09/06/2023 / By Ethan Huff
The first line of opposition to ivermectin all throughout the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic” was the government itself, and mainly the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, now that the FDA is being forced by the courts to concede that Americans are, in fact, free to take ivermectin for COVID if they so choose, rogue pharmacists have decided to stand in the way by refusing to fill people’s ivermectin prescriptions.
For whatever reason, some pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to interfere with patients’ prescriptions by making an executive decision for them that they should not be allowed to take ivermectin for COVID, even if that is what the doctor ordered as a treatment.
“This needs to come to an end,” says Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a medical practitioner and founder of the Coalition of Health Freedom. “In telling my patients what medicines they can and cannot have access to, we effectively have a large group of pharmacists practicing medicine without a license.”
Dr. Bowden says many of her own patients are running into trouble when they go to have their own ivermectin prescriptions filled. Pharmacists with “no accountability,” she says, are acting as medical dictators at the local CVS or Walgreens to fill or not fill ivermectin prescriptions depending on how they feel about the drug.
“I see it every single day,” Dr. Bowden added, noting that these rogue pharmacists remain fully unaccountable as they continue to “dictate patient care” without a physician’s license. “Enough is enough.”
(Related: Believe it or not, some people are curing cancer by taking a synergistic pairing of ivermectin and fenbendazole, another safe and effective anti-parasitic drug.)
There is simply no more excuse for holding a grudge against ivermectin simply because it was politicized by the left as “horse paste” all throughout the “pandemic.” Truth be told, ivermectin was first approved for human use back in the mid-1990s, and only became a problem after COVID was announced.
“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” are the words uttered by FDA attorney Ashley Cheung Honold from the Department of Justice (DoJ) in an August 8 statement before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
This declaration should have cleared up the matter once and for all, except for the fact that a handful of angry Branch COVIDian pharmacists have decided that the American public should not be allowed access to ivermectin. Keep in mind that in most of the rest of the world, ivermectin is widely available at a low cost and over the counter.
On August 17, the FDA issued further clarification basically stating that Americans are free to take ivermectin if they so choose, in conjunction with a prescription from their doctors. No pharmacist, in other words, can legally interfere with that, no matter how strong their anti-ivermectin bias.
“Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient,” the FDA said.
Dr. Bowden, one of the three doctor plaintiffs in the case against the FDA, was hopeful that this declaration from the FDA and the statements made by the agency’s lawyer would have put an end to all these problems at local pharmacies, but this has not yet been the case.
One of Dr. Bowden’s elderly patients says she was denied an ivermectin prescription, resulting in her health needlessly deteriorating.
“It’s hard to believe, but pharmacists are still blocking these potentially life-saving medications,” Dr. Bowden says. “The pharmacist didn’t talk to the patient and won’t know if the patient lives or dies yet had control of his care.”
Will the establishment ever stop waging war on ivermectin? Learn more at Tyranny.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
bias, conspiracy, COVID, covid-19, FDA, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, good doctors, health freedom, ivermectin, medical fascism, outage, pharmacists
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author