Court rulings vindicating doctors, 'misinformation spreaders', Ivermectin, and parents

Julie Reeder

Publisher

In recent weeks, there have been notable court rulings that deserve our attention, and some of the comprehensive accounts are featured in this edition. Amid the COVID pandemic, while mainstream news outlets engaged in mockery and name calling, our commitment led us to continued research and discussions with medical professionals. We stood firm against the derogatory labels and negative rhetoric aimed at those of us who approached the situation critically, rather than blindly following the narrative.

When did seeking input from experts on the frontlines become "extremist" or "dangerous"? When did questioning governmental actions, particularly as journalists, become inappropriate? This inclination to question is a fundamental aspect of our role. An example that resonates is a local doctor I spoke to during the pandemic, who preferred anonymity due to potential harm to his reputation and funding.

Why is it frowned upon to probe the motives behind information censorship and the repercussions faced by professionals? These questions acquire heightened significance in light of recent court rulings against the FDA regarding Ivermectin. I believe this story is being underreported because it makes the government and the mainstream media look bad. The impact of this story is important.

Recall the time during COVID when Ivermectin was dismissed as "horse paste" and labeled unsafe. This was a baseless characterization from the start. Consider the chorus of respected physicians advocating for Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as effective and cost-efficient early COVID-19 treatments. Yet, the FDA launched a derogatory campaign, ridiculing these treatments and dissuading their use. Why?

Nightly news broadcasts even joined in, poking fun at individuals who trusted their doctors. Our government went so far as to collude with social media platforms to suppress frontline doctors, and spreading misinformation through sponsored advertisements. However, in a significant turn of events, a court ruling on Sept.1 found the FDA overstepped its boundaries by advising against ivermectin use against COVID-19. U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett's statement highlights this: "FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers 'stop' taking medicine."

The FDA's intrusion between doctors and patients is unwarranted. Note the wealth of global data from countries like India, Peru, Africa, and the USA, where doctors were advocating for Ivermectin with great success. But advocates faced criticism as "purveyors of disinformation" despite their expertise. This struggle was aided by Republican Senate leaders like Ron Johnson, who held hearings to counteract media misinformation and censorship. Covering these hearings was crucial, as they provided the alternative perspective vital for our community.

These doctors, scientists, military personnel, and university professors weren't conspiracy theorists but valiant healers. Some paid dearly for their stance, losing jobs or licenses. Yet, they have been persevering in courtrooms and achieving victories, even in California.

The reputation of Ivermectin was so tarnished, that even the government in India, where effective Ivermectin-based household treatments were proving amazing and saving lives, was hesitant to disclose that it was Ivermectin in the treatments given to households.

Consider a comprehensive study from the NIH's PubMed by actual scientists, unrelated to industry influence: "Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities." Notably, Ivermectin's inventor received a Nobel Peace Prize for its vital contribution.

Challenging the pharmaceutical industry's interests, Ivermectin's affordability posed a problem, thus necessitating a campaign to undermine its reputation. The true issue lies in the pharmaceutical companies' inability to profit immensely from a safe, effective remedy, contrary to their experimental vaccines. The other true issue is how the government and the media and the health industry just lost their objective minds and went along, unquestioning and throwing out any critical thinking.

Startling new CDC Nursing Home Data also demonstrates that COVID-19 vaccines raised elderly mortality risks. An analysis by Michels et al reveals obscured mortality data in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Trials, suggesting they knew about much higher deaths among the vaccinated but concealed it during the approval process. Dr. Peter McCullough, in a recent substack highlighted the omission of updated data, which showed more deaths among vaccinated trial participants than the placebo group.

Furthermore, the CDC's revelation about higher variant infection rates overall among the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, raises questions. The timing coincides with President Biden's funding announcement for a new vaccine against a fresh variant, suggesting a perpetual cycle. As mask mandates resurface, it's pertinent to note accumulating data that questions their efficacy as well. There is also evidence that wearing masks is actually more dangerous.

In the midst of this, our vigilance is key. It's acceptable to inquire before embracing experimental substances. It's valid to ponder the constitutionality of imposed beliefs and actions. Our medical choices are ultimately our responsibility. Embracing the truth might not be popular, but it could save your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Another noteworthy court decision this week:

Moving forward, a landmark ruling concerning parents and schools is poised to reshape dynamics. Parents contest teacher unions, administrations, and government officials to safeguard their right to know about student identity changes. A recent court verdict favored a mother who sued her school district, alleging the encouragement of her child's gender transition without her knowledge. This precedent-setting case awarded $100,000 to the family and hints at more battles to come.

Our readers' intelligence stems from our coverage of these intricate issues. The intricate dance between medical debates, governmental actions, and societal shifts necessitates ongoing vigilance. Through this, we strive to illuminate the multi-faceted aspects of these crucial narratives.