WEBVTT X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:128116 00:00:12.127 --> 00:00:17.912 this right here is what's known as ivermectin it is the antiparasitic medicine that was at 00:00:17.913 --> 00:00:19.764 least prior to the year 20 20 00:00:19.820 --> 00:00:23.562 seen by most of the world as essentially a medical Miracle 00:00:23.603 --> 00:00:26.278 in fact over meet I'm it was referred to by the UNESCO 00:00:26.279 --> 00:00:27.958 World science report as a quote 00:00:27.971 --> 00:00:31.817 critical component of one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever 00:00:31.818 --> 00:00:33.332 waged in the developing world 00:00:33.488 --> 00:00:38.384 now that is obviously very high praise however as you likely know since the outset of 00:00:38.385 --> 00:00:42.791 the COVID pandemic over mechten has become something of a third rail topic 00:00:42.792 --> 00:00:46.885 something that is completely taboo to discuss openly over the past three years 00:00:47.010 --> 00:00:50.775 if you talked about it on mainstay media you will be labeled as a conspiracy theorist 00:00:50.776 --> 00:00:52.980 as well as a purveyor of medical misinformation 00:00:53.136 --> 00:00:56.541 if you mentioned that on social media you would either be shadow banned or 00:00:56.542 --> 00:00:58.551 your account would actually be suspended 00:00:58.721 --> 00:01:02.247 and if you are a doctor prescribing it to your patients will 00:01:02.360 --> 00:01:05.848 you phase the real prospect of having your medical license put into jeopardy 00:01:06.126 --> 00:01:11.349 that is how third rail this topic became and one of the main reasons 00:01:11.350 --> 00:01:14.102 for why this topic became so taboo 00:01:14.103 --> 00:01:17.469 was because of the rhetoric that was coming out of America's alphabet agencies 00:01:17.512 --> 00:01:21.430 the NIH as well as their affiliated health agencies the CDC and 00:01:21.431 --> 00:01:22.787 the FDA they have all 00:01:22.788 --> 00:01:27.530 in one loud uniform voice recommended people against using ivermectin as a 00:01:27.531 --> 00:01:29.747 potential treatment for COVID 19 00:01:29.753 --> 00:01:33.372 going so far as to say that it's dangerous and potentially even deadly to 00:01:33.373 --> 00:01:36.389 take the drug again despite the fact that for many years now 00:01:36.390 --> 00:01:40.832 the FDA had approved iremechtan for broad use in humans to treat parasitic infection 00:01:40.959 --> 00:01:44.763 but beginning in the year 20 21 they began to publicly label this drug 00:01:44.764 --> 00:01:48.500 as something only fit for horses and not fit for human consumption 00:01:48.536 --> 00:01:52.355 here's in fact what they wrote in a very famous marketing tweet quote 00:01:52.932 --> 00:01:57.045 you are not a horse you are not a cow seriously all stop it 00:01:57.230 --> 00:02:01.131 now funny enough and we discussed this in greater depth than a previous episode 00:02:01.132 --> 00:02:05.679 if you actually clicked on the website that the FDA Linkedin that particular social media post 00:02:05.680 --> 00:02:07.778 you're taken to this page here it's titled 00:02:07.779 --> 00:02:11.405 why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID 19 00:02:11.650 --> 00:02:16.672 and funny enough that page it actually includes a hyperlink to a bunch of clinical trials 00:02:16.799 --> 00:02:19.914 half of which if you look through them they ironically say that 00:02:19.915 --> 00:02:22.131 ivermectin is effective at treating COVID 00:02:22.416 --> 00:02:26.385 regardless even outside of the clinical trials that were linked to by the FDA itself 00:02:26.386 --> 00:02:30.845 there is a growing body of research showing that for one ivermectin is potentially 00:02:30.846 --> 00:02:32.723 an essential treatment for COVID 00:02:32.782 --> 00:02:37.489 and that secondly the reason that it was strongly repelled and discounted by the