FDA admits that Ivermectin is ok for human use

The argument was that the FDA is not supposed to practice medicine but advise on it. Just like all globohomo arguments they never seem to be able to understand any word or chain of words in the english language and I am sure all others. Anyway, they lost this case and so now they had to make a public statement that they were wrong and they do not have the authority to get between the doctor patient relationship. They also had to admit that ivermectin is a drug that doctors have the authority to prescribe for COVID. How many doctors were fired for this? Can they sue the FDA for back pay and emotional pain and suffering? I have no idea, but IMHO, they should be able to.

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.”

Command or Not
“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.”

In Japan, they said NO to it. So who knows.

a reply to: greendust

It has been known to be okay in small dosages and dependent on circumstances.

So they didn't admit it.

a reply to: greendust

They also had to admit that ivermectin is a drug that doctors have the authority to prescribe for COVID. How many doctors were fired for this? Can they sue the FDA for back pay and emotional pain and suffering? I have no idea, but IMHO, they should be able to.

It's okay now of course.

They just had to make sure when the " pandemic" was at it's highest that Doctors were not prescribing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine in effect saving peoples lives.

That kill count needed to stay high .

It's all in the past now .....

There's going to be lots of, "Sorry, our bad" over COVID and expect everyone who was violated to just move on -- just like the Japanese in WW2 internment camps.

originally posted by: Halfswede
There's going to be lots of, "Sorry, our bad" over COVID and expect everyone who was violated to just move on -- just like the Japanese in WW2 internment camps.

And the Americans living in Japan.
There still is a lot of hatered toward Americans here. Sometimes I have to say .... just to play it safe here. Seems to work.

originally posted by: Halfswede
There's going to be lots of, "Sorry, our bad" over COVID and expect everyone who was violated to just move on -- just like the Japanese in WW2 internment camps.

Yeah
It’s got legs

I feel the chance of side effects when using ivermectin is less than the chance of side effects from the present covid 19 meds they approved. But it would be best to have a doctor oversee it's use and the doctors should have been trained properly to utilize Ivermectin for use in covid.

IIvermectin was proven to lower risk of severe covid early on in most cases except in those with a very compromised immune system. It was not a miracle drug, but it did help and is cheap to buy.

This is one of the more egregious transgressions of the whole pandemic. The legal and financial impacts of having an effective repurposed drug would have meant no vaccine nor 200 billion for big pharma.

www.ivmmeta.com

This drug could have saved millions and prevented millions from dying from the covid gene therapy shots.

When they called it a horse drug, the fda, it was a horrible lie.

In the early days I saw several well respected doctors say that they were achieving over a 90% success rate using Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine, some hadn't lost a single patient. Then soon after the government decided to call them conspiracy theorists and tried to prevent the use of such drugs, despite the fact all other treatments available in the early days were much more toxic.

That was when I knew something was seriously wrong and I made a decision not take any vaccine they came up with, especially after I learned we had never successfully developed an effective coronavirus vaccine, and the Covid-19 vaccine was using new gene based technology on a scale never tried before. Now officials and experts are admitting that the vaccine didn't stop the spread of Covid-19, which I also proved in the early days with a statistical analysis.

a reply to: greendust

a reply to: greendust

Dr Been on yt has put out a video titled:
FDA in court for Ivermectin statements.

a reply to: greendust

My neighbor, the guy at the bar and the Karen’s at the office will continue to think trump caused the pandemic and told people to drink bleach and take horse pills. Which was the point of the original comments

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
This drug could have saved millions and prevented millions from dying from the covid gene therapy shots.

So you believe the covid death numbers now?

As for OP, nobody said ivermectin wasn't okay for humans to use. It just does absolutely nothing for viruses.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
This drug could have saved millions and prevented millions from dying from the covid gene therapy shots.

So you believe the covid death numbers now?

As for OP, nobody said ivermectin wasn't okay for humans to use. It just does absolutely nothing for viruses.

Yeah, whatever "Lord".

Shabu will cure cancer.

a reply to: LordAhriman

As for OP, nobody said ivermectin wasn't okay for humans to use. It just does absolutely nothing for viruses.

Whaaaaaaat , Yes they did the MSM was going nuts calling Ivermectin Horse paste and toxic.

"It does nothing for the virus ?" Okay neither does Advil , I don't recall the MSM demonizing Advil trying there best to convince people not to take Advil .

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: LordAhriman

As for OP, nobody said ivermectin wasn't okay for humans to use. It just does absolutely nothing for viruses.

Whaaaaaaat , Yes they did the MSM was going nuts calling Ivermectin Horse paste and toxic.

"It does nothing for the virus ?" Okay neither does Advil , I don't recall the MSM demonizing Advil trying there best to convince people not to take Advil .

Exactly. It's funny how people who know better had to pretend they were complete ignoramuses like nothing is ever prescribed unless it outright cures your ailment. Just because something isn't an antiviral doesn't mean it can't be used to treat symptoms.

Crazy that people were willing to make themselves look like complete idiots just to toe the line and defend the narrative. And then they wonder why trust in our institutions is at an all-time low.

The antiviral properties of Ivermectin (both in vitro and in vivo) have been known for a decade. There is plenty of literature on this. It also has an extremely good safety profile.

The people who propagandised early treatments preferring vulnerable people have no treatment, smearing and ruining the careers of some of the best doctors in their fields and who then made (toxic and ineffective ) remdesivir the standard of care are no better than some of the Nazi doctors in WW2. Would simply marching them round the back and summarily shooting them be too harsh?

a reply to: Quintilian

They should at least be criminally charged. They literally got people killed for political gain.