Views: 25
On Camera: Attorney Who Defended FDA in Court Admits Anti-Ivermectin Campaign was a ‘Mistake’ and an ‘Abuse of Authority’
A Department of Justice attorney has been caught admitting in an undercover video that the FDA’s campaign against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment was not only misguided but also an overreach of its authority.
In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a stern warning to Americans: “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.”
This statement, which came during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was not only controversial but also deeply flawed, as the FDA had previously praised the drug in other contexts.
Ivermectin, a drug that had been safely used in humans since 1966, had been vilified by the FDA during the pandemic, despite its earlier successes in treating various diseases and even being administered to African migrants by the agency itself back in 2015.
Yet, in the face of mounting evidence—105 controlled studies showing a 61% lower risk in early COVID-19 treatment—the FDA clung to its erroneous position, interested in promoting its agenda than in protecting public health.
A group of courageous doctors, refusing to be silenced, filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA, challenging the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block ivermectin’s use in treating COVID-19.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, asserts that the FDA overstepped its authority and interfered unjustifiably with medical practice.
Among the plaintiffs were Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, who accused the FDA of launching a campaign of misinformation. The doctors pointed out that while the FDA had approved ivermectin for human use long before the pandemic, the agency suddenly began spreading falsehoods about its safety when COVID-19 struck.
They argued that this shift in narrative was part of a broader strategy to promote unproven vaccines while suppressing effective treatments.
During the court proceedings, the FDA’s lawyers shockingly admitted that the agency’s recommendations against Ivermectin were only advice and were not mandatory when they told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.
Isaac Belfer, a lawyer representing the FDA, said, “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”
“They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.
The lawsuit resulted in a significant victory for the doctors, with the FDA being forced to remove its social media posts and consumer advisories against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.
Belfer, caught on undercover camera by Project Veritas, confessed that the FDA’s actions were an overreach.
“So, what the agency has done… [is] unquestionably beyond its authority. Making a recommendation of what drugs to take or not to take, that’s the practice of medicine. And FDA can’t practice medicine,” Belfer told Project Veritas.
“I think going forward they’ll [FDA] probably be a bit more careful. They [the doctors] got an opinion that was good for them. That kind of limited FDA’s authority. It’s not okay to… actually tell people, ‘You should not take this drug,’” he added.
Drs Apter and Bowden told Project Veritas that suppression of ivermectin led to a prolonged pandemic, and potentially millions in excess COVID deaths.
Apter: “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.”
Bowden: “If more people had access to early treatment in the form of ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine… we could have nipped the pandemic in the bud.”
79
