The FDA not only overstepped its legal authority and lied about the inefficacy and dangers of Ivermectin, but is attempting to claim that no one has any standing to hold it legally accountable for its illegal actions:
The plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter. They 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. Some other studies show little to no effect.
Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, Mr. 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.”
But Ms. Honold said the government “isn’t conceding that in this case.” She also argued that Congress has empowered the FDA to protect public health and make sure regulated products are safe and effective, giving it the “inherent authority to further its mission by communicating information to the public about safe uses of drugs.” A ruling in favor of the doctors would prevent the FDA from reporting on consumers suffering after cooking chicken with NyQuil or that opioid addiction is a problem, she claimed.
Mr. Kelson said that wasn’t accurate. “It’s when they step beyond that [and] start telling people how they should or should not be using approved drugs,” he said.
Ms. Honold also said that the courts can’t hold agencies accountable when they provide false or misleading information: “The FDA is politically accountable, just like all other executive agencies.”
The idea that an unelected agency is “politically accountable” is risible on its face. One might as reasonably argue that executive branch agents are permitted to steal and kill without facing any legal consequences, because the President to whom they ultimately report is elected. It’s a breathtakingly ridiculous argument, and the only way it could possibly be accepted by the courts is if they are not only entirely corrupt, but entirely willing to be seen as such by the public.
It’s also interesting that when the media was pushing “trust the science” and “it’s FDA-approved”, it never saw fit to mention that the FDA is not authorized to give medical advice such as telling people to get vaccinated or to not take Ivermectin.