In the midst of a legal appeal by three doctors (Paul Marik of Virginia, Mary Bowden of Texas, and Robert Apter of Arizona) claiming FDA interference in their medical practice being disciplined for prescribing ivermectin to their patients for COVID-19, a DoJ lawyer representing the FDA admitted in court on August 11 that a doctor can prescribe ivermectin for COVID and always could.  The judge even asked questions about the meaning of the word "stop" in the FDA's (in)famous tweet: "You are not a horse.  You are not a cow.  Seriously, y'all.  Stop it."  In this context, the issue of FDA misrepresentation and potential liability also came up.  In a sane world, these people would be tried and punished for crimes against humanity for all the people who needlessly died being denied access to drugs like ivermectin.  In the real world, nothing at all will happen to them.

To me, the FDA admission is not surprising at all.  We always knew that a doctor could in theory prescribe the drug (already approved for many other ailments) off-label, so long as he was doing so responsibly and not recklessly endangering the patient.  But the medical establishment effectively changed the rules (as they often do during times of medical emergencies or diseases).  Understand the model of NIH/FDA/AMA collusion, and it all makes sense.

In simple terms, NIH is the policymaker.  It decides which drug(s) to fund studies on, like the Big Pharma vaccine$ for the uninfected, or remde$ivir for those already infected and hospitalized.  Under no circumstances would it have financed, at least early on, a study, with the same burden of proving efficacy as Big Pharma, of a generic like ivermectin, which might prove to be effective post-infection, because then the FDA would be pressured to grant the generic approval for such treatment, and then the vaccine$ would not have been granted EUA and eventual approval.

FDA is the decision-maker: It decides which drug(s) to grant EUA or approval.  Unless its credibility would take too great a hit with inaction, it would not "approve" of a drug like ivermectin.  (Note: Both NIH and FDA scientists involved in the science leading to EUA/approval of a Big Pharma drug stand to gain financially.)  A physician has a right to responsibly prescribe a drug approved for other purposes off-label, and that certainly applies to human-form ivermectin.  The "horse" narrative was to scare as many away from the off-label drug as possible.

AMA (and other medical societies and licensing boards) is the enforcer.  It threats doctors with discipline including disbarment if they dare prescribe ivermectin off-label for COVID.  It is this that prevented many patients from gaining access to ivermectin.

When these authorities, along with media support, work in concert, they are in almost complete control.

W.A. Eliot is a pseudonym.

Image: Bundesministerium für Finanzen.