NIH enters defense in the Third Circuit on its ivermectin deception
This is a very brief update to Jin-Pyong Peter Yim v. National Institutes of Health. In January, 2021 I made the following Freedom of Information Act request to the NIH:
““All updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2021 To 01/28/2021)”
The purpose of the FOIA request was to determine whether the recommendation on ivermectin issued in that time frame was based on the vote of a panel or was simply an executive decision. The NIH failed to respond to the FOIA request within the time frame allowed by statutue and I brought a complaint against the NIH in the US Federal Court in the District of New Jersey.
Ultimately, the NIH responded to the FOIA request on April 23, 2021 with the following statement:
“All approved updates to the guidelines are posted online and can be found at https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/. The documents posted on this website respond to your request in full.”
That response and subsequent variations left room for doubt as to whether the record actually existed. In this case, the ivermectin recommendation could not be found at that web address. In March, 2023, the judge found for the NIH on a motion for summary judgement dismissing concerns of mine about ambiguities in the NIH response. I also alleged, with evidence, that the NIH materially altered documents filed with the court but the judge was unconcerned.
The case was appealed in the Third Circuit court on the premise that the district court judge erred in ruling that the FOIA request had been satisfied when it remains uncertain as to whether the requested record actually exists. The court was asked to consider “[w]hether the Court erred because there is uncertainty in the existence of the Requested Record.”
Yesterday the NIH entered their defense in the case reiterating that the requested document does exist: “On May 6, 2021, the Government replied again stating that the records he requested do in fact exist and that the search conducted by the NIH FOIA office revealed that the records weremade public and are posted on the NIH’s website.” and furthermore: “The NIH produced all responsive documents covered by Yim’s request.”
The appeal will likely turn on two key issues:
The inability of the NIH to provide a signed version of the negotiated FOIA response.
More importantly, the fact that the NIH filed fraudulent documents in the case.
The question of whether the NIH misled the nation on ivermectin remains important despite the passing of the emergency phase of COVID-19. The federal appeal process provides the appellant (me) with an opportunity for a “Reply” that will be followed by the judgement of a panel of three appellate court judges.