Lawless FDA refusing to repeal past anti-ivermectin statements, despite recent court ruling
By Ethan Huff // Sep 20, 2023

Despite one of its lawyers recently admitting in court that Americans can, in fact, take ivermectin as a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) treatment, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still refusing to change its official stance concerning the prophylactic drug.

Even though a court ruled that the FDA acted well outside of its jurisdictional authority with the whole "horse paste" fiasco, the FDA says it will not change any of its past statements against ivermectin.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that these past statements from the FDA, including one on Twitter (now X) telling the public to "stop" using ivermectin because it is supposedly just for barnyard animals, went beyond the authority conferred on the agency by Congress. And yet, the FDA is still digging its heels in the sand.

"FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers 'stop' taking medicine," ruled U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett in a September 1 ruling.

(Related: A quick fact check shows that the FDA first approved ivermectin for human use back in 1996.)

The FDA is an enemy of We the People

It has been about two weeks since Judge Willett's ruling, and the social media post in question, as well as others, is still up on X unchanged.

"You are not a horse," reads the Aug. 21, 2021, X post that got the FDA in trouble in the first place. "You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."

The webpage that the FDA linked to in this particular social media post also remains unchanged, ordering Americans that they "should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19."

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

To be fair, the appeals court never actually told the FDA to modify or take down the posts. The case has also been remanded to a lower court for consideration on its standing.

Still, Dr. Robert Apter, the lead plaintiff in the case that ultimately led to Willett's ruling, says the FDA has an obligation to take down these offending posts that are still up in violation of the law.

"From an ethical point of view, the FDA has been told not to do what they are doing," Dr. Apter is quoted as saying. "They have an ethical and moral obligation to follow the court's directive and stop giving advice against using effective repurposed drugs for early treatment of COVID."

When asked by at least one independent media outlet for comment on the matter, the FDA reportedly declined.

The FDA did, however, issue a statement following Judge Willett's ruling. It states that ivermectin is approved by the agency for other uses, but not for COVID, even though Big Pharma companies have been repurposing FDA-approved drugs for decades without consequence.

The FDA stipulated that it "has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use."

"Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient," the agency added.

This process is known as off-label prescription, and it is common in the United States as drug companies look for new ways to keep the profits flowing once a given drug loses its luster for its officially approved purpose.

"The decision is pretty clear that the FDA is not a physician, and that while it might have authority to inform the public, it can't endorse particular treatments or advise on how to approach any specific illness," commented Jared Kelson, an attorney representing the doctor plaintiffs in the case.

The latest news about the corrupt and criminally run FDA can be found at

Sources for this article include:

Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more. © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.