FDA Settles Ivermectin Case, Removes Social Media Posts

The FDA has settled a court case that alleged the agency overstepped with its campaign against ivermectin. The federal agency needs to remove every post or statement they made against ivermectin. This includes the most viewed post for the FDA on the platform X, in which they state, “You’re not a horse, stop it.”

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) issued a press release regarding the settlement. Paul E Marik, M.D., was a plaintiff in the case and is the chairman and chief scientific officer of the FLCCC Alliance (FLCCC). He said, “The FDA interfered in the practice of medicine with their irresponsible language and posts about ivermectin. We will never know how many lives were affected because patients were denied access to a lifesaving treatment because their doctor was ‘just following the FDA.”

Ivermectin was highly publicized at the height of the pandemic as the number one podcast host in the world, Joe Rogan, said he took the medicine while he was sick with COVID-19. That prompted many mainstream media outlets to run stories stating that Joe Rogan took a horse dewormer drug instead of getting the vaccine. Rogan even threatened to sue CNN for their framing of the story because they failed to mention that ivermectin is also formulated for human use. 

The same thing occurred with the FDA’s famous “You’re not a horse” post. Despite this heavily shared post that lacks important context, the FDA has a page titled “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat COVID-19“, which was last updated in December 2021, that provides this context. It says ivermectin is approved to treat “intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms.”

This page also goes on to say that the FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in the treatment of COVID-19 and that there is no evidence it is safe or effective for this purpose. This page, which speaks primarily about ivermectin as a deworming drug for livestock, must be removed within 21 calendar days of the settlement, which falls on April 11, 2024. The settlement includes all other posts that indicate ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID–19 and posts on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram making similar references to ivermectin as a drug for horses. 

In the viral ivermectin post, the FDA presented an argument with logical fallacies. The red herring logical fallacy is when a misleading argument is presented to get the public to think in a certain way. The FDA did this when they said “You’re not a horse.” This is misleading because the drug is also formulated for humans and doesn’t address whether the medicine is suitable for COVID-19. 

In the FLCCC press release, Doctor Pierre Kory stated “The FDA knew exactly what it was doing when it tweeted that ivermectin was for horses and that people should ‘stop it.’ I hope this case will serve as precedent the next time a federal health agency steps out of its authority and tries to practice medicine.”

Dr. Kory is one of the doctors who researched the use of ivermectin and prescribed it to his patients in the treatment of COVID-19. He also authored the book The War On Ivermectin and made several appearances on The HighWire discussing the topic with Del Bigtree. A short film was published in December that can be viewed here. 

As Dr. Kory states, it is not the job of the FDA to practice medicine. It is fine for the FDA to state that a drug has not been approved for a specific use, but it is not within the realm of the agency to advocate against the off-label usage of a drug. 20% of all prescriptions made today are for off-label usage. It is not only legal for doctors to do so, but it is also common as it allows doctors to make the best choices for each individual patient. 

The three plaintiffs in the case were doctors who said the FDA campaign against ivermectin harmed their reputations. The three doctors are Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik. These doctors used their medical knowledge to prescribe the best treatments for their patients. The FDA tried to step in the middle of the doctor/patient relationship. These doctors endured censorship and harm to their reputations as a result. 

At the same time, the Murthy v. Missouri case continues as an important legal precedent for government-encouraged censorship of social media companies, which took place at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The FDA, CDC, and federal government provided strong messaging to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake and made declarations against alternative treatment options such as ivermectin. A viral post indicated that the FDA receives most of its funding from the corporations it regulates. The USA Today did a fact check to find that only 45% of the funding comes from application fees for when drug makers submit their product for approval. 

The amount of funds received by the FDA from the user fees increased by 42% between fiscal years 2017 and 2021. While USA Today rated the claim as mostly false, it upheld the truth that a large amount of funding to the FDA comes directly from the corporations they are regulating. Furthermore, a HighWire report from November went into more detail regarding the revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, including Moderna. 

Regarding the outcome, Dr. Bowden stated, “This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship.”

Photo credit: https://twitter.com/mdbreathe/status/1771023714584273015?s=46&t=2tCbfuj36dolslMYQjC7Rg