A Myth Is Born: How CDC, FDA, & Media Wove A Web Of Ivermectin Lies That Outlives The Truth

New Mexico officials admit they were wrong: Two people died from covid. NOT from ivermectin. Yet the CDC generated the nation’s highest health alert and a thousand fake headlines on false cases.

Linda Bonvie  and Mary Beth Pfeiffer

When a Texas cattleman, seventy-nine, died last September in New Mexico after contracting covid, his family never anticipated the worldwide headlines that would ensue.

In a ballyhooed press conference, New Mexico Human Services Secretary Dr. David Scrase, the state’s top health chief, announced New Mexico’s first ivermectin “overdose,” soon adding a second fatality allegedly from “ivermectin toxicity.”

Now, Scrase has acknowledged that his repeated, what he called “offhand,” assertions were groundless. Two deaths were not caused by ivermectin, a long-used generic drug that was emerging as a covid treatment. Instead, he said that the pair died because they “actually just delayed their care with covid.” 

That is a big difference.

Scrase backpedaled on December 1 in a little-noticed online press briefing and only after we pressed his agency to provide evidence for its claims of so-called “ivermectin deaths.” Officials had repeatedly said they were awaiting a toxicology report on the cattleman’s death. Yet we learned that the report was never even ordered or done, and, moreover, the man’s death was ruled by the state’s coroner as being from “natural” causes.

Not a single media outlet reported Scrase’s admission, even as dozens, including the The Hill and The New York Times, had eagerly covered his original assertions about ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015.

“I don’t want more people to die,” read one early headline, quoting Scrase. “It’s the wrong medicine for something really serious,” Scrase said in the Times article.

Doctors, scientists, and toxicologists worldwide were puzzled by the assertions, because ivermectin is an extraordinarily safe, FDA-approved drug. A fixture on the WHO’s list of 100 essential medicines all hospital systems are recommended to carry, nearly four billion doses have been given in four decades.

New Mexico became a key player in a broad pattern of governmental deception late last summer to portray ivermectin as dangerous, in tandem with three related developments. Research strongly supported the drug’s efficacy against covid; prescriptions were soaring; and public health officials were single-mindedly focused not on treatment but on vaccination.

Keep reading

 Govt. continues to stall in releasing public documents on vaccine safety

A few updates on the battle to get FDA to release the licensure documents for Pfizer’s vaccine, which will hopefully address most of the inquiries on this matter:

1.      The FDA incredibly failed to send a representative to a federal court hearing in this matter on December 14th because of the “FDA’s protocols” regarding COVID-19. Meaning, despite the federal health agencies’ compliance rate with its mandatory vaccination policy of over 98.8% and its resounding claim that the vaccines are “effective,” the FDA is apparently still scared.  Its actions speak volumes and cast serious doubt on its words.

2.      Just prior to the Court hearing, the FDA released additional documents.  These included a report on vaccine safety and a report on vaccine efficacy.  There are many notable portions, but we will leave that to the scientists to analyze noting that, as the experts in the plaintiff’s group have explained, adequate analysis of the vaccines’ safety and efficacy is nearly impossible to complete without the full universe of documents.

3.      Contrary to what has been reported elsewhere, there has been no decision issued in this case yet and any documents produced to date have been produced by the FDA apparently in the hopes of softening any decision the Court may render. 

4.      Regarding the hearing this week, the public will get to read the transcript when it is released, which we expect should be soon.  In the meantime, it is noteworthy that the DOJ attorney who appeared without an FDA representative effectively argued that the American people and the plaintiff should just trust the FDA that it will produce documents as fast as possible even though it has now been over 110 days since the request was made to the FDA and it has produced on average only ~29 pages per day.  The FDA also continued to maintain that it does not want the Court to require it to produce at a rate faster than 500 pages per month as it continued to harp on Pfizer’s interests and its trade secrets, for the most part ignoring the interests of the American people.  For our part, we had the privilege of arguing many of the points that you can read below in our papers. 

Keep reading

An FDA Official Demanded Google Censor A YouTube Video The Agency Didn’t Like

Federal efforts to censor social media extend past discussions with companies like YouTube over broad guidelines about Covid-19 “misinformation” to specific demands for suppression of individual posts, an email from an FDA official reveals.

In the April 30 email, the Food and Drug Administration director of social media, Brad Kimberly, told a Google lobbyist about that the agency expected YouTube to pull a video touting the potential of a new monoclonal antibody treatment for Covid. (Google owns YouTube.)

“Overall, the video is very problematic when it comes to COVID misinformation,” Kimberly wrote to the lobbyist, Jan Fowler Antonaros.

“This video should be pulled.”

YouTube initially declined to remove the video. However, it has since been taken offline.

