FLCCC Lawyer to NY AG: Your Overreach is Showing—Badly

The ‘deceptive acts’ these doctors were accused of providing were, in actuality, courageous acts of life-saving compassion.” A member of the FLCCC’s legal team responds to the NY AG’s “cease and desist” letter to doctors and healthcare providers.

On November 23, 2021, the office of Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, issued a letter to physicians listed as telehealth providers on the FLCCC website. She warned these doctors – many of whom were from other states – that they must “cease and desist” from prescribing ivermectin to residents of New York State; and that they must amend their telehealth “advertisement” on the FLCCC website to indicate they do NOT serve residents of the state of New York.

The letter further threatened that failure to comply with the Attorney General’s directive could result in a lawsuit seeking to “enjoin deceptive acts”; and to seek restitution, damages and penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation.

The “deceptive acts” to which the AG referred were outlined in the letter. (Note: All of the following noted by the AG are demonstrably FALSE, as evidenced by peer-reviewed science.)

FALSEHOOD #1: Providers of ivermectin are misleading consumers as to the effectiveness of ivermectin for COVID-19.

FACT: The effectiveness of ivermectin has been proven in over 70 scientific trials.

FALSEHOOD #2: Adverse effects associated with ivermectin are increasing, as shown in a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and adverse effects.

FACT: After the New York Times reported that the Mississippi State Department of Health attributed 70% of its calls to ivermectin adverse events, they were forced to retract the figures. In fact, the ivermectin-related calls to the Mississippi State Department of Health represented only 2% of the total calls; and that 70% of those calls (1.4% of all calls) were from people who ingested veterinary grade ivermectin. (NOTE: The FLCCC has consistently advised against the use of animal-grade ivermectin.)

FALSEHOOD #3: The National Institutes of Health has determined that there is insufficient evidence to recommend ivermectin for COVID-19

FACT: The NIH has a “neutral” stance on IVM use.

Very soon after the issuance of that letter, doctors listed on our website who provide telehealth for residents of New York began sending us the copies they received. Understandably, many asked to be removed from our website, or to have their listings amended to exclude provision of services to New York residents.

The “deceptive acts” these doctors were accused of providing were, in actuality, courageous acts of life-saving compassion. Robust epidemiological studies from around the world validate the science in the real world and point to the effectiveness of preventive protocols based around ivermectin. But the well-coordinated and well-funded media campaign against ivermectin has strangled true science and caused the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Upon reading the AG’s letter, the physicians and scientists on our team immediately knew that Ms. James had “leapt before she looked” by failing to evaluate, investigate —or even acknowledge— any of the peer-reviewed and published scientific data that overwhelmingly support ivermectin-related protocols in radically lowering COVID-19 related hospitalizations and death. Instead, the AG mindlessly parroted the severely  compromised—and profit motivated—Big Pharma/FDA narrative that the vaccines are forever and always the only solution to the pandemic; and now maybe some new, and of course, extremely expensive antiviral drugs that have neither the efficacy nor the safety profiles of ivermectin. (The vaccines are but one of many solutions.)

For advice on how to provide guidance to our telehealth doctors, we turned to our esteemed legal counsel, Alan Dumoff. On our behalf, Alan wrote a response letter to the New York Attorney General’s office to address the gross misconceptions and twisted science that was masquerading as fact by the AG’s office.

This letter and its powerful legal, scientific and ethical arguments can be utilized by doctors and nurses prescribing ivermectin to New York residents – or to the residents of any state that attempts to dictate to health care providers how they can or cannot treat their patients.

In his response to the Attorney General’s (AG) office, Dumoff argues that, “the scientific data supporting the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin as an early intervention in COVID-19 has been clouded by a perfect storm of political controversy.”  Indeed it has.

Dumoff (AD) noted “the highly politicized drumbeats” that relentlessly sound against ivermectin. In his answer to the AG’s letter, those tired tropes include the following:

AG: There are no scientific studies that show that ivermectin is safe or effective in the treatment of COVID 19.

AD: There is a substantial body of evidence including over 50,000 study subjects in 71 trials – of which at least 31 are randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses of these trials by top scientists (including some affiliated with the WHO and other health organizations) enabled a more accurate assessment of the drug’s true effects. All found consistent benefits amongst the trials.

AG: Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for COVID.

AD: Off-label uses are extremely common in medicine. Manufacturers and distributors have limits on speech for off-label claims, but that limitation does not apply to physicians. A governmental effort to squelch such statements, where they are in fact supportable, can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment.

AG: Cease and desist from prescribing ivermectin to residents of New York State.

AD: That physicians should cease and desist from following the scientific evidence and their clinical experience just because the indication is not authorized by FDA is not legally grounded.

AG: The most effective way to prevent COVID-19 is by getting a COVID-19 vaccine and following CDC guidance for treatment.

AD: Physicians and scientists should be allowed to make their own determinations in the face of such differences without being subject to legal challenge, particularly when the safety data is properly understood. (Author’s note: The FLCCC Alliance has always maintained that its protocols are a bridge to vaccines and a safety net for those who cannot or have not been vaccinated or are vaccinated and have concerns regarding declining protection against emerging variants. Vaccines have shown efficacy in preventing the most severe outcomes of COVID-19 and are an important part of a multi-modal strategy that must also include early treatment. The decision to get a vaccine should be made in consultation with your health care provider.)

AG: Adverse effects associated with IVM are increasing, as shown in a rise in calls to poison control centers.

AD: Relying on hyped up news reporting of alleged cases and statistics to make it seem alarming does not eradicate the long history of a high safety profile for ivermectin. Fact: 1,000,000 scripts were written for ivermectin in 2021. Adverse events were reported in roughly 0.019% of cases. (Author’s note: This is a far safer record that the FDA –COVID approved, but sadly ineffective drug, Remdesevir.)

Dumoff concluded his letter as follows:

“It is not necessary that you agree that ivermectin is an important drug in managing COVID-19, only that your Office recognize that there is reasonable basis for its use and there is no need for the intervention of the Attorney General’s office in medical choices made in the face of this level of evidence. We ask that you retract the cease and desist letters intended to restrict the rights of physicians to lawfully discuss this with the public and prescribe ivermectin to their patients…

We strongly believe that ivermectin, particularly as part of the FLCCC protocol, has a vital role to play and that public health policy makers should be helping, not hindering those efforts.”

Alan Dumoff’s entire letter is found HERE. The link to the references and attachments is HERE.