Blackburn was dosed with 6.3 times the approved dosage. Again, these Plaintiffs were suffering from COVID-19, not parasites."
--------------
"The Court also finds that a reasonable doctor or sheriff would have understood, given the Supreme Court precedent in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990), and Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221–22 (1990), that it was clearly established in fall 2020 that administering an experimental drug to prisoners without their knowledge would violate their due process rights. Qualified immunity is therefore denied. This is not a close call."
------------
"The inmates received Dr. Karas' treatment protocol for COVID-19, but did not know it included Ivermectin," Brooks wrote. "Dr. Karas and his staff falsely told the inmates the treatment consisted of mere 'vitamins,' 'antibiotics,' and/or 'steroids.' Critically, the inmates had no idea they were part of Dr. Karas' experiment."
https://apnews.com/article/arkansas-jail-covid-ivermectin-lawsuit-28701474e3d402c8fafc2b1a89cb2882
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 05:45:11 AMThe CDC didn't ban it! Neither did the FDA.
Yet the article states the exact opposite of what you're claiming!
No, they did not ban it, yet worked hard to kill it off entirely.
Why are you missing this?
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 05:45:11 AMThe CDC didn't ban it! Neither did the FDA. All they can do is say "We think it works and should be used" or "We don't think it works and we don't recommend using it". State medical board have their rules and I suspect one of them is not allowing doctors to experiment on people. To rational people, that is a good thing!
Are you forgetting the whole jab has been one big experiment on people?
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2023, 05:48:40 AMYet the article states the exact opposite of what you're claiming!
No, they did not ban it, yet worked hard to kill it off entirely.
Why are you missing this?
Wrong. Ivermectin has never been banned, killed off, etc. It is a perfectly legal and useful drug. No doctor was banned from prescribing it.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 05:56:05 AMWrong. Ivermectin has never been banned, killed off, etc. It is a perfectly legal and useful drug. No doctor was banned from prescribing it.
Do you have a comprehension issue?
I said it was never banned, but their actions were the exact opposite!!!
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 05:56:05 AMWrong. Ivermectin has never been banned, killed off, etc. It is a perfectly legal and useful drug. No doctor was banned from prescribing it.
Then why are they under investigation for prescribing it?
Quote from: Possum on August 19, 2023, 07:08:35 AMThen why are they under investigation for prescribing it?
Because state med boards have rules and standards for when you can prescribe medications.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 12:49:23 PMBecause state med boards have rules and standards for when you can prescribe medications.
From the earlier post.
QuoteIn the midst of a legal appeal by three doctors (Paul Marik of Virginia, Mary Bowden of Texas, and Robert Apter of Arizona) claiming FDA interference in their medical practice being disciplined for prescribing ivermectin to their patients for COVID-19, a DoJ lawyer representing the FDA admitted in court
The article explains it, who all was involved, and how, NIH is the policymaker, FDA is the decision maker, and the AMA (and other medical societies and licensing boards) is the enforcer. Although the FDA is trying to claim ivermectin was always legal, Dr.'s were punished for prescribing it.
Quote from: Possum on August 19, 2023, 01:57:16 PMFrom the earlier post.
The article explains it, who all was involved, and how, NIH is the policymaker, FDA is the decision maker, and the AMA (and other medical societies and licensing boards) is the enforcer. Although the FDA is trying to claim ivermectin was always legal, Dr.'s were punished for prescribing it.
oh, well as long as he claims it, it must be true! :rolleyes:
Quote from: ZenMode on August 19, 2023, 03:09:11 PMoh, well as long as he claims it, it must be true! :rolleyes:
Just stop it and do your own damned research! He was not alone, the AMA was taking doctors to court over it!
Hell, Wisconsin Supreme court had to get involved.
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2023, 01:14:23 PMJust stop it and do your own damned research! He was not alone, the AMA was taking doctors to court over it!
Hell, Wisconsin Supreme court had to get involved.
The AMA may be taking doctors to court. State medical boards might be taking action against doctors. Those are independent, non-government entities and they are not the FDA or CDC.
