LEGAL Physicians Sue FDA Over Statements Disparaging Ivermectin

medic38572

TB Fanatic
by James Murphy November 29, 2022

Three prominent physicians have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over allegations that those federal agencies effectively banned the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19. Also named in the lawsuit were HHS head Xavier Becerra and FDA chief Dr. Robert Califf.


The three physicians — Dr. Robert L. Apter, M.D., Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, M.D., and Dr. Paul E. Marik — claim that the federal government overstepped its bounds when it directed physicians and the general public “not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19, even though the drug remains fully approved for human use.”


Recall that during the height of Covid-19 hysteria, ivermectin was widely ridiculed by many in the mainstream media as a “horse dewormer,” even though it had Nobel Prize-winning pedigree for its uses in treating malaria and had been approved for use in humans by none other than the FDA.


According to FDA attorney Isaac Belfer, the federal agency did disparage the drug but did not, technically, ban its use.


“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do,” Belfer said.


“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,” Belfer has said.


“They use informal language, that is true. It’s conversational but not mandatory,” Belfer said.


Among that “informal language” were several social-media posts, which strongly hinted that taking ivermectin, whether provided by a physician or not, was a fool’s errand, akin to using veterinary medicine.


One tweet from August 21, 2021 stated, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The tweet linked to an article from the FDA titled Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.


Another tweet dated April 26, 2022 read, “Hold your horses y’all. Ivermectin may be trending but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” This tweet linked to the same FDA article about why one should not use ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

1669772225142.png

An attorney for the physicians, Jared Kelson, says that the FDA went way too far in criticizing a medication that had been proven effective in certain antiviral applications.


“Conversational” or not, Kelson argued that the FDA words “clearly convey that [ivermectin] is not an acceptable way to treat these patients.”


The attorney for the physicians noted if the government “is going to label ivermectin a horse medicine or a horse de-wormer and promulgate the idea that it is only for animals, then the natural correlation is that doctors who prescribe it are horse doctors or quack doctors, which has played out.”




The FDA and HHS were very strong supporters of the experimental Covid vaccines and have disparaged other treatment options including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.


Government lawyers have moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the physicians’ complaints can’t be reasonably linked back to the FDA.


“It’s one of the most famously safe drugs in the history of human medicine. And when people did exactly what the FDA said to ‘Stop it. Stop it with the ivermectin,’ I don’t understand how that would not be traceable back to the FDA,” Kelson said.
One of the physicians suing the government, Dr. Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School and director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, was using ivermectin to treat Covid-19 patients in 2020. After the FDA’s “conversational” statements, the medical school demanded that he remove his ivermectin protocol from its website.


Also after the government’s badmouthing of ivermectin, Sentara cited the FDA in a memo directing hospital staff to stop using the drug for the treatment of Covid-19. Marik sued Sentara, claiming it was outrageous to block a treatment option without scientific evidence that the option was harmful or ineffective.


“This is really unprecedented in the world,” Marik said on a podcast with Dr. Mobeen Syed. “The doctor at the bedside decides what’s best for his or her patient. He takes responsibility or the patient. He understands the patient. He individualizes the patient.”


In the case of ivermectin, hospital and government functionaries “who have limited or no experience with COVID,” according to Marik, were guilty of telling physicians what to do regarding a known and frequently used antiviral drug. And in the process they attacked the drug itself as being a purely veterinary drug and painted physicians who might prescribe it as fools.

 

TammyinWI

Talk is cheap
Prayers going up for these drs. and all of the freedom fighters who want to do the right thing. May this go viral, may the truth be known everywhere, and praying they win, too. That way, ivermectin use would spread, and it should!
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
You know, when your boss... or a cop... tells you "conversationally" " you REALLY better not do that!"... it's an order, no matter how broadly they are smiling. This crap is getting ridiculous. I know a couple of doctors who were told clearly that their license would be in jeopardy if they prescribed it.

Add the FDA to the list of agencies who have lost ALL credibility.

Summerthyme
 

Mark D

Now running for Emperor.
The pharmacies here in town STOPPED ISSUING Ivermectin to folks who had prescriptions for it. Those same pharmacies went a step farther and told the corresponding doctors to STOP writing those prescriptions.

It was Clown World on steroids.
 

bassgirl

Veteran Member
You know, when your boss... or a cop... tells you "conversationally" " you REALLY better not do that!"... it's an order, no matter how broadly they are smiling. This crap is getting ridiculous. I know a couple of doctors who were told clearly that their license would be in jeopardy if they prescribed it.

