Three docs sued the FDA for telling people not to take ivermectin. Now FDA says "We dint do dat!"

Hey, citizen!  A few of you may remember that during the covid plandemic "your" FDA repeatedly *warned you* not to take ivermectin.  The sons of bitches told you "it's not approved," so almost everyone thought that meant it wasn't approved for human use.

The bastards implied that it was only approved to de-worm livestock.  They even issued a tweet with a pic of a horse, reading "You are not a horse.  You are not a cow.  C'mon y'all, stop it!"

How would a reasonable person interpret that, eh?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit by three doctors, who were fired for prescribing ivermectin.  The doctors claim the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine by issuing statements intended to make employers fire doctors for prescribing it.

Last year the docs lost in a lower court but have appealed to the 5th Circuit.  And so far the reports of the appeal have been totally amusing--because the biden regime is now claiming that the FDA *never* told Americans not to use ivermectin!

Really, that's what the bidenfail regime is claiming.  The FDA even got the Post Office to seize imported shipments of the perfectly legal, approved drug ordered by people desperate to save their lives or those of loved ones.

How many people died because of this illegal act ordered by the FDA, eh?  You'll never know, and the victims can't sue because they're dead.  Hmmmm...

Here's the actual quote from Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA and the biden regime in the oral argument in court on August 8th:
>>“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors *do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat Covid.”*>>

It's crucial to note that the FDA approved ivermectin for human use back in 1983. Thus there are just two questions:  First, did the FDA attempt to get doctors not to prescribe it for covid?

And if it did, does it then have the authority to do that?

On Aug. 21, 2021, the FDA tweeted “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”  That tweet linked to an FDA webpage saying people shouldn’t use ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid.

The FDA also posted this:
>>Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19?
     A: No.”>>
The post added that ivermectin “isn’t authorized or approved to treat Covid-19.”  The statement pointedly didn't mention that the drug IS approved for human use.  When combined with the "No" answer, plaintiffs claim a reasonable person would be led to believe it hadn't been approved for human use.

The agency also spread the message on social media with posts such as, “Ivermectin is *only a horse dewormer.* [a lie]  Don’t use *a veterinary product* [lie] to treat Covid-19,”
 
Command or Not

Government attorney Honold said the FDA didn’t technically order people not to take the drug, but the three-judge panel was very skeptical:  One asked “What about when it said, ‘Stop it’?  Why isn’t that a command?"

The attorney replied that the "Stop it" statement was “merely a quip.”  But the judge recognized the dodge and demanded that the regime's attorney answer the question.

“*In some contexts* those words could be construed as a command,” said Honold. “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," she added. She noted that the FDA said 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.

And yet almost all Americans were led to believe ivermectin was dangerous and not approve for human use.  But hey, "Not our fault!  Duh FDA din' have nuffin' to do wit dat."

Plaintiffs noted that a number of studies found ivermectin effective in treating Covid, as the FDA itself has acknowledged.  But a few studies appeared to show little to no effect.

Plaintiffs claimed that while federal law allows the FDA to provide information such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, it's not allowed to give medical advice, and the judges on the panel agreed.

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

She argued that Congress has given the FDA the authority 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.”

Careful readers may note that the attorney is implying that the FDA's objection to the use of ivermectin was based on lack of safety.  Yet the FDA had already approved the drug for human use, which would seem to negate that claim.

The regime's attorney then claimed that a ruling for the plaintiffs would prevent the FDA from reporting that opioid addiction is a problem.  This is totally unsupported by any record--i.e. it's a lie.  Wow, shocker, eh?

To summarize: The regime's attorney admits that the regime is NOT conceding that the FDA isn't empowered to make medical decisions.  That is a huge power grab.  It's also obvious that the agency was trying to prevent Americans from using a drug it had approved for human use to treat Covid.  

The regime's "defense" is that *technically* it didn't *order* doctors not to prescribe the drug, or order Americans not to take it.  The agency is effectively saying "If you read that into what we said that's not our fault," even though that was clearly their *goal.*

If the three-judge panel rules for the plaintiff doctors, I predict you won't hear a word about it in the Mainstream Media, since it cuts against the regime.  So if you wanna follow this case, plaintiffs are Robert Apter, Mary Bowden and Paul Marik.