government 00:02:37.532 --> 00:02:42.769 so that they can maintain their emergencies authorization status for the mRNA based vaccine 00:02:43.063 --> 00:02:46.075 however setting all that controversy aside at least for the moment 00:02:46.177 --> 00:02:49.539 I wanted to go back to that marketing tweet from the FDA that was posted on 00:02:49.540 --> 00:02:50.996 Twitter the one that said this 00:02:51.253 --> 00:02:54.762 you are not a horse you are not a cow seriously all stop it 00:02:55.316 --> 00:03:00.221 that particular tweet as well as the general guidance that was coming down regarding ivermectin 00:03:00.253 --> 00:03:05.303 it led three American doctors to file a large federal lawsuit against the FDA 00:03:05.304 --> 00:03:08.248 for interfering with their use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID 00:03:08.528 --> 00:03:11.448 specifically this lawsuit that you can see up in your screen was 00:03:11.449 --> 00:03:12.992 filed on behalf of three doctors 00:03:12.993 --> 00:03:17.752 each of whom were disciplined after they dared to prescribe human grade ivermectin to their patients 00:03:17.757 --> 00:03:20.709 now we hear at the Epoch Times we had the opportunity to speak with one of 00:03:20.710 --> 00:03:24.412 the lawyers representing these doctors and here's what he told us about this case quote 00:03:24.733 --> 00:03:28.760 the FDA had violated well established law that allows doctors to prescribe an FDA 00:03:28.761 --> 00:03:30.893 approved drug as an off labeled treatment 00:03:30.970 --> 00:03:34.743 ivermectin was now different it was approved by the FDA in 19 66 00:03:34.841 --> 00:03:37.835 Congress recognized the importance of letting doctors be doctors 00:03:37.836 --> 00:03:41.460 and expressly prohibited the FDA from interfering with the practice of medicine 00:03:41.539 --> 00:03:45.145 that is exactly what the FDA has done time and time again throughout this 00:03:45.146 --> 00:03:47.490 pandemic assuming authority it doesn't have 00:03:47.491 --> 00:03:50.841 and trying to insert itself into the medical decisions of Americans everywhere 00:03:51.538 --> 00:03:56.097 now the three doctors in this particular case are representative of many doctors across 00:03:56.098 --> 00:03:58.192 the nation you have doctor Paul Merrick 00:03:58.193 --> 00:04:02.801 of Virginia who was suspended by the sent era Norfolk General Hospital for prescribing 00:04:02.802 --> 00:04:04.528 ivermectin as a cove treatment 00:04:04.529 --> 00:04:08.841 you have doctor Mary Bowden of Texas who is suspended from the Houston medical hospital 00:04:08.855 --> 00:04:11.963 and then you have doctor Robert after of Arizona 00:04:11.964 --> 00:04:15.676 who was under investigation by both the Washington Medical commission as well 00:04:15.677 --> 00:04:17.398 as the Arizona medical board again 00:04:17.399 --> 00:04:22.288 for prescribing ivermectin to his patients these three doctors they collectively sued the FDA 00:04:22.289 --> 00:04:24.576 for overstepping their authority and also 00:04:24.604 --> 00:04:27.933 in ignoring the emerging science when they were putting out all this public statement 00:04:28.217 --> 00:04:32.290 now this case of theirs it was filed about a year ago in 20 22 in 00:04:32.291 --> 00:04:33.920 the middle part of 20 22 00:04:33.979 --> 00:04:36.908 and since then the FDA has been forced to make many interesting 00:04:36.909 --> 00:04:38.373 admissions in the court of law 00:04:38.610 --> 00:04:42.936 that's because as you might know regardless of what kind of well spun hyperbola 00:04:42.937 --> 00:04:44.443 you might say out in public 00:04:44.548 --> 00:04:47.687 in a court of law under penalty of perjury you do need 00:04:47.688 --> 00:04:49.293 to tell the truth meaning 00:04:49.294 --> 00:04:52.650 you need to tell the truth or you will face actual criminal consequence 00:04:52.948 --> 00:04:56.165 and so with that in mind