The FDA’s recent decision to file a motion under seal in a lawsuit concerning ivermectin’s use against COVID-19 has sparked significant controversy, revealing a concerning pattern of inconsistency and lack of transparency from a federal agency entrusted with safeguarding public health. This action, shrouded in secrecy, stands in stark contrast to the FDA’s earlier public denouncements of ivermectin, a drug with a long history of safe human use.
For doctors like Robert Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul Marik, who have experienced professional repercussions for prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID-19, this lawsuit represents a critical battle against what they perceive as overreach and bias from the FDA. Their claims that the FDA conflated human and animal doses of ivermectin and discouraged its use with commanding language like “stop it” highlight a deeper issue: the agency’s role in influencing medical practice and public opinion.
The lawsuit, reinstated by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, accuses the FDA of exceeding its authority by issuing “tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice.” This accusation strikes at the heart of the FDA’s credibility, suggesting an agency more concerned with maintaining a particular narrative than with fostering open scientific discourse.
This inconsistency becomes more glaring when contrasted with the FDA’s approach to off-label COVID-19 vaccine use. Here, the FDA appears less inclined to issue similar warnings or advice, despite both situations involving off-label drug use. This disparity raises questions about the FDA’s impartiality and its commitment to evidence-based decision-making.
Transparency is a cornerstone of public trust, especially in health care. The FDA’s decision to seal its renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit only adds to the growing mistrust. By hiding its reasoning from public scrutiny, the FDA not only undermines its own credibility but also fuels suspicion and skepticism among the public and the medical community. This lack of openness is particularly concerning in a time when trust in health institutions is crucial.
The lawsuit also highlights the problematic nature of regulatory overreach. The FDA’s role must not extend to a point where it unduly influences or intimidates medical professionals. Doctors must retain the freedom to make treatment decisions based on their expertise, patient needs, and current scientific evidence without fear of professional consequences.
In summary, the FDA’s handling of the ivermectin issue is emblematic of a troubling trend within the agency: an apparent eagerness to control the narrative at the expense of open scientific discussion and transparency. As the lawsuit unfolds, it is imperative for the FDA to re-evaluate its approach and reaffirm its commitment to unbiased, evidence-based decision-making and transparency. The public’s trust in health institutions and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship depend on it.
