FDA Faces Legal Setback Over Ivermectin Campaign Amid COVID-19 Controversy

In a revealing development, a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney defending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in court admitted that the agency’s actions against ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic were an overreach of government authority. The admission was captured by Project Veritas in an undercover interview with DOJ trial lawyer Isaac Belfer, who had represented the FDA in a contentious legal battle against a group of doctors advocating for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

The case was rooted in the FDA's 2021 viral public campaign discouraging the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The most infamous element of the campaign was a tweet from the FDA that read: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it." This tweet, and others like it, urged people to avoid the drug, which is widely used as an antiparasitic in animals and humans.

The lawsuit was brought forward by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Robert L. Apter, and Dr. Paul E. Marik, three physicians who prescribed ivermectin to thousands of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. These doctors argued that the FDA’s public statements overstepped its authority, leading to dire professional and medical consequences.

In the undercover interview, Belfer disclosed that the FDA had, in fact, exceeded its statutory powers by issuing medical advice via social media, which ultimately led to the agency's legal defeat. Belfer admitted that the doctors’ claims of government overreach were valid, signaling that the FDA’s influence might have been improperly used in discouraging the use of the drug.

Ivermectin, an FDA-approved drug with a decades-long history of human use, was at the center of controversy throughout the pandemic. Although primarily used to treat parasitic infections, some doctors prescribed it off-label as a potential COVID-19 treatment, citing anecdotal evidence and early studies suggesting it could be effective. The FDA, however, strongly opposed this use, claiming it was unproven and unsafe.

Doctors like Bowden, Apter, and Marik saw positive results in their patients and argued that ivermectin was a cheap and accessible alternative to other treatments. They suggested that the FDA's suppression campaign against the drug may have been linked to the government’s push to fast-track the COVID-19 vaccine through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Under EUA regulations, the vaccine could only be fast-tracked if no other viable treatment options existed—leading the doctors to speculate that the FDA had ulterior motives in discouraging ivermectin.

This suppression campaign had widespread consequences. In response to the FDA’s guidance, national medical associations, regulatory agencies, and even pharmacies began refusing to prescribe or dispense ivermectin. Many insurance companies stopped covering the drug, and doctors who continued to prescribe it faced harsh professional repercussions. Dr. Bowden was forced to resign from Houston Methodist Hospital, Apter faced disciplinary proceedings, and Marik resigned from Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The recent court ruling marked a significant win for the trio of doctors, forcing the FDA to delete its social media posts discouraging ivermectin use for COVID-19. However, despite this legal victory, the agency did not officially alter its policy, and the medical community still largely follows the FDA’s lead. Pharmacies continue to refuse ivermectin prescriptions, and doctors prescribing it for COVID-19 are often met with professional backlash.

Even though the doctors continue to face repercussions, Belfer’s candid admission to Project Veritas suggests that the lawsuit has sent a clear message to the FDA and other government agencies. Belfer remarked that the legal defeat would make the FDA more cautious before issuing public health advisories that could overstep their bounds in the future.

Dr. Bowden, reflecting on the long legal battle, believes that this victory has vindicated her and her colleagues. She expressed hope that the outcome of the case would protect other physicians from similar overreach and allow doctors the freedom to make medical decisions based on their professional judgment, not the dictates of public health campaigns.

Though the lawsuit against the FDA resulted in the removal of its misleading posts, much work remains to be done. The influence of the agency’s initial public relations campaign continues to affect the medical landscape, with ivermectin still widely stigmatized as a COVID-19 treatment. The case highlights ongoing tensions between government authority, public health policy, and medical freedom, which could set a precedent for how future public health crises are managed.

Ultimately, the legal battle serves as a reminder of the importance of clearly defining the boundaries of governmental authority in public health decisions and ensuring that medical professionals retain their ability to prescribe treatments based on their expertise and the needs of their patients.

 

🚨BREAKING: DOJ Lawyer ADMITS FDA War Against Ivermect*n was a Mistake, Abuse of Authority, After Doctors Sue Government and Win

“So, what the FDA has done... [is] unquestionably beyond its authority.”