Add the FDA to the list of agencies who have lost ALL credibility.

Summerthyme
Not to mention all the CEOs that told their organizations MDs the same thing. The pharmacies in AR couldn’t fill Scripts.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon
I would have thought Li'l Anthony would be named but maybe being that short paid off for him; nobody could see him.

There'll be more of this as time goes on; maybe he'll be one of the "In Crowd" next time . . .
 

artichoke

Greetings from near tropical NYC!
The pharmacies here in town STOPPED ISSUING Ivermectin to folks who had prescriptions for it. Those same pharmacies went a step farther and told the corresponding doctors to STOP writing those prescriptions.

It was Clown World on steroids.
US Customs was intercepting prescription ivermectin shipped in from overseas. The excuse was that US alternatives (their vax) were available, and the foreign product had not been checked for safety by the FDA. (Actually it was the vax that had not been checked for safety, by anyone.)

It was a whole-of-government effort to stop people from taking ivermectin.

Do pharmacies now fill prescriptions for ivermectin? Does US Customs now allow it in when prescribed by a foreign doctor? Are things any better now? I remember there was some new rule contrived whereby pharmacies would only fill prescriptions by nearby doctors, is that still operational?

I don't trust doctors anymore but I really despise the pharmacy profession. In most cases all they have to do is put the prescribed pills in a bottle, and they refuse to do that.
 

rondaben

Veteran Member
And in a suprising move for many...

I agree with the docs here. The FDA did pressure to not use Ivermectin. I question its effectiveness, but there's little doubt that there are hundreds of medications we use every day for off-label indications. Prescribed in rational doses its NOT harmful most of the times-certainly less so than third party sources like tractor supply that have other ingredients and less accurate concentration/doses. The same was true for hydroxychloriquine. Its used all the time, and prescribed correctly is useful for a number of indications. There may have been a valid point with restriction of it as there were shortages and overprescribing would have resulted in real harm to the patients that rely on it for their treatments. You can't say the same for ivermectin, however, as its use in this country is relatively unusual.

In summary, I don't think there is good evidence for its efficacy, but docs should have the ability to use it off label if they feel the benefit outweighs any risks.
 

bluelady

Veteran Member
And in a suprising move for many...

I agree with the docs here. The FDA did pressure to not use Ivermectin. I question its effectiveness, but there's little doubt that there are hundreds of medications we use every day for off-label indications. Prescribed in rational doses its NOT harmful most of the times-certainly less so than third party sources like tractor supply that have other ingredients and less accurate concentration/doses. The same was true for hydroxychloriquine. Its used all the time, and prescribed correctly is useful for a number of indications. There may have been a valid point with restriction of it as there were shortages and overprescribing would have resulted in real harm to the patients that rely on it for their treatments. You can't say the same for ivermectin, however, as its use in this country is relatively unusual.

In summary, I don't think there is good evidence for its efficacy, but docs should have the ability to use it off label if they feel the benefit outweighs any risks.
You say you don't think there is good evidence for its efficacy...have you looked at the studies referenced on the FLCCC site? I haven't because they're over my head, and I have a prescription so I don't need to arm myself to convince anyone. But I downloaded it all just in case.

Anecdotally, my symptoms from reactivated Epstein-Barr have improved since I've been taking it (though so far can't tell by numbers; still off the chart).
 

AddisonRose

On loan from Heaven
Absolutely they overstepped their bounds. Telling the doctors what to do and what not to do. And the doctors followed because the hospitals followed because the insurance company wanted it. I worked in nursing homes during the height of Covid and still do. The amount of unnecessary deaths was mind-boggling. Especially when there was a cure.
 

rondaben

Veteran Member
You say you don't think there is good evidence for its efficacy...have you looked at the studies referenced on the FLCCC site? I haven't because they're over my head, and I have a prescription so I don't need to arm myself to convince anyone. But I downloaded it all just in case.

Anecdotally, my symptoms from reactivated Epstein-Barr have improved since I've been taking it (though so far can't tell by numbers; still off the chart).
Yes I've seen them. I just don't think that there is sufficient data to say "yes, this works". I think there is certainly enough evidence to warrant further study of it for COVID as well as a number of other potential conditions that could show efficacy.