How often the FDA has made other censorship demands is unknown, because the agency is apparently hiding the existence of its efforts in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

In October, I asked the FDA and several government agencies to disclose both their internal discussions about me and their communications with social media companies like Twitter and YouTube about censoring Covid “misinformation” in general.

On Nov. 30, the FDA responded it had found some emails about me – mainly in response to questions I had asked in April and May for a story about VAERS, the federal vaccine adverse events reporting system. But FDA said it could not find any emails between its officials and social media companies that met my request.

Yet at the bottom of the emails containing the agency’s discussions about me was the email between Kimberly and Antonaros – apparently attached there by accident, as it had nothing to do with me.

Keep reading

FDA Asks Court for 55 Years to Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked a federal judge on Nov. 15 to give it until the year 2076 to fully release the documents in its possession tied to the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA’s request was made in a filing as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by a medical transparency group. The government told the court it has 329,000 pages of documents responsive to the FOIA request and proposed releasing 500 pages per month to allow for redactions of exempt material. At that rate, the FDA would fully release the records in question in just under 55 years.

The plaintiff, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), is a group of doctors and scientists, including Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.

The group filed the lawsuit (pdf) after the FDA denied their request to expedite the release of the records. The plaintiff and the defendant, unable to reach an agreement on a disclosure schedule, are seeking a hearing to argue their cases before the judge, who may eventually make a decision in that regard.

Keep reading

FDA’s Smoking Gun: Disinformation Campaign Targeting Ivermectin

It recently came to my attention that communication within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evidences the Gold Standard agency’s explicit involvement in the Ivermectin disinformation war. While the agency approves ivermectin as an anti-parasite medicine, physicians have increasingly embraced it as an off-label treatment for early-onset COVID-19. Over 60 studies around the world have, for the most part, found positive findings; however, the mainstream media embraced the handful that are neutral or had data problems, for example. Regardless of position, a disinformation campaign was initiated by the FDA and others to deter the use of the off-label treatment. See the email here.

In my investigative report: How ivermectin became a target for the ‘fraud detectives,’ published in TrialSite, I highlighted the relentless smear campaign against this life-saving generic drug by a certain group of scientists/bloggers, which has been amplified in the mainstream media. My report included the overtly biased and controversial ‘You’re not a horse’ tweeted by the FDA. However, the revelatory email communication within the FDA exposes the insidious nature of this government agency’s deep involvement as one of the major planners of this disinformation war against ivermectin. 

Keep reading

FDA Knew About Numerous Adverse Events For Children ‘Related’ To Pfizer Vaccine, Approved It Anyway

Here is the “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting October 26, 2021 Briefing Document” published by the FDA. Page 15 lists an “OVERVIEW OF CLINICAL STUDIES.” Two clinical studies are listed. The first clinical study listed is “Phase 1/2/3 Registrational Study C4591001,” which was sponsored by BioNTech and conducted by Pfizer. The other clinical study listed is “Phase 1/2/3 Pediatric Study C4591007,” which is listed as being sponsored by BioNTech and supported by Pfizer. “Pediatric Study c4591007” is an ongoing study and it was used by the FDA for approval of the vaccine for ages 5 to 12. That’s right. The FDA meeting’s data was taken from an ongoing study conducted by the very makers of the vaccine. The information below comes from the FDA Briefing Packet’s review of Pfizer Pediatric Study C4591007.

Keep reading

British Medical Journal Publishes Damning Report Claiming Pfizer Faked Vaccine Data in Trials

Leading medical journal The BMJ has published an incendiary report exposing faked data, blind trial failures, poorly trained vaccinators, and a slow follow-up on adverse reactions in the phase-three trial of Pfizer’s Covid jab.

Central to the exposé is Brook Jackson, who, for two weeks, served as regional director at Ventavia Research Group, the company contracted to assist with the pivotal trial. She provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails supporting her concerns.

Jackson reveals that Ventavia staff who conducted quality-control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were identifying. She repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, and patient safety and data integrity issues.

In a cited internal document from August 2020, shortly after the Pfizer trial began, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to “go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.” One employee was said to have been subsequently “verbally counseled for changing data” and “not noting late entry.”

Jackson reported her concerns to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but was fired later the same day on the basis that she was “not a good fit.”

Keep reading

FDA Admits MORE Serious Adverse Effects From Pfizer Vaccine ‘May Become Apparent’ With Widespread Use

A Fact Sheet for Vaccine Providers published on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website admits that “Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” The Fact Sheet was issued in response to the FDA granting an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 12 and older. The Fact Sheet also notes that the Pfizer vaccine carries risk of the heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis in addition to numerous other ailments that have been reported in clinical trials, and that “immunocompromised persons…may have a diminished immune response to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” Recent former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb (pictured above) is now on the board of directors of Pfizer. A contingent of recent Pfizer workers who serve on an FDA advisory committee are trying to get the FDA to authorize a Pfizer vaccine for children aged 5 to 11.

Keep reading