The Highwire with Del Bigtree - FDA BACKTRACKS ON IVERMECTIN

Episode Date: August 23, 2023

After years of attacks, the FDA has admitted in court that doctors have the right to prescribe Ivermectin. We take a deep look at one of the largest smear campaigns in modern history against a promising therapy. Why did so few medical professionals ignore this early treatment against the warnings of preeminent physicians like Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I want to take a minute here to celebrate maybe a small moral victory coming from that story for Americans. And really a positive step in something that we have tried so hard to do, which is get the government out of the doctor-patient relationship. I'm talking about ivermectin. Something we've covered here from the start of the pandemic response. The founders of this drug, Nobel Prize winners for finding it. FDA approved as an antiparacidic been given to billions of people around the world. It's been called a wonder drug like penicillin and aspirin.

Only problem it's ever had was it was found to have antiviral activity at the time when the world was experiencing one of the once in the century virus. And when that happened, this is how the media treated it. Remember? Words of warning earlier this week, the Department of Health reiterated its warning against the use of a drug called ivermectin. A new false cure for COVID in high demand. Ivermectin. Be aware that Ivermectin has not been proven as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19. Rumors circulating on social media about its use specifically for COVID-19 in India. That is not based in reality or fact. The FDA, the NIH, the World Health Organization, and academic institutions across the world, not just the U.S. are not recommending Ivermectin for COVID management.

With doctors unwilling to prescribe it for COVID, people have. have rushed to farm supply stores, buying and taking large doses meant to deworm livestock. Some tractor supply stores even posting these signs alerting people that the ivermectin dewormers and injectables they carry for animals have not been approved by the FDA for people and could result in injury or death. This story blows my mind because you've got some anti-vaxxers who are unwilling to take an FDA-approved vaccine. Millions of people have taken at this point, by the way. But at the same time, they are willing to put a horse deworming medicine in their bodies. What would you tell someone who is considering taking that drug? There's no

clinical evidence that indicates that this works. There is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19. Doesn't treat COVID, but could put you in a coma. It is literally painful for me to have to watch that level of incommate. competence. And I mean, in all honesty, I suppose I have to have empathy because it's just sheer stupidity and lack of journalistic integrity or certainly talent or an investigative ability. When I hear the one news anchor there saying, you know, anti-vaxxers, you know, won't take this FDA-approved product, but they'll go ahead to use horse paste. I mean, the opposite is true. All you had to do was investigate for about three and a half minutes to see that the vaccine was

being rushed with literally no safety trials and ivermectin a drug that's being used worldwide constantly by men, women, children of all races, all ethnicities, every age known, every malady, having no side effects for very little. One of the safest drugs we know in the world and you're telling me, you know, you're calling it horse pace and I'm supposed to trust the FDA. I mean, it's not their fault, right? They think the FDA tells the truth. If you're watching the high wire, you know that that's as biggest sham as the fact that the government's got your back in Maui right now. But I mean, it's just, it's, we're going to play that probably until the day I die because remembering that, remember those fools, and remember that your cable bill still funds every one of those idiots

to lie to the world on a constant basis. Remember that when you're thinking whether or not you should fund us at all, you are funding those morons every day of your life. There they are. That's who you fund. Okay. So, stepping back. Don't complain too much. All right. Looking at the coordination of it all, what we probably just lived through was one the largest smear campaigns in our lifetimes against a single therapy.

Yeah. And why are we saying that? Well, there's been a rapid switch here. FDA attorneys representing the FDA in an appellate court have just reversed what we knew about this drug publicly when it came to like that news reporting. Take a listen to this. This is actual court tape. Your Honor, FDA has multiple overlapping sources of authority that I'm happy to walk through.

That gives FDA authority to convey information to the public. But here, FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs. These statements are not regulations. They have no legal consequences. They don't prohibit doctors from prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose. Quite to the contrary, there are three. instances I'd like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe Iromectin to treat COVID.

It's literally like listening right now to we didn't block the roads in Maui. It's the same thing. That's the government lying to you right there, saying, oh, we never, we never like shut it down. We didn't stop it. In fact, the FDA has multiple places where we say you can prescribe, you know, prescribe eye Ivermectin if you feel it's appropriate. Doctors always had the authority.

I don't know what you're talking about. And what that was from was a Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans. And this is revival of a lawsuit. So this is the headline here. If anybody's tracking this, how this story is going. Ivermectin proponents asked Fifth Circuit to revive lawsuit against FDA. That lawsuit was originally killed in December 2020 by Judge Jeffrey Brown. And Jeffrey Brown, this was the Ivermectin lawsuit.

