Thanks for your response and good works. I hear that. I also don't see how it is the 'same' as there would have been a lot more leverage from a win in court, especially as they have not changed their position one iota. I'll stand by my statement despite the firm's dissuasion and speculation about discovery. All the best.
Thanks for your response and good works. I hear that. I also don't see how it is the 'same' as there would have been a lot more leverage from a win in court, especially as they have not changed their position one iota. I'll stand by my statement despite the firm's dissuasion and speculation about discovery. All the best.
Precisely why the legal challenges going on in Costa Rica through the "Interest of Justice" group is even more important as it directly challenges the use of the "vaccines" as safe and effective; it goes beyond legitimizing treatments such as Ivermectin as important as that victory was!
Congrats on the victory to legitimize Ivermectin as a treatment. I'm just wondering, a little bit, how someone who listened to FDA before will now ignore the FDA spokesman's statement - that the FDA position hasn't changed following the out-of-court settlement.
"In exchange for Plaintiffs’ agreement to dismiss all claims in this case, Defendants agree to, within 21 calendar days:
"Retire FDA’s Consumer Update entitled, Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19, originally posted on March 5, 2021, and revised on September 7, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 1), while retaining the right to post a revised Consumer Update.
" Delete and not republish (1) FDA’s Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Exs. 4, 5), that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”; (2) FDA’s Instagram post from August 21, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 6), that reads, “You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.”; (3) FDA’s Twitter post from April 26, 2022 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 7), that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”; and (4) all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 1).
. . .
"Neither this Stipulation of Dismissal nor the actions described herein shall constitute an admission or evidence of any issue of fact or law, wrongdoing, misconduct, or liability on the part of any party to this litigation."
Yes, I agree that it's not that big a victory but put in the larger context it was at least a legal accomplishment we would not have expected in the first place.
I'm all in for the need to fight the mistruths and government overreach, I just don't see how spinning this settlement with further mistruths helps the movement - this is the basis of my objection. The spin makes us look silly to the 'normies'. (There was no legal accomplishment. There was an out of court settlement where the FDA agreed to remove some posts, and isn't required to do anything else. If any party 'won' it was FDA as they disappeared the lawsuit without any discovery or requirement for public retraction. FDA in fact have doubled down on their position regarding IVM. Read the settlement linked above, it is short. Read the FDA spokesperson statement, it is also short.)
I think this settlement proves that there was a 'safe and effective' alternative treatment for covid which would answer the comment often thrown at one in the form of - 'Oh but Covid was so awful and they had no treatment to stop people going into hospital, so the vaccines were essential.'. there for both cases in their own way will help unblinker the brainwashed.
Thanks for your response and good works. I hear that. I also don't see how it is the 'same' as there would have been a lot more leverage from a win in court, especially as they have not changed their position one iota. I'll stand by my statement despite the firm's dissuasion and speculation about discovery. All the best.
Precisely why the legal challenges going on in Costa Rica through the "Interest of Justice" group is even more important as it directly challenges the use of the "vaccines" as safe and effective; it goes beyond legitimizing treatments such as Ivermectin as important as that victory was!
Congrats on the victory to legitimize Ivermectin as a treatment. I'm just wondering, a little bit, how someone who listened to FDA before will now ignore the FDA spokesman's statement - that the FDA position hasn't changed following the out-of-court settlement.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24495557-fda-stipulation-of-dismissal
"In exchange for Plaintiffs’ agreement to dismiss all claims in this case, Defendants agree to, within 21 calendar days:
"Retire FDA’s Consumer Update entitled, Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19, originally posted on March 5, 2021, and revised on September 7, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 1), while retaining the right to post a revised Consumer Update.
" Delete and not republish (1) FDA’s Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Exs. 4, 5), that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”; (2) FDA’s Instagram post from August 21, 2021 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 6), that reads, “You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.”; (3) FDA’s Twitter post from April 26, 2022 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 7), that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”; and (4) all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 (ECF No. 12, Ex. 1).
. . .
"Neither this Stipulation of Dismissal nor the actions described herein shall constitute an admission or evidence of any issue of fact or law, wrongdoing, misconduct, or liability on the part of any party to this litigation."
Yes, I agree that it's not that big a victory but put in the larger context it was at least a legal accomplishment we would not have expected in the first place.
I'm all in for the need to fight the mistruths and government overreach, I just don't see how spinning this settlement with further mistruths helps the movement - this is the basis of my objection. The spin makes us look silly to the 'normies'. (There was no legal accomplishment. There was an out of court settlement where the FDA agreed to remove some posts, and isn't required to do anything else. If any party 'won' it was FDA as they disappeared the lawsuit without any discovery or requirement for public retraction. FDA in fact have doubled down on their position regarding IVM. Read the settlement linked above, it is short. Read the FDA spokesperson statement, it is also short.)
I think this settlement proves that there was a 'safe and effective' alternative treatment for covid which would answer the comment often thrown at one in the form of - 'Oh but Covid was so awful and they had no treatment to stop people going into hospital, so the vaccines were essential.'. there for both cases in their own way will help unblinker the brainwashed.