“Making a recommendation of what drugs to take or not to take, that’s the… pic.twitter.com/dVB9zbrCSh

— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) August 27, 2024

Lauryn Hill's experience at the Apollo Theater's Amateur Night in 1987

Lauryn Hill's experience at the Apollo Theater's Amateur Night in 1987 is a well-known story that highlights both the challenges and resilience of her early career. At just 13 years old, Hill performed at the iconic Apollo Theater, a venue famous for its unforgiving audience that doesn't hesitate to boo performers they don't enjoy.

Hill chose to sing "Who's Lovin' You" by Smokey Robinson, a song made famous by The Jackson 5. As she began her performance, the audience initially responded with boos. This reaction is not uncommon at the Apollo, where the crowd is known for being particularly critical, especially towards amateur performers. Despite the challenging start, Hill pressed on and eventually won the audience over with her soulful voice and determination. By the end of her performance, she received applause, marking a significant turning point.

This moment was pivotal in Hill's life, teaching her valuable lessons about perseverance and the harsh realities of the music industry. It is often cited as an early testament to her resilience and dedication to her craft, qualities that would later contribute to her success as a member of The Fugees and as a solo artist​ 

Richard Simmons - "Whose Line Is It Anyway" (2003) sketch from S05 E17 -- "Living Scenery"

Richard Simmons, the beloved fitness icon, passed away on July 13, 2024, at the age of 76. Known for his effervescent personality and his commitment to making fitness accessible to everyone, Simmons became a household name through his vibrant workout videos, especially the "Sweatin' to the Oldies" series. His classes, which he often conducted at his Los Angeles studio, Slimmons, were famous for their inclusivity and fun atmosphere.

Simmons' death came just a day after his 76th birthday, which he celebrated by expressing gratitude for the love and support from his fans. According to reports, his housekeeper found him unresponsive at his home in Los Angeles, and authorities pronounced him dead at the scene.

Throughout his career, Simmons was not only a fitness guru but also a philanthropist and advocate for healthy living. His impact on the fitness industry and his unique blend of compassion and energy left a lasting legacy, inspiring countless individuals to lead healthier lives​.

Simmons' appearance on Whose Line Is It Anyway has become the stuff of legend, so enjoy the funniest 6 minutes you will ever see.

Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman Face the Heat As Part of the Promotion for Deadpool & Wolverine Release

As anticipation builds for Deadpool & Wolverine (well for those who have't see it yet), one of 2024's most eagerly awaited films, stars Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman are not just gearing up for action on the big screen. The duo, known for their iconic roles as Deadpool and Wolverine, respectively, are set to test their spice tolerance in a fiery challenge. Ahead of the film's nationwide release on July 26th, the actors will take on the "wings of death," a gauntlet of increasingly spicy chicken wings.

In this sizzling showdown, Reynolds and Jackman will dish out more than just hot takes. They’ll delve into behind-the-scenes stories, discuss the intricacies of superhero costumes, and share their thoughts on Marvel leaks. Fans can also look forward to witnessing the depths of their real-life bromance, forged through years of on-screen rivalry and off-screen camaraderie. As they navigate the heat, the duo promises a blend of laughter, insights, and maybe a few tears—all while celebrating their return to the Marvel universe.

Controversial Searches by DEA at U.S. Airports: A Legal Battle Over Constitutional Rights

In airports across the United States, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents have been increasingly engaging in a practice that has raised significant constitutional concerns. As travelers prepare to board their flights, these agents approach them, requesting to search their carry-on items. Although these interactions are technically voluntary, many passengers feel coerced into compliance, believing they have no choice but to allow the search.

The practice has sparked a heated debate over the balance between security and personal privacy. Passengers often feel uneasy when approached by law enforcement, particularly in the stressful environment of an airport. The presence of uniformed agents, the immediacy of boarding a flight, and the general pressure of travel can create an environment where individuals might feel compelled to consent to searches, even when they may not legally be required to do so.

