New York Attorney General Letitia James has reportedly begun to target doctors who prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19.
Journalist and former Fox News producer Breanna Morello, who left the network due to the unconstitutional vaccine mandate, has brought this alarming development to light.
“New York Attorney General Tish James threatened doctors that were writing out prescriptions for ivermectin to treat Covid patients. How do I know? I have the letter that was sent to a doctor. [Letitia James] needs to be dragged out in front of Congress,” Morello wrote on X.
The Marxist tyrants’ office has issued threats to healthcare providers who are prescribing ivermectin, a drug that has been utilized by some physicians as a treatment option against COVID-19.There have now been 103 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies in 29 countries that show a 61% lower risk in the early treatment of COVID-19 patients.The letter from the New York State Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) expressed concern about doctors advertising themselves as willing to prescribe ivermectin to New York State residents for preventing and treating COVID-19.
The OAG alleges that such advertising may mislead consumers about the effectiveness of ivermectin in fighting COVID-19 and could potentially violate New York law.The New York State Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) is extremely concerned that you are advertised as a doctor who is willing to prescribe the drug ivermectin to New York State residents in order to prevent and treat COVID-19. This advertisement can be found on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (“FLCCC”) website.
Ivermectin is not currently authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is only approved for limited human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
COVID-19 poses serious consequences to public health, and consumers are concerned as to how they can best protect themselves and their families. Your inclusion on the FLCCC website as a provider of ivermectin may mislead consumers as to the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing and treating COVID-19, as well as provide physician endorsement and/or approval.
Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse are already increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and adverse effects.
Ivermectin, even at doses approved for human use, can interact with other medications like blood-thinners, or cause overdoses that result in death. The National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) has determined that there is insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19.
Currently, the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 is by getting a COVID-19 vaccine and following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance for treatment, which does not endorse the use of ivermectin. Therefore, any misrepresentation that ivermectin is effective at combatting and/or treating COVID-19 violates New York law.
You are hereby advised to immediately cease and desist from 1) prescribing ivermectin to residents of New York State and 2) advertising on FLCCC as a provider who will prescribe ivermectin. These misleading claims about ivermectin violate New York’s consumer protection statutes, Executive Law § 63(12) and General Business Law Article 22-A §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit fraudulent and deceptive business practices and false advertising.
Within the next ten (10) business days, please contact the undersigned to confirm that you have so complied. Your failure to comply with this directive may result in further action by this office. Please be advised that the Office of the Attorney General is authorized pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) and General Business Law Article 22-A to bring suit to enjoin any deceptive acts and practices, and to seek restitution, damages, and penalties of up to $5,000 per violation (§ 350-d).”New York Attorney General Tish James threatened doctors that were writing out prescriptions for ivermectin to treat Covid patients.
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) June 13, 2024
How do I know?
I have the letter that was sent to a doctor.@TishJames needs to be dragged out in front of Congress. pic.twitter.com/0Pv0TFHvAr
In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.
“Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.
This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.
A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.
The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.
The FDA’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.
“The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”
“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” the agency’s lawyer continued.
In March 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
“FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.
These posts have since been removed from the FDA’s social media platforms and website.
17 comments:
It's good someone is going after these quack doctors.
...but going after the quack NIH and Fauci vaccine creators causing MILLIONS of adverse effects (vs Ivermectin) is bad? Wow. Do YOU have misplaced priorities.
ARF ARF! ARF ARF!
Minus: ...quack NIH and Fauci vaccine creators...
No. Because there are no "quacks" at the NIH. Fauci isn't a "quack". Those are real doctors and researchers you're referring to.
Quackery: A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman".
Ivermectin is snake oil as a treatment for covid. The vaccines have more adverse effects because far more people have taken them. People take the vaccines because they are recognized and approved. Ivermectin is NOT. Not in regards to covid.
The EXPERIMENTAL Covid-19 vaccine turned out to be worse than snake oil. It permanently harmed or killed hundreds of thousands of people. Ivermectin doesn't even come close, as it had been FULLY tested and approved since 1969.
ps - And it never did what it was promised, either, prevent the spread of Covid-19. Ivermectin, on the other hand, never made THAT promise.
1 in 800 vaccine recipients had a SERIOUS adverse reaction... WAY over the acceptable levels in regular drug trials. No wonder makers like AstraZeneca have withdrawn their vaccine from the market.
ps - It's a shame that Fauci's weaponized Monkeypox virus and vaccine didn't work out, huh? You remember all those gay festival outbreaks, don't you?
It launched an investigation in October 2022 after Bernard Moss, a renowned, 86-year-old poxvirus researcher at NIAID, described research he was planning to undertake in a news article in Science.