I think my research is fine.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 23, 2023, 01:58:49 PMThe AMA may be taking doctors to court. State medical boards might be taking action against doctors. Those are independent, non-government entities and they are not the FDA or CDC.
I think my research is fine.
Wrong again. Everything goes through the FDA, and the CDC. Nowhere was that more clear than during the so called pandemic. Your research is biased and shallow.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 23, 2023, 01:58:49 PMThe AMA may be taking doctors to court. State medical boards might be taking action against doctors. Those are independent, non-government entities and they are not the FDA or CDC.
I think my research is fine.
Possum got it Right! You're so biased you are unable to think for yourself. Very sad indeed!
Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2023, 05:16:17 PMPossum got it Right! You're so biased you are unable to think for yourself. Very sad indeed!
I think for myself, that's why I don't fall in line with inaccurate beliefs.
Facts are facts. Show me where the CDC or FDA is charging/pursuing doctors for prescribing a legal medication.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 23, 2023, 07:32:26 PMI think for myself, that's why I don't fall in line with inaccurate beliefs.
Facts are facts. Show me where the CDC or FDA is charging/pursuing doctors for prescribing a legal medication.
They aren't, they in essence, publish lies and expect the AMA to do their dirty work.
Come on, you aren't going to sit here and deny what everyone saw live before our very eyes?
NY and Michigan Goobners murdered the elderly with forced internment and injections, denying family members access on their death beds.
Are you going to pretend the left didn't murder people with a man made Bio weapon and a so called vaccine that had been developed a decade earlier, while making billions in profit?
Do you really want to go down that road again with all the evidence that's come out?
I don't think your benefactors would be pleased if you try and parse this shit with your typical BS in creating strawmen to burn.
Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2023, 07:39:46 AMThey aren't, they in essence, publish lies and expect the AMA to do their dirty work.
Come on, you aren't going to sit here and deny what everyone saw live before our very eyes?
NY and Michigan Goobners murdered the elderly with forced internment and injections, denying family members access on their death beds.
Are you going to pretend the left didn't murder people with a man made Bio weapon and a so called vaccine that had been developed a decade earlier, while making billions in profit?
Do you really want to go down that road again with all the evidence that's come out?
I don't think your benefactors would be pleased if you try and parse this shit with your typical BS in creating strawmen to burn.
Only direction he knows is going in circles.
Quote from: Possum on August 24, 2023, 10:40:35 AMOnly direction he knows is going in circles.
The more it posts, the more it sounds like a cheap Canadian, Chinese AI knockoff. :biggrin:
Quote from: Possum on August 24, 2023, 10:40:35 AMOnly direction he knows is going in circles.
When you have facts on your side, it's a good strategy to circle back to those facts.
In this case, the FDA and CDC, unless someone shows otherwise, not only hasn't taken action against an individual doctor, they don't even have the power to take action against an individual doctor for prescribing legal drugs.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 07:40:24 AMWhen you have facts on your side, it's a good strategy to circle back to those facts.
In this case, the FDA and CDC, unless someone shows otherwise, not only hasn't taken action against an individual doctor, they don't even have the power to take action against an individual doctor for prescribing legal drugs.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Since when are liberal talking points facts? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 09:10:50 AM:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Since when are liberal talking points facts? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hey, all you have to do is find me an example of the FDA or CDC going after a doctor for prescribing the "wrong" drug.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 10:28:11 AMHey, all you have to do is find me an example of the FDA or CDC going after a doctor for prescribing the "wrong" drug.
Go back and read this thread over again. Your proof is there. Now stop going in circles again.
Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 10:48:56 AMGo back and read this thread over again. Your proof is there. Now stop going in circles again.
It's not. There one person claiming that the FDA is doing something. There is no evidence that the FDA came after him or has ever come after any doctor. State medical boards very clearly have jurisdiction. The FDA/CDC, as far as I know, have absolutely no jurisdiction over the licensing of doctors, have no ability to suspend/revoke licenses nor bring a legal case against a doctor.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 11:06:11 AMIt's not. There one person claiming that the FDA is doing something. There is no evidence that the FDA came after him or has ever come after any doctor. State medical boards very clearly have jurisdiction. The FDA/CDC, as far as I know, have absolutely no jurisdiction over the licensing of doctors, have no ability to suspend/revoke licenses nor bring a legal case against a doctor.
