FDA Forced to Retract Statements Saying Ivermectin Does Not Work Against COVID

[JackOfNoTrades]

Why don't you read post #58. That should make it very clear just how stupid you really are, Jack.
You don't know shit, yet you just keep hammering away with a nerf hammer

I stopped reading at
"Ivermectin, 'wonder drug' from Japan: the human use perspective".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The settlement does not sat ivermectin works against Covid 19, only that the agency exceeded it statutory authority to tell the professional field what it must do,

That requires a person to actually read and think about things.

So the peope that most need to hear that just won't understand.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

actually I posted a link from the NIH that proved him wrong,,

he kno.ws hes wrong, but his TDS wont allow him to think for himself,,

And now...YOU are actually getting closer to the reason as well.

Let's find out if between you and Leo, you guys can come up with the real answer you're making a stand on this hill.

This is actually a lot of fun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a small mind you have trying to downplay it's value as a viable drug.

It's being downplayed as an effective drug against covid.

Be ause it is not effective against covid.

Try to focus.

 

[progressive hunter]

And now...YOU are actually getting closer to the reason as well.

Let's find out if between you and Leo, you guys can come up with the real answer you're making a stand on this hill.

This is actually a lot of fun.

WOW!!!

I sure hurt your feelings with actual facts that disprove your claims,,,

my guess is a little personal time in the bathroom can relax you so you dont continue to make a fool of yourself,,

 

[progressive hunter]

And now...YOU are actually getting closer to the reason as well.

Let's find out if between you and Leo, you guys can come up with the real answer you're making a stand on this hill.

This is actually a lot of fun.

did you know a screw driver can open a paint can??

 

[Leo123]

I stopped reading at
"Ivermectin, 'wonder drug' from Japan: the human use perspective".

So, you prefer to remain ignorant?

 

[boevans]

MAGAs on ivermectin are wrong. The ruling did not affect FDA's finding on the uselessness of ivermectin on Covid.

 

[boevans]

So, you prefer to remain ignorant?

Leo, you and Meister and others were wrong then, you are wrong now.

 

[boevans]

WOW!!!

I sure hurt your feelings with actual facts that disprove your claims,,,

my guess is a little personal time in the bathroom can relax you so you dont continue to make a fool of yourself,,

Actual facts are antithetical to your mind,

 

[boevans]

Leo, you and Meister and others were wrong then, you are wrong now.

• 
  Reactions:eagle1462010

You are wrong, eagle

 

[progressive hunter]

Actual facts are antithetical to your mind,

so youre a science denier,,

 

[boevans]

Nope. Not a bought off govt bitch like you who killed Americans with your Lies.

You have no evidence that FDA was scientifically wrong in the slightest.

 

[eagle1462010]

You have no evidence that FDA was scientifically wrong in the slightest.

BS They posted evidence in this thread and thousands of studies of it all over rhis world.

Your BS is meaningless to me. Go try your LIES on your Branch Covidians.

 

[progressive hunter]

You have no evidence that FDA was scientifically wrong in the slightest.

you have no scientific evidence that the FDA was right in the slightest,,

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this. Why did Africa and India combined with 2.7 BILLUON PEOPLE have less Covid deaths than America.



Because they didnt listen to Lying Bitches like boevans here.

FDA has blood on their hands.

 

[boevans]

you have no scientific evidence that the FDA was right in the slightest,,

Show in the finding there was scientific error. You can only lie, because, yet once again, there is no evidence.

 

[boevans]

you have no scientific evidence that the FDA was right in the slightest,,

That is not required in the filing, because that was not being challenged, only the legal power to dictate to the medical community.

 

[eagle1462010]

Change your name to BOVINE. Fits better.

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,280 studies

 

[Zincwarrior]

So when do the apologies come for all those elderly people who died but didn't have to.

‘Blood on Its Hands’: FDA Will Remove Anti-ivermectin Social Media, Website Posts Under Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

The FDA, which denied any wrongdoing, said it will remove content warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 within 21 days. Plaintiffs called the settlement a big win for patients and the patient-physician relationship.

childrenshealthdefense.org

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to take down its website and social media posts warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 under terms of a settlement reached Thursday in a lawsuit alleging the agency exceeded its authority when it directed health professionals and patients not to use the drug.

Within 21 days, the agency will remove the consumer update, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” which pictures a doctor and a horse. The FDA posted the update on March 5, 2021.

The FDA webpage, still live, states repeatedly that the FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for treating COVID-19 and warns the drug can be “unsafe.” The page also includes language warning people not to use ivermectin “intended for livestock.”

The FDA will also delete social media posts from Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram posted in 2021 and 2022 with messages such as “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.””

Below: FDA post on Twitter implying that Ivermetin was only for livestock

A compendium of existing scientific literature on the use of Ivermectin for COVID, c19ivm.org, has long reported since the start of COVID that when Ivermectin is used:

“Statistically significant lower risk is seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant for higher quality studies. 61 studies from 55 independent teams in 25 different countries show statistically significant improvements.

Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 62% [51‑70%] and 85% [77‑90%] lower risk for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results for higher quality studies, primary outcomes, peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs.

Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 61 of 101 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.”

You should take it. And buy Trump stock...