In a recent hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, revelations arose surrounding the FDA's stance on the use of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. Three physicians had previously faced job terminations due to their endorsement or prescription of Ivermectin, an affordable therapeutic drug, as a COVID-19 remedy. After their initial case faced dismissal in December, they approached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration.

Amid the hearing, a significant point of contention arose when the justice department's attorney tried defending a tweet by the FDA advising against the use of Ivermectin, hinting that it was equated to horse paste. The debate intensified when the nature of the command "stop it" in the tweet was examined. Was it just a 'quip', or a direct command against the drug?

Senator Ron Johnson took to social media to highlight the discrepancy between the FDA's public messages and the legal reality. He pointed out that doctors indeed possess the authority to prescribe Ivermectin off-label, and the FDA wasn’t explicitly restricting its off-label use. Despite this, numerous patients have faced challenges when trying to obtain the drug, a fact exemplified by a recorded exchange at a pharmacy where the drug was denied due to it not being FDA-approved for the mentioned purpose.

Adding perspective to the debate were Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, two of the plaintiffs. According to Dr. Bowden, the primary objective of their lawsuit is to emphasize the FDA's main role: to oversee pharmaceutical companies. The FDA isn't meant to interfere in doctor-patient relationships or dictate medical practice. Dr. Marik, on the other hand, expressed distress over the FDA's campaign against Ivermectin, which he claims has contributed to misconceptions about the drug, leading to patients being denied access and some doctors even losing their licenses.

Dr. Marik emphasized the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin, citing its distribution in over 3 billion doses to humans without significant adverse effects. He lamented the spread of misinformation, with many believing it to be a harmful horse medication. Dr. Bowden urged the public to keep the conversation about ivermectin alive. Both doctors shared concerns about the aftermath of the FDA's actions, even if they were to win the case. The damage has been done, they said. The primary goal now is to prevent similar interference in the future.

Want to see more content like this? Subscribe to Vigilant News below to receive updates when the most noteworthy interviews go live.