In a revealing development, a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney defending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in court admitted that the agency’s actions against ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic were an overreach of government authority. The admission was captured by Project Veritas in an undercover interview with DOJ trial lawyer Isaac Belfer, who had represented the FDA in a contentious legal battle against a group of doctors advocating for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
The case was rooted in the FDA's 2021 viral public campaign discouraging the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The most infamous element of the campaign was a tweet from the FDA that read: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it." This tweet, and others like it, urged people to avoid the drug, which is widely used as an antiparasitic in animals and humans.
The lawsuit was brought forward by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Robert L. Apter, and Dr. Paul E. Marik, three physicians who prescribed ivermectin to thousands of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. These doctors argued that the FDA’s public statements overstepped its authority, leading to dire professional and medical consequences.
In the undercover interview, Belfer disclosed that the FDA had, in fact, exceeded its statutory powers by issuing medical advice via social media, which ultimately led to the agency's legal defeat. Belfer admitted that the doctors’ claims of government overreach were valid, signaling that the FDA’s influence might have been improperly used in discouraging the use of the drug.
Ivermectin, an FDA-approved drug with a decades-long history of human use, was at the center of controversy throughout the pandemic. Although primarily used to treat parasitic infections, some doctors prescribed it off-label as a potential COVID-19 treatment, citing anecdotal evidence and early studies suggesting it could be effective. The FDA, however, strongly opposed this use, claiming it was unproven and unsafe.
Doctors like Bowden, Apter, and Marik saw positive results in their patients and argued that ivermectin was a cheap and accessible alternative to other treatments. They suggested that the FDA's suppression campaign against the drug may have been linked to the government’s push to fast-track the COVID-19 vaccine through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Under EUA regulations, the vaccine could only be fast-tracked if no other viable treatment options existed—leading the doctors to speculate that the FDA had ulterior motives in discouraging ivermectin.
This suppression campaign had widespread consequences. In response to the FDA’s guidance, national medical associations, regulatory agencies, and even pharmacies began refusing to prescribe or dispense ivermectin. Many insurance companies stopped covering the drug, and doctors who continued to prescribe it faced harsh professional repercussions. Dr. Bowden was forced to resign from Houston Methodist Hospital, Apter faced disciplinary proceedings, and Marik resigned from Eastern Virginia Medical School.
The recent court ruling marked a significant win for the trio of doctors, forcing the FDA to delete its social media posts discouraging ivermectin use for COVID-19. However, despite this legal victory, the agency did not officially alter its policy, and the medical community still largely follows the FDA’s lead. Pharmacies continue to refuse ivermectin prescriptions, and doctors prescribing it for COVID-19 are often met with professional backlash.
Even though the doctors continue to face repercussions, Belfer’s candid admission to Project Veritas suggests that the lawsuit has sent a clear message to the FDA and other government agencies. Belfer remarked that the legal defeat would make the FDA more cautious before issuing public health advisories that could overstep their bounds in the future.
Dr. Bowden, reflecting on the long legal battle, believes that this victory has vindicated her and her colleagues. She expressed hope that the outcome of the case would protect other physicians from similar overreach and allow doctors the freedom to make medical decisions based on their professional judgment, not the dictates of public health campaigns.
Though the lawsuit against the FDA resulted in the removal of its misleading posts, much work remains to be done. The influence of the agency’s initial public relations campaign continues to affect the medical landscape, with ivermectin still widely stigmatized as a COVID-19 treatment. The case highlights ongoing tensions between government authority, public health policy, and medical freedom, which could set a precedent for how future public health crises are managed.
Ultimately, the legal battle serves as a reminder of the importance of clearly defining the boundaries of governmental authority in public health decisions and ensuring that medical professionals retain their ability to prescribe treatments based on their expertise and the needs of their patients.