He wrote this in his decision. as this is the final decision, as the complaint does not allege facts that overcome the defendant's assertion of sovereign immunity, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. That's the FDA. FDA has sovereign immunity. So basically they can do what they want. Right. Here you have this Department of Justice attorney representing the FDA saying, doctors always had this. But remember, two of the people in this suit, two of the three doctors, one of them is Paul Merrick, someone we've had on our show several times. And if we go to the news page at the high wire, we just recently put this up, American Board of Internal Medicine targets Dr. Merrick and Corey citing claim of spreading misinformation,

and they were basically investigating them because of the FLCCC protocol, which involves Ivermectin and other early treatments for COVID. And there's what they've said about that publicly. So they're up under a microscope by their medical board. Pierre Corey literally wrote the book on Ivermectin called War, the War on Ivermectin. You can get that at Ican Decide.com. shop if you want to look at this. It's flying off the shelves now. By the way, here it is, folks. This is an ICAN printed book. This is the moment to get this. This is a huge story right now. If you don't already own this book, it is time. Get it to all of your friends because everyone is now starting to pay attention. They're still waking up. Believe it or not, we have some waking

up to do. We've got a few people stragglers out there that are starting to wake up to this concept. Get that book. Get it to them as a birthday gift or just a friendly neighbor. a good very important that people understand this because it's not just, the thing about this book is it's not just about Ivermectin, though that's the title. It's about this, the repurpose use of drugs. What you don't understand is the drug companies are basically getting rid of drugs. They just want to burn the drug as soon as it's off patent because they can't make any money off of it anymore.

They want their new drug to be there. So now it's Pax-Lovin. We got Pax-Lovin. Now forget Ivermectin throat and the garbage doesn't work. Not true. We may be burning cancer, you know, cures. We may be destroying our future ability to handle some illness. And all of that's because the moneyed interest in pharma.

This is a very important book that just uses ivermectin as a story in how to get to this conversation about should we be destroying every drug as soon as it's off patent because pharma doesn't make any money from it. Or should we be looking into what other things they may be able to cure and help us with? So really important story. And that's the greater picture here as we're going through this story. This story is a template that can be used on anything, on vaccination, on anti-vaxxers, this coordinated assault. Remember, the FDA says that doctors always can prescribe Ivermectin. Well, apparently Dr. Mary Bowden didn't get that memo because she, according to the headlines,

was up her medical board, investigated her Texas Medical Board files complaint against Houston doctor for prescribing Ivermectin, basically. She treated over 5,000 patients with this early treatment without a single death. Ivermectin, she used vitamin D, intravenous vitamin C, zinc. Right. I just want to just take a moment to all those doctor friends out there that I have that did have patients die, that don't think Ivermectin works. 5,000 patients, folks, zero deaths.

Did you have that record? Because if you did it, you have some atonement. You have some time. You got to think about it before you die. Don't want you to meet your maker and not having addressed the fact that you were fooled and you were dangerous to humanity. And so the medical board, what do they do? to Dr. Bowden, they said, well, you have to pay a fine, you have to go through reeducation

classes. She said, no, this is what the headline look like. Dr. Mary Bowden rejects Texas Medical Board compromise, requests public hearing over COVID treatments. It sounds like a great idea because the science is really there. Let's look at this screenshot here. This is at FLCCC. This is Ivermectin to date. This is the most recent 98 studies from over 1,000 scientists, over 130,000 patients in 27 countries, 50 of those studies shows a 50% lower mortality for patients being treated with Ivermectin. And remember, this got so bad during the pandemic, doctors trying to get this drug to their patients that states, over 12 of them, had to start pushing legislation to enshrine that in their bills to protect these doctors from the state medical boards coming down on them.

Lawmakers push legislation to protect doctors who prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19. Yeah, that really happened. it really got bad around August 2021 when this study came out. This was a meta-analysis, a large systemic review. And these researchers concluded there was moderate certainty evidence finds that large reductions of COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. They say using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. Remember that severe disease where they said, we don't have anything for you. Just wait around, you can't breathe, then go to the hospital and probably put on a ventilator. The researchers said the apparent

safety and low cost suggest Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. That sentence right there is scary. Significant impact. I want to use this moment again because folks, we all just want to put this in our view of mirror. This is, this is dangerous for us. This is dangerous that our government worked this way. And let's go ahead and use the analogy looking at the Maui fire right now. You have the government saying there's a down power line here. We cannot let you down this road. In this case, we have a drug that people are saying use. could work, but we can't, there's a slight danger. It might not work for you, so we are not going to let you near it at all.

Meanwhile, you're backed up a road. There is fire burning all around you. You just, I will take my risk with this stupid power line. My house is burning. Our cars are catching fire here. I'm sorry because we haven't done a proper study. This fire that's burning right here. We're going to get you all killed, which is exactly what happened.

