Difference between revisions of "Ivermectin litigation"
(additional examples) |
(another example) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Additional examples include: | Additional examples include: | ||
| − | *''Gahl v. Aurora Health Care, Inc.'', 977 N.W.2d 756, 782 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022) ("Throughout the October 12 hearing, the circuit court repeatedly questioned the parties to elicit additional information and greater detail. For example, the circuit court asked questions regarding the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) position regarding ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." | + | *''Gahl v. Aurora Health Care, Inc.'', 977 N.W.2d 756, 782 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022) ("Throughout the October 12 hearing, the circuit court repeatedly questioned the parties to elicit additional information and greater detail. For example, the circuit court asked questions regarding the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) position regarding ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.") |
| + | *''Tex. Health Huguley, Inc. v. Jones'', 637 S.W.3d 202, 209 n.12 (Tex. App. 2021) ("The doctor explained that he had not prescribed Ivermectin while treating Mr. Jones's COVID-19 because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued a warning that the drug should not be used for COVID-19 treatment, and because, likely for the same reason, the drug was not part of Huguley's COVID-19 protocol."). | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[category:coronavirus]] | [[category:coronavirus]] | ||
Revision as of 04:56, September 27, 2022
Ivermectin litigation in the context of Covid-19 consists of only 11 federal and 15 state court decisions (as of September 25, 2022), some of which involve efforts to block hospital interference with administration of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 patients.
Many of decisions involved courts siding with hospitals that refused to allow ivermectin for Covid-19 patients. Eight of the 26 cases -- totaling 30% -- mistakenly relied on the FDA's unjustified hostility to this safe, often-effective medication. The FDA is prohibited by law from attempting to practice medicine, and typically does not approve medication for specific uses after such medications are initially approved as safe for any use.
Typical was this ruling by a Michigan appellate court:
| “ | Ivermectin is an anti-parasite medication commonly used to treat parasitic diseases in humans and animals and some skin conditions such as rosacea. Although a number of physicians across the country have prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved ivermectin for use in treating COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends against its use to treat COVID-19, and defendants' internal policy does not permit the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. | ” |
Frey v. Trinity Health-Michigan, No. 359446, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 6988, at *2 (Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2021) (footnotes omitted).
In Frey, the Michigan appellate court expressly relied on the FDA's website posting that wrongly disparages ivermectin.[1]
Additional examples include:
- Gahl v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 977 N.W.2d 756, 782 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022) ("Throughout the October 12 hearing, the circuit court repeatedly questioned the parties to elicit additional information and greater detail. For example, the circuit court asked questions regarding the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) position regarding ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.")
- Tex. Health Huguley, Inc. v. Jones, 637 S.W.3d 202, 209 n.12 (Tex. App. 2021) ("The doctor explained that he had not prescribed Ivermectin while treating Mr. Jones's COVID-19 because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued a warning that the drug should not be used for COVID-19 treatment, and because, likely for the same reason, the drug was not part of Huguley's COVID-19 protocol.").