Moss was trying to understand the difference between the virulent clade I monkeypox virus strain causing outbreaks mostly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the milder clade II virus, which spread from West Africa around the world in 2022. In a first effort, Moss said he had inserted genes from milder clade II into a clade I virus, without seeing it become less dangerous in mice. He told Science he was next planning to explore the reverse transfer: whether inserting genes from clade I into clade II viruses made these usually milder viruses more lethal to mice.
Some researchers raised the alarm, worried the study qualified as risky GOF research because the resulting virus could be much more dangerous and even touch off a pandemic. Committee members say that when they sought more information from NIH and NIAID on the experiments, they were initially told the transfer of genes from clade I to clade II was never approved.
Then in March, NIAID revealed that its biosafety committee had signed off on a project that included such gene transfers in 2015, but that researchers never followed through; they only moved genes from clade II to clade I. The HHS spokesperson says, “The experiment referenced by the committee was never conducted, which the committee knows.”
But committee members have asked NIH for evidence that the gene swap in the other direction never happened. “It could be laboratory notebooks, it could be some kind of record, it could be emails,” a committee staffer said on a press call. And even if these experiments did not happen, members said their concern remains, “because it illustrates the lengths to which NIAID will go to evade outside oversight just for the sake of evasion.”
Minus: The EXPERIMENTAL Covid-19 vaccine turned out to be worse than snake oil. It permanently harmed or killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Everything you wrote is false.
Copilot: The mRNA vaccines used for COVID-19, such as the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), are not accurately described as "experimental". Here's why...
Development and Testing: The mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for over two decades. Researchers have been working on this approach since the early 2000s.
The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were developed rapidly, but not at the expense of safety. Rigorous clinical trials were conducted to assess their safety and efficacy. The mRNA-1273 vaccine, for instance, underwent extensive testing involving more than 30,000 adult volunteers nationwide.
Effectiveness and Safety: Clinical trial results showed that mRNA-1273 is 94.1% effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. It has been FDA-approved for emergency use due to its safety and effectiveness.
Reports of severe side effects are rare. Most recipients experience mild to moderate side effects, such as fatigue or muscle aches, which typically resolve within a few days.
There is no evidence that mRNA vaccines have caused widespread harm or death.
Misinformation and Context: Claims that "hundreds of thousands have died from COVID injections" are based on misinterpretations of data from sources like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS reports are not verified, and the system itself warns that reports can be incomplete, inaccurate, or coincidental.
The CDC has not verified any deaths directly caused by the approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.
In summary, the mRNA vaccines are well-established, rigorously tested, and have demonstrated safety and efficacy. Misinformation can spread easily, so it’s essential to rely on credible sources and scientific evidence when evaluating vaccine claims. If you encounter such misinformation, consider referring to reputable health authorities for accurate information.
Minus: Ivermectin, on the other hand, never made THAT promise. Ivermectin doesn't even come close, as it had been FULLY tested and approved since 1969.
Yeah, it is fully tested and approved for the treatment of parasitic worms. NOT covid. Of course it has never made any promises in regards to covid. Because it is ineffective against covid. Also, YES, it has been approved since 1969... for the treatment of parasitic worms... NOT covid.
Copilot: Ivermectin is an anti-parasite medication used to treat various conditions. Here are its approved uses...
Intestinal Strongyloidiasis: Ivermectin treats this parasitic infection caused by threadworms.
Onchocerciasis (River Blindness): It's effective against this disease caused by a parasitic worm.
Topical Uses: Some topical forms of ivermectin are approved for treating external parasites like head lice and skin conditions such as rosacea.
Regarding COVID-19: Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.
Clinical Trials: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated Ivermectin’s efficacy in treating COVID-19.
The ACTIV-6 trial investigated Ivermectin at a dose of 600 μg/kg once daily for 6 days in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The results showed that Ivermectin did not shorten time to sustained recovery or reduce hospitalization or death.
Another trial, ACTIV-6, used a lower dose of 400 μg/kg once daily for 3 days. Again, no significant benefit was observed.
Overall, the evidence does not support using Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19234.
FDA Position: The FDA has not authorized or approved Ivermectin for COVID-19 prevention or treatment in humans.
In summary, ongoing research and existing evidence do not recommend Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
\\Effectiveness and Safety: Clinical trial results showed that mRNA-1273 is 94.1% effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. It has been FDA-approved for emergency use due to its safety and effectiveness.
Yep.
By dRump.
Who shortened time of trials. ;-P So Bi-den would use it after elections, to show itself saver of humaity. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00
Millions have died due to Fauci's virus and mRNA vaccines experiments. He needs to be publically Drawn and quartered and body distributed to the offshore virology labs from which his new virus' have sprung.
Zero people have died due to the imaginary "mRNA vaccines experiments".
No, they died from the real ones.
...or explain the excess death numbers. Oh, right, CDC stop posting/ advertising them. Can't imagine why, they did it for YEARS prior to Covid.
...and during the epidemic, it was their "go to" metric of vaccine efficacy.
...in other words, "useful ONLY while it served them".
Post a Comment