US Supreme Court asked to consider NIH deception on ivermectin
On January 28, 2021 I asked the National Institutes of Health, in effect, whether they held a vote on their recent recommendation on ivermectin. The recommendation, made on January 14, 2021, stated:
The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
By law, federal agencies are not required to answer questions submitted by the public. However, agencies are required to provide records upon request. Thus, the question was posed as a record request. The request was for:
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)
NIH failed to respond to the request within 20 business days as required by statute. Nor were they able to provide an estimated completion date. Without other options, I filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 29, 2021.
Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, NIH provided several responses to the record request. and ultimately, on March 29, 2023, the District Court granted a motion from the NIH for summary judgment and dismissal of the case. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2023 on the basis that the District Court erred in its finding that the NIH had adequately responded to the record request. On October 13, 2023, the Circuit Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court and on December 12, 2023, the Circuit Court denied a petition for rehearing.
The rulings of the District and Circuit Courts are unfortunate but are vulnerable to reversal. For that reason, the case is now appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In legalese, the case has been submitted to the Supreme Court in the form of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The primary issue raised with the court is that the NIH did not confirm or deny the existence of the requested record as has been required in prior federal cases.