the lawyers representing the FDA began 00:04:56.166 --> 00:04:58.269 to backtrack the FDA's owned statement 00:04:58.427 --> 00:05:02.153 and they began to make the argument to the court that the FDA's guidance 00:05:02.154 --> 00:05:06.511 for people to quote unquote stop taking avremecton was not really guidance at all 00:05:06.563 --> 00:05:10.390 it was just an informal recommendation sort of like what you would tell a 00:05:10.391 --> 00:05:11.921 friend over a beer at the bar 00:05:12.370 --> 00:05:16.075 here's specifically what one of the lawyers who's representing the FDA said 00:05:16.076 --> 00:05:17.464 during a hearing in front of 00:05:17.465 --> 00:05:22.270 the judge the cited statements were not directives they were not mandatory 00:05:22.271 --> 00:05:25.882 they were recommendations they said what parties should do 00:05:25.883 --> 00:05:29.966 they said for example why you should not take ivermectin to treat cove a nineteen they 00:05:29.967 --> 00:05:31.312 did not say you may not do it 00:05:31.313 --> 00:05:34.441 you must not do it they did not say it's prohibited or it's unlawful 00:05:34.442 --> 00:05:37.570 they also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin 00:05:37.609 --> 00:05:42.385 they use informal language that is true it's conversational but not mandatory 00:05:42.618 --> 00:05:46.484 then just four days ago in front of a US court of appeals 00:05:46.485 --> 00:05:51.365 another lawyer also representing the FDA made an even more Stark remark something that 00:05:51.366 --> 00:05:54.833 perhaps if you heard it one or two or three years ago would have 00:05:54.834 --> 00:05:56.602 perhaps made your eyes pop out 00:05:56.775 --> 00:06:01.516 this FDA lawyer stated that doctors are absolutely free to prescribe ivermectin 00:06:01.517 --> 00:06:03.399 to trick in anywhere in America 00:06:03.440 --> 00:06:07.971 here specifically the statement that was made during oral arguments in front of the judge 00:06:08.536 --> 00:06:15.183 the FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID 00:06:15.702 --> 00:06:21.085 fascinating now during these oral arguments the lawyers representing the three doctors they pushback 00:06:21.086 --> 00:06:25.107 against the FDA saying that despite what the lawyer is saying today back them 00:06:25.108 --> 00:06:30.029 during the actual pandemic time the FDA was unlawfully interfering with their practice of medicine 00:06:30.069 --> 00:06:34.470 you're specifically with the lawyers representing the three doctors said during oral arguments quote 00:06:34.932 --> 00:06:39.415 the fundamental issue in this case is straightforward after the FDA approves 00:06:39.416 --> 00:06:40.794 the human drug for sale 00:06:40.795 --> 00:06:44.269 does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the 00:06:44.270 --> 00:06:46.330 doctor patient relationship the answer is no 00:06:46.565 --> 00:06:50.794 and indeed as evidence of this interference the lawyer cited that for the longest time 00:06:50.795 --> 00:06:54.101 the FDA has maintained an fan page over on their website where 00:06:54.102 --> 00:06:55.684 it says this quote question 00:06:55.685 --> 00:06:59.220 should I take ivr mechton to prevent or treat COVID 19 answer 00:06:59.221 --> 00:07:03.324 no then when she was asked about this the lawyer representing the FDA said 00:07:03.325 --> 00:07:06.962 that the FDA did not purport to require anyone to do anything or to 00:07:06.963 --> 00:07:09.118 prohibit anyone from doing anything 00:07:09.257 --> 00:07:12.623 to which the judge in the case she responded by saying this quote 00:07:13.043 --> 00:07:16.555 what about when the FDA said no stop it why isn't that a command 00:07:16.556 --> 00:07:20.068 if you were an English class they would say that was a command 00:07:20.069 --> 00:07:23.280 can you answer the question please is that a command stop it 00:07:23.672 --> 00:07:28.790 to