And I want to say this, you know, on the record. I've said it a million times. I don't care about a study. in the middle of this, when we had this, we had a drug that was safe being used by billions of people. The only trial you should be doing is, is it going to kill me? Does it somehow work with COVID and get me killed? Or if it has any potential of working, this was such an amazing moment in medicine where they literally said, no, you are not allowed to use anything.

Nothing at all. Doesn't matter if your doctor thinks it works, we're going to stop that. Hold on, you're not allowed to use anything at all. For the first time in medicine, the best way to deal with this virus, which we're telling you, is to do nothing at all. Don't use a product that's been proven to be safe with billions of people around the world. God forbid it might actually work. And where was the study that showed it was killing people? That's the only study you should have used if you were going to try and stop this. Is it killing people? Is it suddenly killing people this is totally a safe drug? If not,

shut up and get out of the way. Let me drive past the power line. I got people behind me that are burning on fire right now. They're going to die. And the doctors and pharmacists were literally turning people away. And why was, so that last sentence in that study, that this could have a significant impact on the pandemic globally. That's a very scary statement to people that are making a new vaccine trying to push this vaccine therapy. And so why?

Because the EUA, the emergency use authorization specifically states at the FDA's page right here that the FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency, to diagnose, treat, prevent, blah, blah, blah, you go all the way to the bottom, it says when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate approved and available alternatives. If Ivermectin was allowed to fly, to be used, and it was found to have a significant impact, those vaccines never would have shipped out. Warp speed never would have happened. This never would have been a conversation. And this was one of the studies out of Peru in 2020. They looked at, remember, South America,

America, India, so many other countries already have these things on stockpile because they're using them on a regular basis as an anti-paracitic. So they had these. They're ready to go. And in Peru, that 25 states, they were using these. They just said, we have these. They've been shown to work by some studies, just given to people because we don't have anything else. And what did the researchers find? This was a pre-print at the time. So all the people that were saying, like the Fauci's and the people in the media were saying, well, there's really no good evidence.

It's pre-prints. They're not peer-reviewed. This one's peer-reviewed now. At the time as a pre-print, now it has the goal standard. Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths, average 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive Ivermectin use. As determined across all 25 states, these reductions in excess deaths correlated closely with the extent of Ivermectin use. You go to the chart on this study and you look at the top left, maximal Ivermectum distributions through operation. 30 days at that column, the first highlighted column, negative 74.4% lower deaths, 45 days, 86.2% deaths.

Then you go to the next column, just the medium use. You're looking at half, it cut the deaths in half, negative 52%, and so on. So you have a dose-dependent response from this either-and-examination. Which is literally like the best evidence you can have that a product is working. The less you give it, the less effect is has. You give a little bit more, a little better effect, even more, even better effect. This is what Pierre Corey was saying. You know, you have really the best evidence without stopping down and waiting for five years to do long-term trials.

And I want to say this. People say you're being hypocritical. On one hand, you want long-term trials for vaccines, but why not for Ivermectin? I know some of you are writing this right now. Here's why. Ivermectin already has been proven to be safe. It's being used by billions of people. It doesn't need a safety test. And as far as efficacy, if it's perfectly safe, then allow me to use it.

Let me take my risk with it because there's nothing else available. On the other hand, you rushed a vaccine that was killing animals and animal trials was a total disaster. We found out after the fact that you were rushing so fast at the speed of science that you never tested to see if the vaccine could even stop transmission, which it can't, didn't. And it will be a problem we're going to talk to Gert Van and Bosch about in just a moment. So that's the difference. I want long-term trials for products that are brand new, that are brand new doing something and going to be going to human bodies. For a drug that has been out there forever and shows to be safe, all then we have. have to say is, is it working? If you think it works, maybe the placebo effect is all you need.

What we know is it's not going to kill you a pretty safe drug. That's where I'm out on that. And these studies out of Peru, out of Brazil, doctors had access to him, pharmacists had access to him. The FDA definitely had access to him. In fact, Dr. John Farley definitely had access to him when he did an interview with the American Medical Association in August of 2021, right when that paper came out saying that Ivermectom would have a significant impact globally. And he was asked directly point blank, what do doctors say if a patient comes in and has for hyvermectin? Listen to this response. There are many physicians out there who have, you know, patients coming to them that are asking

for the drug. They've read about it. They've heard about it. You know, what is your advice about how a physician should respond to requests like that? Yeah. So as I was thinking about this, I was reading the paper this morning. And there was a study just done in Maryland interviewing people who had not yet been vaccinated. And in this group, the person they trusted the most for information about COVID

