Eight states, along with Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are now prohibited from administering monoclonal antibodies for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that the passive vaccination treatment is ineffective against the latest strain of Omicron (Moronic).
Sotrovimab, which is still being administered in the other 42 states, can no longer be used in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to reports.
The FDA claims that in May 2021 when emergency use authorization (EUA) was granted to sotrovimab, it was a relevant treatment for the Fauci Flu strains that were in circulation at that time. The drug is not, however, effective against the BA.2 subvariant of Moronic, the FDA insists.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims to have conducted genomic surveillance on BA.2, which is allegedly responsible for 12.6 percent of all new Wuhan Flu cases in the United States as of March 5.
The CDC is projecting (more like writing a script for) that BA.2 will soon account for 35 percent of cases, particularly in the Northeast. Because of this claim, the FDA does not want anyone in New England to even try to find relief from monoclonal antibodies.
Why is the FDA interfering with what doctors are allowed to prescribe to their patients?
It is being reported that in those states where sotrovimab is now prohibited by the FDA, BA.2 now accounts for the majority of new Chinese Virus cases. This would suggest that the FDA’s ban is, of course, misguided.
The reason we say of course to this is that the FDA always seems to be working against the things that actually help people while actively promoting other things that harm Americans – but that make Big Pharma more profitable.
In this case, the FDA is cutting off access to a drug that some people have found relief from, all because the agency insists that it does not work against some new phantom strain of a coronavirus bioweapon.
CDC head Rochelle Walensky has already said that BA.2 is no big deal and probably will not become an issue. Why, then, is the FDA butting its nose into the availability of monoclonal antibodies?
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Vir Biotechnology, the two manufacturers of sotrovimab, say they are planning to challenge the FDA’s decision by sending literature showing that higher doses of monoclonal antibodies are, supposedly effective against BA.2.
It is important to remind our readers that there is still no proof that “covid,” as they call it, even exists as SARS-CoV-2. The alleged virus has never been isolated, and neither have any of its alleged mutations.
“We will continue to monitor BA.2 in all U.S. regions and may revise the authorization further to ensure that patients with COVID-19 have effective treatments available,” the FDA said in a statement.
“Health care providers should also monitor the frequency of BA.2 in their region as they choose appropriate treatment options for patients.”
Another monoclonal antibody option called REGEN-COV, made by Regeneron and promoted by former President Donald Trump, was also cut off from the FDA’s EUA designation for the same reasons.
“The FDA should not be getting involved AT ALL with doctors treating their patients,” suggested someone at The Epoch Times.
“Making it known that something is not effective with a particular variant and the studies behind it is one thing. But banning doctors from using it is pure bullbrownstuff. If someone is dying, throw everything at it INCLUDING the kitchen sink and get out of the way while doctors do their job of practicing medicine.”
Sources for this article include:
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.