“’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.”To which doctors and everyone else should have said, long ago, “WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION OR GRANTING OF AUTHORITY.” This argument, concerning whether the FDA approved, or approves now, should be moot. We are supposed to be free to peacefully trade with others and to ingest what we want. Didn’t the FDA bureaucrats and Jimmy Kimmel learn from the experience and response of the colonials when the Brits imposed the Tea Act on them in 1773? Adds Stieber:
“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.”Of course, one ought to go deeper, and question the assumption that the FDA has any moral or constitutional authority to “approve” of “not approve” a drug, at all, but, on the level at which they are arguing, even at THAT, the FDA is on slippery legal footing, having explicitly expended tax cash to tell people not to take ivermectin.
“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.’”But, of course, now, FDA wants to lean in the other direction, implying that by not explicitly going after doctors who might prescribe it, they were not working against its use. At least one of the Fifth Circuit judges hearing the case appears not to be buying the spin.
“’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.’”It would, at least, be seen as a warning of potential future FDA action against doctors, that’s for sure. As Stieber notes, the plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter, who "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.” But whether studies show that any drug is effective against anything is not the point, because no one should be telling us or the drug makers and sellers that we cannot contract with each other. Ahh, but of course, the feds have built a giant legal and “regulatory” edifice, so the courts will rule according to how they view that, not the US Constitution or the deeper matters of freedom and peace.
“Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, Mr. Kelson (plaintiffs’ atty, Jared 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.’”Of course, the FDA argues that it wasn’t - which is about as believable as their spurious claims that they have “power” over you, or your doctor, or anyone else. The quicker people see the roots of the FDA problem -- which go much deeper than whether it was “giving medical advice” or phrasing things this way or that – the more rapidly they will see what it means to be a free person. And the sooner they will see that it is utterly imperative to eliminate the FDA. Read more at: MRCTV.org
Fired Ukrainian official speaks out about bribes and corruption by the Biden crime family
By Ethan Huff // Share
FEMA orders media “blackout” of all Maui disaster images – what are they trying to hide?
By Ethan Huff // Share
Watchdog study: Biden’s food stamp expansion caused 15% SURGE in grocery prices
By Belle Carter // Share
Debunking McGill's "dirty dozen" hit piece: Flawed sources, pharma ties, and biased reporting
By newseditors // Share
Your lyin' eyes: Corporate media panics with 'fact checks' over Biden's obvious decline
By newseditors // Share