which the FDA's lawyer in perfect lawyer fashion responded by saying this quote 00:07:29.205 --> 00:07:32.694 in some contexts those words could be construed as a command 00:07:32.769 --> 00:07:36.510 but in this context where the FDA was simply using these words in the 00:07:36.511 --> 00:07:40.318 context of a quippi tweet meant to share its informational article 00:07:40.319 --> 00:07:44.840 those statements do not rise to the level of a command the statements don't prohibit doctors 00:07:44.841 --> 00:07:49.784 from prescribing ivermecnatetur COVID or for any other purpose the FDA along with the statements 00:07:49.785 --> 00:07:53.688 said that people should consult their healthcare providers about COVID 19 treatment and that 00:07:53.689 --> 00:07:56.297 they could take medicine if it was prescribed by the provider 00:07:56.298 --> 00:07:59.557 the body is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe 00:07:59.558 --> 00:08:00.920 human ivermectin to treat COVID 00:08:00.921 --> 00:08:04.146 so they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe 00:08:04.147 --> 00:08:05.585 drugs or to practice medicine 00:08:06.029 --> 00:08:10.398 that is if nothing else a great answer regardless the main issue in question in this 00:08:10.399 --> 00:08:14.261 particular case is whether what the FDA was putting out crossed the line 00:08:14.288 --> 00:08:18.647 because according to federal law the FDA is allowed to provide information to the public 00:08:18.746 --> 00:08:22.573 but they're not allowed to provide medical advice which is exactly what the three 00:08:22.574 --> 00:08:24.093 doctors are arguing took place 00:08:24.094 --> 00:08:27.623 here's again what the lawyer who's representing these three doctors said to 00:08:27.624 --> 00:08:29.182 the court during oral arguments 00:08:29.515 --> 00:08:33.454 this is something the FDA has never been able to do and it's a bright line 00:08:33.747 --> 00:08:37.783 the clearest examples of where they have gone over the line are when they say things 00:08:37.784 --> 00:08:40.767 like you're not a horse you're not a cow seriously all stop it 00:08:41.175 --> 00:08:44.927 and so it'll ultimately be up to the judge in this case to decide whether the 00:08:44.928 --> 00:08:46.440 FDA in fact crossed that line 00:08:46.502 --> 00:08:49.549 but here's the thing even if they did cross the line well there's very 00:08:49.550 --> 00:08:51.634 little recourse that can actually take place 00:08:51.635 --> 00:08:55.238 that's because as a part of her argument here's what the FDA lawyer said 00:08:55.239 --> 00:08:57.096 during again oral arguments quote 00:08:57.864 --> 00:09:02.080 the courts can hold agencies accountable when they provide false or misleading information 00:09:02.107 --> 00:09:06.909 the FDA is politically accountable just like all other executive agencies 00:09:07.899 --> 00:09:11.955 and so that is if nothing else amazing two years later 00:09:12.106 --> 00:09:15.951 the FDA admits that American doctors have always had the full authority 00:09:15.952 --> 00:09:17.874 to prescribe ivermectin for COVID 00:09:17.875 --> 00:09:21.884 they claim that all their statements were just basically informal 00:09:21.885 --> 00:09:26.510 recommendations and then to sum it all up the FDA lawyer said that essentially 00:09:26.511 --> 00:09:31.288 even if the agency provided false or misleading information the courts can't really hold them accountable 00:09:31.289 --> 00:09:34.928 since the FDA is politically accountable rather than legally 00:09:35.658 --> 00:09:38.736 very cool if you like to go through any of the details from this case I'll 00:09:38.737 --> 00:09:42.284 throw all these research notes down into the description box below this video for 00:09:42.285 --> 00:09:43.745 you to peruse at your own Leisure 00:09:43.858 --> 00:09:47.690 and until next time I'm your host Roman from the Epoch Times they informed