And if your doc (who knows your medical condition and situation specifically) thinks it would benefit they should be allowed to prescribe it. They are taking responsibility for it. That situation is preferable in my mind to OTC product being used by patients.

The FDA (and CDC) have handled the pandemic like the do everything else--pathetically. I can give you lists of things that are OTC that shouldn't be and that are Rx but shouldn't be. They are first and foremost political and economic creatures, with patient welfare concerns being quite a bit further down their priority list.
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
I would have thought Li'l Anthony would be named but maybe being that short paid off for him; nobody could see him.

There'll be more of this as time goes on; maybe he'll be one of the "In Crowd" next time . . .
one never knows - Li’l Anthony (aka PHONY TONY) may yet become “one of the in crowd” . . . We may see him OUT HANGING AROUND at some point in the future
 

kiawahman

Contributing Member
Goverment and health, now there's a contradiction.

The FDA's Healthy Food Pyramid chart still does not reflect what real healthy eating should look like according to hundreds of studies over decades of research the world over condeming foods made from grains, most dairy, many fruits, 'vegetable' oils, natural and processed sugar, saturated fats vs heart attacks and strokes. They also still recommend 225 to 325 grams of carbohydrates per day, a sure fire way for most people to become morbidly obese, swinging wide open the door to all sorts of disease that most write-off as simply bad luck, take their meds, and die young.

No wonder America is so fat and sickly, especially an increasing percentage of young people. The number of ppl with diabeties has more than doubled in the past 20 years, non-alcoholic fatty livers have made healthy livers the #1 most sought after organ for transplant, #1 cause of kidney failure, with as much as 85% of Americans being pre-diabetic insulin resistant.

At age 71, I have beat type 2 diabetes by eliminating grains, sugars (natural as well as processed), 'vegetable oils', processed meats and dairy products. I consume less than 20 total grams of carbs per day, yet eat some of the most delicious food and never hungry, not overweight, and have shed nearly all meds.

YOU are responsible for your own health! Your body is the single most important asset you will ever own, without it you're DEAD. Do not just accept anyone's word on what's best for you, not your doctor, and certainly not the freakin government! You are little more than a revenue stream for our 'health care' system.

Do your own objective research, get/stay healthy, and enjoy your quality of life.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
I did some time ago post an article about corruption between drug manufactures and the FDA and that it had been going on for a long time where the FDA just rubber stamped a drug to be used and bypass all the testing and reading reports that in some cases can take a few years to approve as safe or disapprove as not safe for human use.
Ivermectin was properly approved by the FDA for human use a long time ago and I guess they forgot or did not check their own records for this.
 

Rebel_Yell

Senior Member

FDA Drops Ivermectin Bombshell​

The Epoch Times via Zerohedge Authored by Zachary Stieber


Doctors are free to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a lawyer representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week.

“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said during oral arguments on Aug. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The government is defending the FDA’s repeated exhortations to people to not take ivermectin for COVID-19, including a post that said “Stop it.”

The case was brought by three doctors who allege the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with the statements.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2022, prompting an appeal.

“The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no,” Jared Kelson, representing the doctors, told the appeals court.

The FDA on Aug. 21, 2021, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter:

“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
The post, which linked to an FDA page that says people shouldn’t use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, went viral.

In other statements, the FDA said that ivermectin “isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19” and “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”

“FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Ms. Honold said.
A version of the drug for animals is available, but ivermectin is approved by the FDA for human use against diseases caused by parasites.

Ms. Honold said that the FDA didn’t purport to require anyone to do anything or to prohibit anyone from doing anything.

“What about when it said, ‘No, stop it’?” Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, on the panel that is hearing the appeal, asked.
“Why isn’t that a command? If you were in English class, they would say that was a command.”
Ms. Honold described the statements as “merely quips.”

“Can you answer the question, please? Is that a command, ‘Stop it’?” Judge Elrod asked.

“In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said.
“But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”
The statements “don’t prohibit doctors from prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose” Ms. Honold said. She noted that the FDA, along with the statements, said that people should consult their health care providers about COVID-19 treatments and that they could take medicine if it was prescribed by the provider.

“FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.
Judge Elrod is on the panel with Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement and Don Willett. All three were appointed under President Donald Trump.

Federal Law​

The plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter. They say they were professionally harmed by the FDA’s statements, including being terminated over efforts to prescribe ivermectin to patients.

