At one point in George Orwell’s “1984,” protagonist Winston Smith, who works in the truth-hiding “Ministry of Truth,” thinks, “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”
He wrote eternal words that befit most government agencies, politicians, and their media lackeys -- and they perfectly fit the behavior of that brazen insult to the Constitution known as the “Food and Drug Administration.”
If you have a memory, you might recall that the not-constitutionally-enumerated FDA granted also-unconstitutional “Emergency Use Authorization” to pharma-giant mRNA gene-transfection jabs that the corporations and politicians and media shills erroneously called “COVID vaccines” (but actually always were termed "countermeasures" behind the scenes in DC) and which, by pumping them upon us in this fashion (along with massive federal subsidies for the mRNA development, jab purchases, and military-led distribution) didn’t require “testing” that usually is required for real vaccines before they are “allowed” to be introduced into the market.
It’s important to reiterate that the feds have absolutely no moral or constitutional power to create an FDA in the first place, let alone to artfully craft their arbitrary so-called “rules” about when and how drugs can be sold or used. And it’s also important to note that the only way the mRNA jabs could be put out under that wondrous “Emergency Use Authorization” was if there were no therapeutic medications that patients could use to alleviate the symptoms of their politically over-blown threat, COVID-19.
Enter things like hydroxychloroquine, which, in early February of 2020, I already knew had been tested via funding from the NIH to show that it was a “potent inhibitor” of SARS CoV (1) – a fact that Anthony Fauci had to have known since the study was done in 2005, and which he never, ever mentioned in public.
And enter Ivermectin, on which ignorant preach-meisters in pop media such as Jimmy Kimmel and CNN pounced, deriding it as “horse paste” and “horse dewormer” when the drug long ago was heralded as a breakthrough for humans in the fight against internal organ and skin parasites, elephantiasis, and even head lice, having been credited with saving millions of lives in Africa.
And enter the FDA bureaucrats, who seemingly can’t keep their probing, problematic hands to themselves, and which issued “official” statements to tell people that Ivermectin was NOT approved for parallel use as a therapeutic against the symptoms of COVID-19.
Now, please either forget their ludicrous posturing and pronouncements and adopt the NEW position as the unquestionable truth, or just overlook this new position and keep watching Jimmy Kimmel make a fool of himself.
Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times that the new position actually is more verbal posturing, to act as cover in court:
“’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, said during oral arguments on Aug. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.”
To which doctors and everyone else should have said, long ago, “WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION OR GRANTING OF AUTHORITY.”
This argument, concerning whether the FDA approved, or approves now, should be moot. We are supposed to be free to peacefully trade with others and to ingest what we want. Didn’t the FDA bureaucrats and Jimmy Kimmel learn from the experience and response of the colonials when the Brits imposed the Tea Act on them in 1773?
“The government is defending the FDA’s repeated exhortations to people to not take ivermectin for COVID-19, including a post that said ‘Stop it.’
‘The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no,’ Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, told the appeals court.”
Of course, one ought to go deeper, and question the assumption that the FDA has any moral or constitutional authority to “approve” of “not approve” a drug, at all, but, on the level at which they are arguing, even at THAT, the FDA is on slippery legal footing, having explicitly expended tax cash to tell people not to take ivermectin.
“The FDA on Aug. 21, 2021, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter: ‘You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.’ The post, which linked to an FDA page that says people shouldn’t use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, went viral.
In other statements, the FDA said that ivermectin ‘isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19’ and ‘Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.’”
But, of course, now, FDA wants to lean in the other direction, implying that by not explicitly going after doctors who might prescribe it, they were not working against its use.
At least one of the Fifth Circuit judges hearing the case appears not to be buying the spin.
“’What about when it said, ‘No, stop it’?’ Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, on the panel that is hearing the appeal, asked. ‘Why isn’t that a command? If you were in English class, they would say that was a command.’”
It would, at least, be seen as a warning of potential future FDA action against doctors, that’s for sure.
As Stieber notes, the plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter, who "say they were professionally harmed by the FDA’s statements, including being terminated over efforts to prescribe ivermectin to patients."
Dr. Marik has noted that a number of studies support using ivermectin against COVID-19, as the FDA itself has acknowledged.” But whether studies show that any drug is effective against anything is not the point, because no one should be telling us or the drug makers and sellers that we cannot contract with each other.
Ahh, but of course, the feds have built a giant legal and “regulatory” edifice, so the courts will rule according to how they view that, not the US Constitution or the deeper matters of freedom and peace.
“Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, Mr. Kelson (plaintiffs’ atty, Jared Kelson) said.
‘This is something the FDA has never been able to do. And it’s a bright line,’ he told the court, adding later: ‘The clearest examples of where they have gone over the line are when they say things like, ‘You are not a horse, you are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.'
Judges indicated they agree that the FDA lacks the power to give medical advice; Judge Clement said, ‘You’re not authorized to give medical advice.’”
Of course, the FDA argues that it wasn’t - which is about as believable as their spurious claims that they have “power” over you, or your doctor, or anyone else.
The quicker people see the roots of the FDA problem -- which go much deeper than whether it was “giving medical advice” or phrasing things this way or that – the more rapidly they will see what it means to be a free person.
And the sooner they will see that it is utterly imperative to eliminate the FDA.