DOD ‘not a licensed pharmacy distributor,’ and thus do not ‘need to comply with any laws’
A recent analysis of documents obtained by freedom of information lawsuits reveal COVID “vaccine” manufacturers such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are only “figureheads” in the production of experimental injections that are actually produced, fully controlled and distributed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
Research conducted by retired pharmaceutical industry executive Alexandra Latypova discovered that “kind of like an iceberg” these biological products are “made by a consortium of companies” that are “traditional and nontraditional suppliers to the Department of Defense.”
Though the public sees Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen being represented everywhere as the products’ manufacturers, in reality they “are involved [only] somewhat in some pieces of [the production process],” Latypova told Dr. Peter McCullough in an America Out Loud interview released November 8.
In addition, “possession [of the product] is never taken by anybody other than [the] U.S. federal government,” she said, resulting in the methods of production and contents of these products “cannot be traced.”
Furthermore, not only are these biologicals produced in this “opaque black box,” but they remain the property of the U.S. government “until they are injected into the person,” which means any American who obtains the vials in order to study the contents can be prosecuted for “stealing government property” or the like. And it remains a contractual violation for governments outside the U.S. to test these products.
DOD ‘not a licensed pharmacy distributor,’ and thus do not ‘need to comply with any laws’
Furthermore, since the organizational structure of the project explicitly names the DOD as “the chief operating officer of the entire enterprise” and they are “not a licensed pharmacy distributor,” Latypova said “they don’t need to comply with any laws” that govern that industry.
Therefore, though these products are not “vaccines,” or, according to Latypova, even medicines, the public naturally has presumed standard industry safeguards for such products to be in place, when this has not been the case.
For example, the distribution of these products “is not going through the licensed pharmacy distributors who are bound by a set of regulations called ‘good distribution practices,’” the scientist said.
Hence, though hospitals do not know, or can they verify, the contents or manufacturing process of these products, they just “essentially get the black box shipment and then they are supposed to inject it into people. As a doctor, you understand how illegal this is,” she told McCullough.
Severe variability in serious adverse reactions among batches points to grave violation of the law
The consortium of companies utilized by the DOD that manufacture such products include hundreds of names such as National Resilience, Snapdragon, Patheon, Becton, Dickinson, Corning, Grand River, Sio2, Texas A&M University, and many other universities, Latypova said.
It also includes Emergent Biosolutions that was the DOD’s “exclusive manufacturer of anthrax vaccine,” which also faced enormous safety issues, though it was “not forced on every person on the globe … [but just] our armed forces for a while,” she said.
More at: Lifesitenews.com
FDA Backtracks During Trial and Now Claims ‘Not Taking Ivermectin for COVID-19’ was Merely a Recommendation
There have been over 93 scientific studies on Ivermectin that showed significant benefits in treating COVID-19 in its early stages. The science is undeniable.
Despite this the US government condemned its use for COVID-19.
Fast forward to today…
During a recent hearing, government lawyers argued that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.
The Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas was for a complaint made by three doctors who claim the FDA’s statements on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic that has shown positive benefits in some trials against COVID-19, violated their constitutional right to practice medicine, Epoch Times reported.
“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,” he continued.
The FDA has approved Ivermectin for use in other vector-borne diseases, but not for COVID-19. The Food and Drug Administration warned the public via its Twitter account that Ivermectin is only safe for use in horses but not for human intake against Covid-19.
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” the caption reads.
A second post stated: “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”
The lawsuit claims that FDA actions violated the law by interfering with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine and used the wonder drug “Ivermectin” against Covid-19.
It asked the court to declare the FDA’s actions unlawful and prevent the agency from issuing directives or opinions on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
The three plaintiffs in the case are Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona.
“Can you understand the toll that that takes that I have young patients – young patients in the 30s and 40s, who I had to watch die – while the hospital prevented me from giving them the treatment I thought was in their best interest,” says Dr. Marik in 2021.
Houston Methodist health officials began investigating and suspended Dr. Mary Bowden last year for spreading “dangerous misinformation” about Covid-19 and promoting the efficacy of ivermectin, all because of FDA’s opinion.
The Nobel prize-winning, anti-parasitic drug, which has been deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases, is far safer than the potentially lethal, experimental Covid vaccines, the Texas doctor argued.
Dr. Meryl Nass, a Maine doctor with more than 40 years of experience cannot practice after her medical license was suspended for ‘spreading Covid misinformation’ and treating Covid patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Meryl Nass was also ordered to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation because of her action, all because of FDA’s opinion on Ivermectin and HCQ.
Ivermectin was first identified in the 1970s during a veterinary drug screening project at Merck Pharmaceuticals and has been used since then without any adverse events.
For almost three years, The Gateway Pundit has been reporting about the efficacy of Ivermectin and HCQ in treating COVID-19.
There have now been 187 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 138 peer-reviewed, and 93 comparing treatment and control groups that show a 62% improvement for early treatment in COVID patients. Ivermectin was adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).
More at: thegatewaypundit.com
Association between vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 infection and mortality
Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency affect approximately half of the US population, with increased rates in people with darker skin, reduced sun exposure, people living in higher latitudes in the winter, nursing home residents, and healthcare workers1. Populations with low levels of Vitamin D have also experienced higher rates of COVID-19.
Despite several studies pointing to an association between low levels of vitamin D and COVID-19, limited information is available regarding the potential for supplementation with vitamin D to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection. Expanding supplementation with vitamin D may present a new and unique opportunity to mitigate global infection rates, given that it is a widely available over-the-counter (OTC), inexpensive, and is associated with relatively few side effects.
We conducted a large-scale pharmacoepidemiologic study of the association between vitamin D3 and D2 supplementation and the probability of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 infection ending in mortality within 30-days in the Department of Veterans Administration (VA) in the United States. We also studied whether patient sex, race, vitamin D serum levels, and cumulative D3 supplementation dosage modified the association.
Among VA patients, vitamin D3 and vitamin D2 supplementation reduced the associated risk of COVID-19 infection by 20% and 28%, and COVID-19 infection ending in death within 30-days by 33% and 25%. Black veterans receiving supplementation had a larger associated reduction than whites, although both were statistically significant, and the difference was not accounted for by differences in vitamin D serum levels. Patients with low vitamin D levels at baseline benefited more from supplementation than patients with higher serum levels. Finally, patients receiving higher cumulative dosages and higher average daily dosages had a greater associated reduction in COVID-19 infection rates than patients receiving lower dosages conditional on similar vitamin D serum levels. The most substantial dose–response relation was found in patients with the lowest vitamin D serum levels. As a widely available, inexpensive, and safe treatment, vitamin D3 could be a helpful tool for reducing the spread of COVID-19 infection and related mortality and reducing racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings are especially relevant to the US population, given that about half of Americans are estimated to have sub-optimal vitamin D serum levels.
More at: Nature.com