Your lying again. It happened.
Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 11:09:19 AMYour lying again. It happened.
If it happened, you should have no problem finding proof. Proof is not one person just saying it happened.
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 10:28:11 AMHey, all you have to do is find me an example of the FDA or CDC going after a doctor for prescribing the "wrong" drug.
That was your strawman, we burned it down because no one ever made the claim.
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2023, 01:30:13 PMThat was your strawman, we burned it down because no one ever made the claim.
"Did you happen to notice that for his actions the Dr. in Arkansas is being investigated. The CDC and the FDA both forbid it's use. Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice?"
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2023, 01:30:13 PMThat was your strawman, we burned it down because no one ever made the claim.
So, post #32 above didn't happen?
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 02:33:23 PM"Did you happen to notice that for his actions the Dr. in Arkansas is being investigated. The CDC and the FDA both forbid it's use. Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice?"So, post #32 above didn't happen?
Finish the quote.
"Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice"!Possum qualified what he said, and we all know what they were telling the medical boards.
But hey, we can trust NGO's to be above board, Right? :rolleyes:
We now know they were lying.
CDC, FDA warn Florida surgeon general over his COVID-19 vaccine guidancehttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-fda-warn-florida-surgeon-general-covid-19-vaccine-guidance
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-fda-warn-florida-surgeon-general-covid-19-vaccine-guidance
Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 02:33:23 PM"Did you happen to notice that for his actions the Dr. in Arkansas is being investigated. The CDC and the FDA both forbid it's use. Even though the state medical board has the final say, guess where they get their advice?"So, post #32 above didn't happen?
Here's your full explanation as to how they banned Ivermectin.
He has a second part, but here's the first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVgec9M0DfI&t=601s
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI4QumfLyLpC9Iz0bO1-qur2zikXS0yd4sST5q2r6RdTjVHgTlTQpycPTEPPjU6l3mTbwEtXJTwwnkzQGoHtncLHrlIRVtfClZmMK0cPCt_Bkqhtovdox9kfMT0m2tzSGzvirkVon2-Q2cUkT1XiVsfMle4ugf3VBQeecU0LmPmNbte-GpnrAFWzheyEpq/w640-h634/90miles8990590f002a85c0deb77a2a8bf48e57_4a4c1b2f_500.jpg)
Charlie Kirk
NEW—The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled in favor of three doctors allowing them to move forward with their lawsuit, saying the FDA abused its authority with Anti-Ivermectin messaging to Americans.
"FDA is not a Physician."
"It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise."
Judge Willett wrote in his ruling, "Left unmentioned in most of that messaging: ivermectin also comes in a human version."
Remember, the FDA shamed Americans who used ivermectin off-label with Tweets like this one from August 2021: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."
The "experts" failed you during COVID. Never again.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5H0iP8aoAAmIdw?format=jpg&name=medium)
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1698407756108320914
Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2023, 12:58:38 PMCharlie Kirk
NEW—The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled in favor of three doctors allowing them to move forward with their lawsuit, saying the FDA abused its authority with Anti-Ivermectin messaging to Americans.
"FDA is not a Physician."
"It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise."
Judge Willett wrote in his ruling, "Left unmentioned in most of that messaging: ivermectin also comes in a human version."
Remember, the FDA shamed Americans who used ivermectin off-label with Tweets like this one from August 2021: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."
The "experts" failed you during COVID. Never again.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5H0iP8aoAAmIdw?format=jpg&name=medium)
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1698407756108320914
For the record, a Tweet is not "taking action against" or "coming after" a doctor. Neither is, as the lawsuit states, endorsing, denouncing, or advising.
