FDA ‘Unquestionably’ Overstepped Authority With War on Ivermectin, DOJ Attorney Admits
The DOJ attorney who defended the FDA when doctors sued the agency over its anti-ivermectin social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic admitted the FDA’s war against ivermectin was an abuse of governmental authority, according to an investigation by Project Veritas.
The DOJ attorney who defended the FDA when doctors sued the agency over its anti-ivermectin social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic admitted the FDA’s war against ivermectin was an abuse of governmental authority, according to an investigation by Project Veritas.
The attorney who defended the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) when doctors sued the FDA over its anti-ivermectin social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic admitted the FDA’s war against ivermectin was a mistake and an abuse of governmental authority, according to an investigation by Project Veritas.
The nonprofit, which focuses on exposing corruption through undercover video, on Aug. 27 released footage of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Isaac Belfer telling an undercover Project Veritas journalist that what the FDA did was “unquestionably beyond its authority.”
Although Belfer defended the FDA’s actions in court, he told the Project Veritas journalist that there was a “legitimate problem” with the agency’s actions.
“If you remember during the pandemic,” Belfer said, “FDA issued some tweets that said, ‘You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Stop it with ivermectin.’ … They’ll often use tweets to pursue a broader agenda.”
In this instance, the tweets were part of a larger agenda of discouraging people from using ivermectin — a drug the FDA approved in 1996 for treating several diseases — to treat COVID-19.
But the FDA “really shouldn’t be saying, ‘Don’t take this drug,’” Belfer said, because the FDA — as a federal agency — can do only what it has statutory authorization from Congress to do.
The FDA is authorized to provide information about drugs, but it cannot recommend what drugs to take or not take. “That’s the practice of medicine and the FDA can’t practice medicine,” Belfer said.
Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, told The DefenderBelfer’s recent admissions “underscore an immense tragedy during COVID-19.”
She added:
“The bottom line here that people need to understand is we may never know how many people died because of FDA’s actions. Ivermectin was an effective treatment in many cases for COVID-19, yet patients were deprived of the treatment far too often.
“Patients for whom ivermectin may have been an appropriate course of treatment did not have access to ivermectin because their doctors were misled by the FDA, or did not understand the potential merits of prescribing ivermectin, or were unable to obtain ivermectin prescriptions for their patients even when they wanted to prescribe the medication.
“We can and should discuss and further investigate the reasons for the FDA’s suppression of ivermectin’s effectiveness and the agency’s inappropriate and overreaching recommendations.”
Doctors involved in the lawsuit told Project Veritas they suspected that the FDA’s suppression campaign against ivermectin was motivated by the government’s interest in promoting a speedy rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.
The FDA could grant the vaccines emergency use authorization only if no alternative medications existed to treat COVID-19.
‘Not unreasonable to think that there have been a million unnecessary deaths’
In June 2022, after the FDA issued its social posts discouraging the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, three doctors — Robert Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul E. Marik, co-founder of the Front Line Critical Care Alliance— sued the FDA.
They alleged the FDA’s guidance on ivermectin interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and their ability to prescribe an approved medication.
“Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states,” the complaint stated.
The complaint pointed out that in addition to producing numerous social media posts aimed at discouraging ivermectin use, the FDA also published a website entitled, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”
Additionally, an FDA FAQ answered “no” to the frequently asked question, “Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19?”
Belfer was initially one of the lawyers representing the FDA in the suit.
After U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown in December 2022 dismissed the lawsuit, another team of lawyers took over representing the FDA when the case came before the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, according to Project Veritas.
In September 2023, the 5th Circuit overturned the lower court’s dismissal, ruling that the FDA exceeded its authority under federal law when it advised the public against using ivermectin.
In March, the FDA agreed to take down its website and social media posts warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19. In exchange for removing the internet content, plaintiffs in the lawsuit dismissed their claims.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
However, the FDA did not change its policy of discouraging ivermectin use for treating COVID-19. A current FDA website entitled, “Ivermectin and COVID-19” reads:
“The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. …
“The FDA has determined that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 in humans.”
The website says the agency has received “multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for animals.”
Project Veritas pointed out that since major state and national medical governing authorities look to the FDA as an authoritative source on the appropriate use of drugs, pharmacies still refuse to prescribe ivermectin, and doctors face professional repercussions for prescribing it.
Mack Rosenberg agreed. “Many doctors have been vilified, censured, and subject to loss of licensure and loss of livelihood, based on recommending and prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID-19.”
For example, the American Board of Internal Medicine this month revoked the certificationsof Drs. Pierre Kory and Marik, following a two-year investigation into their promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19 and their statements questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Meanwhile, countless U.S. citizens suffered as a result of the FDA’s demotion of ivermectin, said Apter. He told Project Veritas:
“It’s not unreasonable to think that there have been a million unnecessary deaths from COVID in the United States because of the public health agency suppression of effective early treatment with repurposed inexpensive medications.”
Mack Rosenberg said the FDA’s removal of its social media posts failed to fully address the problem. “A mea culpa from FDA is, frankly, a little too little, a little too late,” she said. “More attention must be focused on FDA’s role in this immense tragedy.”
Watch Project Veritas’ video here:
No comments:
Post a Comment