Dr. Marik has noted that a number of studies support using ivermectin against COVID-19, as the FDA itself has acknowledged. Some other studies show little to no effect.

Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, Mr. Kelson said.

“This is something the FDA has never been able to do. And it’s a bright line,” he told the court, adding later:
“The clearest examples of where they have gone over the line are when they say things like, ‘You are not a horse, you are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.'”
Judges indicated they agree that the FDA lacks the power to give medical advice; Judge Clement said, “You’re not authorized to give medical advice.”

But Ms. Honold said the government “isn’t conceding that in this case.”

She also argued that Congress has empowered the FDA to protect public health and make sure regulated products are safe and effective, giving it the “inherent authority to further its mission by communicating information to the public about safe uses of drugs.”

A ruling in favor of the doctors would prevent the FDA from reporting on consumers suffering after cooking chicken with NyQuil or that opioid addiction is a problem, she claimed.

Mr. Kelson said that wasn’t accurate. “It’s when they step beyond that [and] start telling people how they should or should not be using approved drugs,” he said.

Ms. Honold also said that the courts can’t hold agencies accountable when they provide false or misleading information: “The FDA is politically accountable, just like all other executive agencies.”

 

Rebel_Yell

Senior Member

Federal Court Rules Against FDA Over Anti-Ivermectin Posts​

by Tyler Durden Authored by Zachary Steiber via The Epoch Times

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) likely overstepped its authority when it told Americans to "stop" using ivermectin against COVID-19, a federal court ruled on Sept. 1.

"FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers 'stop' taking medicine," U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote in the ruling.

The FDA has authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to convey information to consumers.

The FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic has issued multiple statements discouraging people from taking ivermectin against COVID-19.

Accompanied by a picture of a horse and a link to an FDA webpage on ivermectin, the agency wrote in one social media post: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

The page it linked to is titled, "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19."

Three doctors sued the FDA over its statements on ivermectin, arguing the agency cannot advise doctors on which drugs to prescribe.

Ivermectin is approved by the agency as an antiparasitic drug for both humans and animals.

Federal law gives the government immunity against legal actions, with some exceptions. One exception, known as ultra vires, is when an official acts outside their authority. Plaintiffs challenging the acts must show that the official was "acting ‘without any authority whatever,’ or without any ‘colorable basis for the exercise of authority,'" according to an earlier court ruling.

The FDA does have the authority to share data and facts, the parties agree. But they diverge on whether the FDA can issue recommendations on medical matters, such as treatments.

The FDA has claimed that the posts do not contain advice, stating in one brief that they were "informational statements" that "do not ‘direct’ consumers, or anyone else, to do or refrain from doing anything.” At the same time, the FDA acknowledged that the statements "provided recommendations" and "advise[d] consumers."

"Despite these concessions, FDA never points to any authority that allows it to issue recommendations or give medical advice," Judge Willett wrote.
"Rather, FDA argues that some posts included a hyperlink that leads to the update. The update, in turn, directs consumers to “[t]alk to your health care provider.” But not all of the social-media posts included such a link. And even for those posts that did include a link, the posts themselves offer advice, not mere information."
The update itself is problematic because of its title, "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19," the judge said. Even though it later says that people can take ivermectin if prescribed by a health care provider, "the trailing qualifier does not lessen the opening instruction’s imperative character," he said.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown ruled against the doctors in 2022, finding that doctors had not proven an exception to sovereign immunity and that there was no indication the FDA acted outside of the authority conferred by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Judge Brown erred on the second point as well, according to the new ruling.

"Nothing in the Act’s plain text authorizes FDA to issue medical advice or recommendations," Judge Willett said.
The judge, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement and Jennifer Walker Elrod.

Judges Willett and Brown were appointed under President Donald Trump. Judges Clement and Elrod were appointed under President George W. Bush.

The appeals court panel remanded the case back to Judge Brown to decide on whether the doctors have standing. The ruling followed oral arguments before the panel.

Dr. Robert Apter, one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a big win for doctors and for patients!"

The U.S. government has not yet reacted to the ruling.

 

TKO

Veteran Member
I am seeing articles now, even from the feds, that were previously hidden by the satanic government(and their employees at the social media sites) back during covid days. Articles and research around things that combat covid such as ivermectin, BPC157, and quercetin. Every one of those articles, and research pieces, were hidden before. I know. I searched exhaustively for them.
 
Top