Doctors Suit Against FDA and HHS For Lying About Ivermectin Gets Boost
ON 10/17/2022 AT 09:24 AM
On June 6, 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health and Human Services was sued for lying about ivermectin and its use in treating and preventing COVID but the court has been dragging its feet and trying to throw out the case.
Numerous independent peer-reviewed studies have clearly shown that ivermectin is a highly effective cure for the coronavirus, just as it is for many other viruses and parasites. It has been used safely across the globe for more than 80 years and is considered to be an essential medicine. Yet, health authorities waged a massive war against ivermectin for the treatment of COVID and even went so far as to conduct a completely fraudulent and deadly trial in which they grossly overdosed subjects and then used that single bogus study as justification for their actions.
The actions of the World Health Organization, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and other health authorities around the world resulted in the needless deaths of millions of people from the engineered SARS-CoV-2 virus and will result in countless more from the vaccines. Had ivermection been widely utilized there would have been no pandemic and no need for the massively damaging mRNA vaccines and no excuse for the pointless lockdowns, business closures, masking, testing and quarantines.
The lawsuit for the criminal actions of the FDA and HHS got a better chance of not being thrown out when the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed a motion and amicus brief with the federal district court in Galveston urging it to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the FDA for its misleading statements against ivermectin. In Apter v. HHS, a group of physicians sued to hold the FDA, a federal agency within the HHS, accountable for its interference with physicians’ ability to treat Covid-19.
“Defendant FDA has improperly exploited misunderstandings about the legality and prevalence of off-label uses of medication, in order to mislead courts, state medical boards, and the public into thinking there is anything improper about off-label prescribing,” AAPS writes in its amicus brief to the court. “Not only is off-label prescribing fully proper, legal, and commonplace, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to give effective care to patients.”
Yet the FDA published multiple statements and sent letters to influential organizations to falsely disparage ivermectin, implying that it was not approved for treating Covid-19. Many, including courts and state medical boards, were misled by the FDA into thinking that its lack of approval for this treatment meant that ivermectin should not be used to treat Covid-19.
“It has never been proper for the FDA to interfere with that essential part of the practice of medicine, and the FDA knows it,” AAPS informed the court. The FDA “insisted and continues to insist on interfering with the prescription of this safe medication by physicians in treating Covid-19,” AAPS added.
AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly pointed out to the court that the FDA “has engaged in a campaign of interference with the proper use by physicians of ivermectin, which has long been approved as fully safe for human use.” He alerted the court that once the FDA approves a medication as safe, then physicians have full authority to prescribe it to treat any illness, particularly a novel virus like Covid-19.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is one of the only doctor’s associations not controlled by the criminal pharmaceutical industry, evil billionaires or other dark forces.
Posted that on gab!
I may simply have not been in a right place at the right time, but I’ve not seen discussion of this one particular point that occurs to me about all this full immunity that the jab manufacturers seem to have been given.
It seems to me that we’d be talking about a contract. To be brief, if one party has made material misrepresentations in that contract, the benefits of immunity could lawfully be made to disappear after that contract would be adjudicated through civil action.
We would then have open season on legal action against those manufacturers.
Was the other party(-ies) (some schmuck in da gubmint?) to such a contract even lawfully able to confer such immunity to the manufacturers? Because I’m pretty sure We The People were never consulted (in any numbers).
But perhaps you can point me to—via a link—there such thoughts may have already been wrestled to the ground.
Thanks in advance!
There needs to be thousands of individual "wrongful death" lawsuits against the bad actors at the top.
The agency should be de-funded and abolished.