was their primary care physician. So know that if they're sitting in your exam room, even if they're pushing back and giving you a hard time, they trust your recommendations. So I would encourage them to get vaccinated for prevention. If they're infected and qualify for monoclonal antibody, they should be treated. And if they're infected and at low risk for disease progression, insist on ivermectin, the best way for them to help everyone know if the drug helps at all is to join a clinical trial and get treated with a safe formulation of the drug. That is so, I mean, it's so underhanded. Oh yeah, if you're going to get ivermectin, just get in a trial that we aren't funding or doing

and you'll be impossible to find it anywhere. But it shows you he's couching, you know, he's couching, he's hedging his bet there, right? Which is saying, this is probably going to prove to work. It looks pretty good to me, but I work for the FDA, so, I'm going to tell you stick to trials. Good luck with that. Totally reckless in retrospect, looking at this with all the hype gone. He's saying patients come in. They're obviously probably having problems saying, look, I think I have this. I may have problems breathing. Can I get this ivermectin? No, go ahead and take

the vaccine and maybe go online and find yourself clinical trials. So in a couple of years, you'll know if it actually works. So the Department of Justice attorney says, we've always allowed, we never told doctors they couldn't, they couldn't prescribe apomectin. Really, this is a this is a Twitter account that went out to the world, the FDA's Twitter account, this is what they wrote. You're not a horse, you're not a cow. Seriously, y'all stop it. And then you click on that link, and it actually goes directly to a webpage from the FDA that literally says why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. But let's just put all that side for a second, because those type of communications work their way down to the individual hospitals and pharmacies and

medical boards. So it wasn't the FDA anymore. It was the boss in the office next to you that was keeping an eye out and individual doctors. This is an internal email from one of our previous guests from a hospital system in New York. August 2021 when it was all kicking off, this is what it says. In order to provide optimal patient care, it is imperative that treatment decisions are based on evidence-based data, not anecdotal opinions. With respect to the use of ivermectin, it has been and will remain until further notice the policy and practice of Rochester Regional Health and its hospitals to not incorporated this medication into the medical algorithm for the treatment of COVID-19. So it's not even an option. It's literally disappeared in the computer system. You can't even write

a prescription for it if your doctor. It goes on to say if a family references Ivermectin, it is advised that all staff provide consistent message that the medication is not supported by evidence-based data nor approved by the medical agencies that approve medications and, opine on the medications, safety, and effectiveness. So you're a patient in that hospital. Your doctor won't prescribe it. So you go to other doctors in that hospital. You go to other nurses. Everyone is an automaton saying the same thing. We have the same message. We cannot prescribe this. So you're done. And so you're a doctor. You want to buck the system or you're a pharmacist. Unfortunately, the FDA is sending out letters like this to the state medical boards.

This was to the chief executive officer of the Federation of State Medical Boards from the FDA. The purpose of this letter is to bring to the attention of the Federation of State Medical Board's information related to drug products containing Ivermectin being offered for sale with claims that such products treat or prevent COVID-19. Recently, FDA has received complaints about compounding pharmacies selling drug products containing Ivermectin, claiming that they could treat or prevent COVID-19. So it goes on to say, although clinical trials assessing Ivermectin tablets for the prevention of treatment or treatment of COVID-19 and people are ongoing, current available data

do not show that ivermectin is safe or effective for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. That's not true. Current available data did show it at the time. So they're lying to the state medical boards. And now if you're a pharmacist, you have that hanging over your head because best believe if you're a pharmacist, you received an email that communicated that letter to you saying, we just got a letter from the FDA, all compounding pharmacies or doctors, you don't touch these things.

And that's where the medical board starts getting it on the high horse and saying, anybody prescribing this is going to get their license looked at and really. reviewed and their documents. So I think really just in this moment, for all of those that did go to these compounding pharmacies that put it all on the line to provide ivermectin and we were getting for our families and others, probably time to deliver some families to those groups for standing and taking on that risk under that heat and just say thank you for being a doctor, thank you for being an American, thank you for being open-minded and being there for us.

These were critical moments and those of us that survived, many of us, and especially those that were, you know, failing in health that really needed these things, lives were saved by those compounding pharmacists and those doctors that were brave enough to be there for their patients. And I want to show one image just to put a cap on this segment here. This was shared by Pierre Corey. I believe it was from Chief Nerd on Twitter. He's doing a lot of great work on this topic. And you can see here, this is the vaccine rollout distributed vaccines from the beginning from the beginning, from the first shots, all the way to current present day. You can see this huge wave of the vaccine.

Millions of people took it in the United States. And then right at the end there, no one's taking anymore. That's when the FDA attorney, the Department of Justice Attorney says the FDA allows doctors to prescribe this.