Quote from: ZenMode on September 04, 2023, 06:51:51 PMFor the record, a Tweet is not "taking action against" or "coming after" a doctor. Neither is, as the lawsuit states, endorsing, denouncing, or advising.
The 5th circuit court of appeals disagrees with you.
QuoteFDA 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.
As such, the Doctors can ... assert their ultra vires claims against the Agenc[y] and the Officials.
Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA's statutory authority.
We REVERSE the district court's judgment of dismissal, and REMAND for further proceedings. [All emphasis in original.]
https://thenewamerican.com/us/healthcare/covid/appeals-court-upholds-lawsuit-claiming-fda-overreached-in-condemning-ivermectin/
Damn Zen, you're just not very good at this are you?
Quote from: Possum on September 05, 2023, 04:32:05 AMThe 5th circuit court of appeals disagrees with you.
https://thenewamerican.com/us/healthcare/covid/appeals-court-upholds-lawsuit-claiming-fda-overreached-in-condemning-ivermectin/
Damn Zen, you're just not very good at this are you?
The claim made is that the FDA and CDC are
going after individual doctors. From a purely legal perspective, yes, it's possible that the tweet was not appropriate and violated a law. That is a much different statement that saying that the FDA or CDC is legally coming after doctors.
I remember hearing about that tweet at the time and I thought it was referring the morons killing themselves by overdosing on ivermectic they watch from a local feed store
Quote from: ZenMode on September 04, 2023, 06:51:51 PMFor the record, a Tweet is not "taking action against" or "coming after" a doctor. Neither is, as the lawsuit states, endorsing, denouncing, or advising.
WTF are you prattling on about?
Who even said that? Oh wait, that's you moving the goal post to your giant strawman. :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl
Quote from: Solar on September 05, 2023, 06:28:43 AMWTF are you prattling on about?
Who even said that? Oh wait, that's you moving the goal post to your giant strawman. :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl :bigl
Fair enough. The claim was that the FDA and/or CDC was "investigating" doctors for prescribing Ivermectin. There is no evidence of that. A Tweet is not "investigating".
Quote from: ZenMode on September 05, 2023, 06:35:49 AMFair enough. The claim was that the FDA and/or CDC was "investigating" doctors for prescribing Ivermectin. There is no evidence of that. A Tweet is not "investigating".
Really, who claimed that, you? Show us where that is the case in what I posted. This is you creating strawmen! :stomp :stomp :stomp
Quote from: Solar on September 05, 2023, 06:38:34 AMReally, who claimed that, you? Show us where that is the case in what I posted. This is you creating strawmen! :stomp :stomp :stomp
Possum did in posts 6, 8 and 15. :thumbup:
Quote from: ZenMode on September 05, 2023, 06:35:49 AMFair enough. The claim was that the FDA and/or CDC was "investigating" doctors for prescribing Ivermectin. There is no evidence of that. A Tweet is not "investigating".
What do you think the court case had to deal with? What was the 5th court talking about? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: ZenMode on September 05, 2023, 07:57:27 AMPossum did in posts 6, 8 and 15. :thumbup:
Mire strawman bullshit! I wasn't referencing anyone but you and the court! I specifically stated "Show us where that is the case in what I posted"!
Quote from: Possum on September 05, 2023, 08:36:36 AMWhat do you think the court case had to deal with? What was the 5th court talking about? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The Tweet that the doctors believe is somehow wrongdoing by the FDA, because it's telling doctors what to do.
Quote from: ZenMode on September 05, 2023, 11:14:16 AMThe Tweet that the doctors believe is somehow wrongdoing by the FDA, because it's telling doctors what to do.
You didn't read the court case did you? It was not "about a tweet". It was about Dr's rights.
Quote from: Possum on September 05, 2023, 12:44:53 PMYou didn't read the court case did you? It was not "about a tweet". It was about Dr's rights.
He loves those LSM headlines, it's how he forms opinions. :bigl :bigl :bigl
Quote from: Possum on September 05, 2023, 12:44:53 PMYou didn't read the court case did you? It was not "about a tweet". It was about Dr's rights.