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm, has recently taken legal action against both the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over these practices. The class action lawsuit argues that the searches and seizures conducted by these agencies at U.S. airports violate passengers' Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to have probable cause or a warrant to conduct a search.

IJ's lawsuit highlights cases where passengers were allegedly subjected to unwarranted searches, leading to detentions and, in some cases, the seizure of cash or other valuables without clear evidence of illegal activity. The suit aims to challenge the legality of these encounters and seeks to hold the DEA and TSA accountable for what it contends are unconstitutional actions.

As the lawsuit progresses, it has the potential to reshape the boundaries of permissible law enforcement activity in airports. The outcome could clarify the rights of travelers and establish new guidelines for how agencies like the DEA and TSA conduct their operations, balancing the need for security with the preservation of individual freedoms.

This case underscores a broader national conversation about the extent to which government agencies can infringe upon personal privacy in the name of public safety. As IJ pursues this class action lawsuit, the courts will be tasked with determining whether these airport searches constitute a necessary security measure or an overreach of governmental power.

North Texas Officer Prevents Elderly Woman from Losing $40,000 to International Scam

In a commendable act of vigilance, a North Texas police officer saved an elderly woman from falling victim to a sophisticated scam that could have cost her $40,000. The incident unfolded in the town of White Settlement, where police were alerted to a potential scam targeting the unsuspecting senior.

According to FOX's Peyton Yager, the scammer, posing as a Chase Bank security employee, convinced the woman that her bank account was compromised. Under the guise of protecting her funds, the alleged scammer instructed her to transfer $40,000. Fortunately, the police officer, whose timely intervention was critical, identified the red flags and prevented the transaction.

White Settlement police emphasized the importance of vigilance and caution, especially among the elderly, who are often targeted by such schemes. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which scammers will go to exploit vulnerable individuals. The police urge residents to verify the identity of anyone requesting financial information or transactions, particularly when contacted unexpectedly.

Thanks to the quick action of the White Settlement police officer, the woman was spared a significant financial loss. The case highlights the crucial role of law enforcement in protecting citizens from fraud and ensuring the safety of the community.

COMPETITION: Win The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live on Blu-ray

All hail The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live as Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln – Guillermo del Toro’s Cabinet of Curiosities, This Life) and Michonne (Danai Gurira – Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War), the iconic zombie-slaughtering fan-favourites, return. Will the couple be reunited after many years apart in this hotly anticipated new chapter of one of TV’s best-loved franchises?

And to celebrate, we have a great competition for you and a chance to win a copy on Blu-ray

Synopsis:

Post The Walking Dead finale, lovers Rick Grimes (Lincoln) and Michonne (Gurira) have been separated for many years by an unstoppable force. Five years after being taken by the Civic Republic Military, Rick has desperately been trying to escape to find his love. Michonne, too, has been travelling far and wide while fighting horrors far worse than the dead in her unwavering, dangerous quest to be reunited with her soulmate.

Despite being deeply changed by the ever-evolving and increasingly brutal world around them, one thing remains true: they haven’t stopped searching for each other. The duo will stop at nothing for their homecoming. But as they’re thrust into new landscapes and the increasingly difficult challenges of new factions committed to waging war against zombies and humans, a peaceful reunion seems like an impossibility.

As human and zombie conflict thrillingly intertwine, the couples’ story continues.  Will they still have the bond they once had? Are they enemies, lovers, victims or victors? And, most crucially, will they be able to survive The Walking Dead…?

Order from Amazon - https://amzn.to/3X0dkIs

Enter now for a chance to win.

COMPETITION CLOSED

Quick Terms and conditions

1. Closing date 26-08-24

2. No alternative prize is available

3. When the competition ends as indicated on this page, any and all entries received after this point will not count and emails blacklisted due to not checking this page first.

4. Winners will be chosen randomly and will be informed via email.

5. Entries that come directly from other websites will not be accepted.