Liberal Forum

Well, well , well the LYING FDA is now backtracking and denying that they never said NOT to take Ivermectin, nor didthey tell doctors they could not prescribe it.
To all you ****, liberal idiot sheople that believed the FDA and their big pharma bosses that Ivermectin was just a horse paste....**** YOU!!!

FDA Says Telling People Not to Take Ivermectin for COVID-19 Was Just a Recommendation

By Zachary Stieber
 
November 19, 2022 Updated: November 19, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) telling people to “stop” taking ivermectin for COVID-19 was informal and just a recommendation, government lawyers argued during a recent hearing.

“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas.“They use informal language, that is true,” he also said, adding that, “it’s conversational but not mandatory.”

The hearing was held in a case brought by three doctors who say the FDA illegally interfered with their ability to prescribe medicine to their patients when it issued statements on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic that has shown positive results in some trials against COVID-19.Ivermectin is approved by the FDA but not for COVID-19. Drugs are commonly used for non-approved purposes in the United States; the practice is known as off-label treatment.

The FDA created a webpage in 2021 titled “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and later posted a link to the page on Twitter while writing: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” A second post stated: “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”
In a separate page, the FDA said: “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”

Those actions interfered with the doctors’ practice of medicine, violating the laws including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the lawsuit alleges.It asked the court to rule the actions unlawful and bar the FDA from direccting or opining as to whether ivermectin should be used to treat COVID-19.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fda-says- ... SQR9ms8%3D
 

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

Why is the lying FDA suddenly back tracking after this suit has been filed?

Where is the peer reviewed study that proves the vaccine and boosters work to prevent the communist/fauci flu.  There is none because the mRNA jabs do NOT prevent the ****!!!

I can only attest to the fact that I was 68 when I contracted the **** from a friend but took Ivermectin upon my doctor brother's instructions within hours and had NO symptoms except a loss of smell and taste for a few days.  I have since been exposed  to the **** on 2 other occasions but regular dosing with Ivermectin I have not caught the ****.

I am 69 and have COPD and am  slightly overweight so the **** should have killed me.

**** YOU!!!
 
 

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

**** YOU!!!
 

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

Do you know what a "peer review" actually is?

A panacea for the controversy by the sounds of it.

Cedar » 20 Nov 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:53 pm

That's really **** stupid.

DeezerShoove » 20 Nov 2022, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:26 pm

Do you know what a "peer review" actually is?

A panacea for the controversy by the sounds of it.

There is no controversy.

It's an antiparasitic.


 

Buffalo » 20 Nov 2022, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:22 pm

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

**** YOU!!!

A credible source with no weasel words.  My thanks to you.
 

DeezerShoove » 20 Nov 2022, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:26 pm

Do you know what a "peer review" actually is?

A panacea for the controversy by the sounds of it.

Peer review is simply a matter of duplicating the results found elsewhere.   

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:52 pm

There is no controversy.

It's an antiparasitic.

Duh.  But of course you would know.  In addition to being a C student in 19th Century Russian Studies you are also a scientist, right?

It is one of the most common drugs in the world used for a variety of issues.

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 6:06 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:06 pm

A credible source with no weasel words.  My thanks to you.

I already proved to you before that Ivermectin works.  I am not knowledgeable enough to understand exactly how it works.  But my doctor brother IS and he has read the studies and even went to a seminar in Florida last month sponsored by Paul Mirick MD and Pierre Kory MD.  He is convinced that most plandemic deaths from the communist/fauci intentional flu could have been prevented with the early treatment of Ivermectin.  That, and my experience with the **** and treating it with Ivermectin is enough for me.


 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:17 pm

Duh.  But of course you would know.  In addition to being a C student in 19th Century Russian Studies you are also a scientist, right?

It is one of the most common drugs in the world used for a variety of issues.

shut the **** up, Sheilagh..

It is an antiparasitic.

Nod, ignorant ****.
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:43 pm

shut the **** up, Sheilagh..

It is an antiparasitic.

Nod, ignorant ****.

Who said it wasn’t, 19th Century Russian Studies?  

Jeez, you can’t ducking read,.

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm

Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.

Explicitly says? Show me the same with the vaxes. If there are, clearly they are wrong given the climbing numbers of covid cases among those who have been vaxxed. 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:48 pm

Who said it wasn’t, 19th Century Russian Studies?  

Jeez, you can’t ducking read,.

Duh.  But of course you would know.  In addition to being a C student in 19th Century Russian Studies you are also a scientist, right?

It is one of the most common drugs in the world used for a variety of issues.

How many stands are you taking here?

**** idiot.

Cedar » 20 Nov 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 3:53 pm

Why do they still come up with that "expert" ****? 'You have to be expert for this and that...if you aren't, then you don't know anything, etc...God the level of ego in that view is insufferable. 

I am not a vet, but I know what a dog is.
I am not a meteorologist, but I know it isn't raining outside. 

According to them, one has to be a vet or a meteorologist to make those claims. Pathetic.  

ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:07 pm

Peer review is simply a matter of duplicating the results found elsewhere.

   I won't argue that.

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:52 pm

There is no controversy.

It's an antiparasitic.

A tool can be used for things it wasn't specifically designed for.

Try opening a paint can with a screwdriver. Gee, it works.

DeezerShoove » 20 Nov 2022, 7:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 7:47 pm

A tool can be used for things it wasn't specifically designed for.

Try opening a paint can with a screwdriver. Gee, it works.

They tried it....in vitro..

You have a liver.