What is the basis for their claim that their rights have been violated?
Quote from: ZenMode on September 05, 2023, 06:45:53 PMWhat is the basis for their claim that their rights have been violated?
Do your own research.
Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 04:28:13 AMDo your own research.
Done. The doctors are claiming that the FDA overstepped it's authority, and broke federal law in the process,with it's "You're not a horse" campaign" because it didn't mention often enough that it actually has usefulness for adults. I didn't see anything about individual doctors being targeted for legal action, suspension,etc. The FDA has no authority to do that. They also don't have the power to tell doctors what they can/can't prescribe and no entity is trying to wipe out Ivermectin, as was claimed early on. :thumbsup:
The ruling acknowledged FDA's receiving reports of some people requiring hospitalization after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock. But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan "You are not a horse!" — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.
The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA's campaign exceeded the agency's authority under federal law, the ruling said.
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-ivermectin-fda-doctors-lawsuit-bbc8d4fc726c08940ae4b0dad70170e0
Quote from: ZenMode on September 06, 2023, 05:32:31 AMDone. The doctors are claiming that the FDA overstepped it's authority, and broke federal law in the process,with it's "You're not a horse" campaign" because it didn't mention often enough that it actually has usefulness for adults. I didn't see anything about individual doctors being targeted for legal action, suspension,etc. The FDA has no authority to do that. They also don't have the power to tell doctors what they can/can't prescribe and no entity is trying to wipe out Ivermectin, as was claimed early on. :thumbsup:
The ruling acknowledged FDA's receiving reports of some people requiring hospitalization after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock. But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan "You are not a horse!" — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.
The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA's campaign exceeded the agency's authority under federal law, the ruling said.
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-ivermectin-fda-doctors-lawsuit-bbc8d4fc726c08940ae4b0dad70170e0
Great job of cherry picking. !!!! The 5th court has just a little more to say about the case.
Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 05:43:19 AMGreat job of cherry picking. !!!! The 5th court has just a little more to say about the case.
He just hates it when people usurp the power of Govt when it plays dictator, all the while failing to recognize the fact that it was probably one single bean fuckin counter wielding his nonexistent penis in the air for power.
This little commie doesn't realize the govt is packed full of people seeking some form of power over the populace. is Zen and his ilk in govt is the reason the Base is hell bent on taking power away from the Fed.
Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 05:43:19 AMGreat job of cherry picking. !!!! The 5th court has just a little more to say about the case.
No doubt both sides will, but I bet none of it is going to be how the situation was portrayed on the first page of the thread. :thumbdown:
Why? Because there are laws meant to prevent the Federal Government from doing certain things especially when the state has jurisdiction. We should
all be happy that the BIGGEST gripe we've heard from the medical community, as it relates to the actions of the FDA, is that a marketing campaign
may have crossed a line and wasn't diligent enough in calling out that Ivermectin is absolutely safe for humans when prescribed correctly and not by Gus at the feed store. :thumbsup:
Quote from: ZenMode on September 06, 2023, 06:19:05 AMNo doubt both sides will, but I bet none of it is going to be how the situation was portrayed on the first page of the thread. :thumbdown:
Why? Because there are laws meant to prevent the Federal Government from doing certain things especially when the state has jurisdiction. We should all be happy that the BIGGEST gripe we've heard from the medical community, as it relates to the actions of the FDA, is that a marketing campaign may have crossed a line and wasn't diligent enough in calling out that Ivermectin is absolutely safe for humans when prescribed correctly and not by Gus at the feed store. :thumbsup:
You need to reread what the court case was about and how bad the fda and the cdc overstepped their bounds.
Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 07:27:40 AMYou need to reread what the court case was about and how bad the fda and the cdc overstepped their bounds.
It sees what it wants to see. :glare: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on September 06, 2023, 12:44:14 PMIt sees what it wants to see. :glare: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:thumbup: 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. :lol:
Quote from: Possum on September 06, 2023, 12:57:50 PM:thumbup: 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. :lol:
It lives in such a small bubble. :rolleyes:
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.