It’s final: we were right about Ivermectin! The effectiveness of this affordable, Nobel Prize-winning wonder drug in combatting COVID-19 has surged to the forefront, exposing a glaring disparity between established authorities and real-world outcomes.
Recent statements by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lawyer, acknowledging that doctors are authorized to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, cast doubt on the FDA’s previous positions and advisories. This admission prompts a critical examination of the FDA’s credibility, especially in the face of mounting evidence supporting Ivermectin’s potential benefits.
“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, was forced to admit during oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The FDA’s historical stance on Ivermectin has discouraged its use for preventing or treating COVID-19. A tweet that went viral in 2021 read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” This tweet, coupled with statements implying that Ivermectin lacks authorization to treat COVID-19, framed the drug as ineffective and inappropriate for human use.
However, recent events have introduced a fresh perspective and ignited debates. Well-known individuals such as podcaster Joe Rogan and Fox News business anchor Maria Bartiromo have been vocal about their positive experiences with Ivermectin. Rogan’s endorsement and Bartiromo’s personal testimony challenge the narrative that has been propagated by some mainstream media outlets.
Surprisingly, these revelations have triggered scorn and mockery from certain quarters. Critics, often referred to as “Covidians,” have resorted to name-calling and ridiculing those who opted for Ivermectin treatment.
Bartiromo’s decision, in particular, led to her being labeled as a “horse” for her choice, highlighting the emotional intensity surrounding this topic.
Amidst the heated debate, a haunting question emerges: How many lives may have been lost due to the reluctance to embrace Ivermectin’s potential benefits? The dissonance between established medical opinions and individual success stories underscores the potential human cost of unwavering skepticism.
The perspective of Democrat contender John F. Kennedy Jr. adds an intriguing dimension to the discourse. His assertion that “$200 billion enterprise would’ve collapsed if Fauci had admitted that Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were effective against covid” underscores the intricate web of financial interests that could influence medical recommendations.
The recent FDA lawyer’s admission takes the debate to the courtroom. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is grappling with the question of whether the FDA has the authority to dictate a drug’s usage post-approval. This legal clash touches on the essence of patient care and the delicate balance between regulatory guidance and individualized medical decisions.
The ongoing legal tussle underscores the tension between institutional authority and the autonomy of medical professionals. While the FDA asserts its role in disseminating accurate information, concerns arise about encroaching on the physician-patient relationship. This case reveals the need for a harmonious approach that respects both medical expertise and individual health choices.
As the Ivermectin debate unfolds, it encapsulates broader themes of medical ethics, individual rights, and the influence of institutions on healthcare narratives. The chasm between personal stories and official standpoints emphasizes the necessity of a nuanced perspective that prioritizes both communal health and individual well-being.
Are American Democrats, BigTechs, Liberal Health Officials, Big Pharma, and Liberal Media Responsible for Global Genocide?
The admission by an FDA lawyer that doctors possess the authority to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment starkly contradicts the agency’s historical messaging. A glaring disparity between official advisories and medical reality has surfaced, compelling us to look deeper into the motivations and consequences of these conflicting positions.
The intersecting webs of politics and profit cannot be ignored in this unfolding saga. The influence of Big Pharma, coupled with political affiliations, raises concerns about the true drivers behind certain medical stances. The alignment between the ruling Democrat party, liberal media, and Hollywood figures highlights the complexity of interests shaping the Ivermectin discourse.
The ramifications of these conflicting narratives extend beyond U.S. borders. Governments and industries in numerous countries have restricted access to Ivermectin based on the information provided by institutions like the FDA. The dire consequences of this disinformation may have led to the unnecessary suffering and death of countless individuals worldwide who were deprived of a potentially effective treatment option.
As evidence mounts, a somber question arises: Are these institutions accountable for withholding information that could have saved lives? The intertwining of political agendas, corporate interests, and media narratives paints a complex picture, leaving us to question the motives that influenced decisions with life-altering consequences.
The Daily Netizen 