Winning

      Comments Off on Winning

Winning

A federal appeals court allowed three doctors to sue the FDA over a series of website and social media posts condemning ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. The doctors took the approach that the FDA exceeded its authority by offering medical advice. In addition, the FDA’s messaging interfered with their own individual medical practices.

Initially the trial court had dismissed the suit finding that sovereign immunity barred them from suing.  The appeals reversed one part of the suit finding that the argument that the FDA had exceeded its authority plausible.

The FDA argued its posts were purely informational, which the appeals court rejected:

“On the contrary, all six of the Posts contain syntax that is imperative rather than declaratory (for example: “Stop it,” “Stop it with the #ivermectin,” and “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”) For that reason, we are unable to draw any analytical distinction between FDA making the Posts versus FDA telling Americans to “Stop it” with acetaminophen or antibiotics.”

The meat of the case is that the doctors were harmed professionally.  The doctors prescribed human ivermectin to their COVID-19 and alleged the FDA’s “horse” messaging and recommendation against off-label ivermectin use damaged their ability to practice medicine.

Dr. Robert Apter alleges he was twice referred to state medical boards for prescribing ivermectin off-label, with the referrals citing the FDA’s posts.

Dr. Apter and Dr. Mary Bowden allege pharmacies refused to fill their ivermectin prescriptions because of the FDA’s posts. Dr. Bowden claims she lost admitting privileges at a hospital after tweeting about using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

These doctors were saving lives.  The FDA’s actions harmed that ability as well.  Is it time to defund the FDA?

Why were treatments for COVID that worked (it worked for me) denigrated and smeared?  If a treatment existed for COVID, then, under the law, an emergency use authorization for the useless mRNA therapy could never have been granted.

I wonder how many people in the public health agencies benefitted financially from that approval?