top of page

The FDA Has Retrofitted its own Medical Disclaimer Regarding Ivermectin

The FDA was recently called forth in court regarding its guidance on Ivermectin. For those who are not in the know, the FDA warning on Ivermectin was not exactly unambiguous.

The top Google search provides this: "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19. They further state, "One of the FDA’s jobs is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use. In some instances, it can be highly dangerous to use a medicine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 that has not been approved by or has not received emergency use authorization from the FDA."

Yet, when called to testify, (with over 93 scientific studies proving that Ivermectin demonstrated significant benefits in treating COVID-19 in its early stages), the government lawyers, on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA,) argued they were only giving "advice" and it was not mandatory when they admonished the public to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. - Boy that sure sounds different than an agency that has the authority to giveth or not giveth approval. Furthermore, it appears as though they want to have the governance to direct us, yet without the consequence of the outcome.

This might not be such an issue if it did not cost so many American's to lose their lives. We have been indoctrinated by this goliath that they are the ultimate authority and that their word is undisputable. That is until they were cornered with their trail of falsehoods, finally to be placed on the scale, revealing the truth.

Predictably, in the end, revisionist history was able to win out by changing the narrative and thus escaping culpability. The judge ruled in favor of the government’s claim of sovereign immunity (basically that it cannot be sued, particularly from tort...a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm). "The government can only be sued with its consent, and plaintiffs did not meet the exceptions they cited." (Possible appeals pending.) The weakness being that the three doctors who brought this case had the fortitude and intelligence to prescribe Ivermectin despite the "guidance" of FDA. (How many other doctors took the path of least resistance?)

Perhaps, in the future, when we see a post from the FDA we will never forget that they have indelibly inserted their own disclaimer against what they have to say. Meanwhile, every medical profession has to provide a disclaimer for what they should be able to freely say, in truth.

Our gift in this is to understand that they gained their authority by our belief, compliance, and obedience to the thunder of their voice, not in the truth of their words, -or true science. For a moment in time we saw them reveal the façade of their "authority." A judgment from the court defaults to the protections they have provided for themselves, yet the power has, and always will, remain with the people. The problem is that, we the people, do not embrace or acknowledge the full extent of our power.

Regardless of the decision of the judge, what was seen cannot be unseen. The ball is now in our court. The question is what we will do with it?

To read more go to this Epoch Times article.


bottom of page