In a newly released undercover video, a lawyer who defended the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a federal lawsuit admitted that the government agency had exceeded its authority in online statements regarding the use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It’s okay for FDA to communicate information about the drug, but it’s not okay to take the next step and actually tell people ‘You should not take this drug,’” said Isaac Belfer, a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division.
Belfer’s comments were captured in a video by Project Veritas and published Tuesday, in which he discusses his work to defend the government in a lawsuit filed by Houston’s Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and Drs. Rober Apter and Paul Marik. The suit alleged that FDA statements were interfering with the doctors’ ability to treat patients.
“An agency can only do what it has statutory authorization to do, like the FDA can only do what Congress said it can do. That’s it,” said Belfer.
Bowden and the other doctors seeking early treatments for COVID-19 often prescribed the drug ivermectin, which has been approved by the FDA for human use since 1996 for a multitude of diseases. The drug is also used as a dewormer for livestock. But in 2021 the agency posted pictures of a horse on social media with the caption “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
The post also included a link to an agency article titled “Why You Should Not Take Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” but the article excluded acknowledgment that doctors could legally prescribe the drug.
In an initial win for Belfer and the federal government, Judge Jeffrey Brown for the U.S. Southern District Court in Texas dismissed the case, ruling that the FDA had “sovereign immunity,” but his ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last September and remanded back to the lower court.
The FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved to settle and agreed to remove social media posts and the online article. The agreement effectively prevented any further legal precedent on the agency’s statutory authority, but in overturning the lower court, 5th Circuit Justice Don Willett warned that “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise - but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.”
In his comments, Belfer said, “So if what the agency has done is totally beyond the pale, there was no authority whatsoever to do this.”
Belfer also hinted at the agency’s motivation, saying, “They’ll often use something like tweets as a vehicle to pursue a broader agenda.”
“What’s behind the agenda item? I don’t know,” Dr. Richard Apter told Project Veritas.
Bowden said that she thought the FDA had engaged in a “purposeful, coordinated attack” designed to get people to take COVID-19 vaccines.
Although her lawsuit resulted in the FDA removing the posts, Bowden told The Texan most pharmacies still refuse to fill her prescriptions for ivermectin.
“Unfortunately, nothing has changed,” said Bowden. “I still have to find compounding pharmacies to fill the prescriptions while CVS and Walgreens are continuing to resist it. They have new tactics such as saying they need to get pre-authorization from the insurance company or they say that they don’t carry it.”
Bowden is also fighting a legal battle against the Texas Medical Board (TMB) that has stretched on for nearly three years.
After Bowden refused a settlement offer last year, TMB filed charges against her with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) alleging she violated standards of care in prescribing medication for a patient with whom she did not have a prior physician-patient relationship and without conducting an exam. TMB also accused Bowden of unethical behavior and dissemination of disinformation.
“I was given the opportunity to settle but I would have had to admit I’d done something wrong, pay $5,000, retake the jurisprudence exam, take 8 hours of continuing education, and have a mark on my record, so I have chosen to challenge that,” said Bowden.
The TMB has now asked two SOAH judges presiding over her case for a seven- month continuance.
“My legal bills are now $225,000 just for the TMB case,” said Bowden. “They’re violating my due process rights. They’re dragging this out. If they really thought I was dangerous then they wouldn’t take three years to process this.”
Bowden, who has treated over 6,000 COVID-19 patients, said she was not shocked by Belfer’s admission.
“It made me angry more than anything because he was so flippant. What they did has such dire consequences,” said Bowden.
“It’s legally cut and dry, but it’s just so hard to sue the government,” she added.
Disclosure: The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies on its readers for financial support.
