June 17.2024.Hartsuch.v.Iowa.Boards.of.Medicine+Pharmacy.24-0226_ARBT_531915

Two cases are before the Iowa Supreme Court this week – one involving killing babies and the other killing germs.

In the case of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v Reynolds, the governor is trying to enforce the "Heartbeat" bill which delegates legislative authority to an executive branch board of medicine which arguably is beyond the authority of said board.

On the other hand, we have my lawsuit Hartsuch v Iowa Board of Medicine and Iowa Board of Pharmacy to defend the right of patients to receive treatment for COVID-19 and to hear information from physicians freely about COVID-19.

In the latter case, the Iowa legislature has expressed the sentiment that “off-label” drugs such as Ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19. At the time of this writing, we are patiently awaiting the Supreme Court decision in each case. Let’s not, therefore, blame the Iowa Supreme Court.

In general, the same group of people that think it’s a woman’s right to kill her unborn child also think that it’s okay for government to make a choice for patients with COVID-19, that they cannot receive treatment for the disease. The slogan “My body, my choice” appears to only apply when the choice is to end the life of unborn child and does not apply in seeking treatment for COVID-19 or whether to receive the vaccine. In the former case, there is recognition that a person has the right to bodily autonomy, but in the latter case, no such bodily autonomy exists.

I may be strongly pro-life, but the “Heartbeat” bill does not declare that abortion is illegal and does not impose any penalty upon abortionists who perform an abortion on a baby with a heartbeat. Instead, Senate File 359 signed into law by Governor Reynolds in May leaves the matter entirely up to the Board of Medicine to decide if disciplinary action is to be taken against licensed physicians.

But medical licensure is based upon the police powers of the state, and it is solely for the legislature to decide if any penalty is to be imposed upon the abortionists. It is not for the executive branch's Board of Medicine or Pharmacy to decide such matters.

With regard to the use of ivermectin, in July 2020 the “COVID-19 Response and Back-to-Business Limited Liability Act” (Chapter 686D) the legislature granted tort protection for doctors who prescribed “off-label” drugs in order to treat COVID-19. It is for the legislature and not the executive branch via the governor appointed boards of medicine and pharmacy to establish policy whether to use a particular drug. On September 11, 2020, the Iowa Boards of Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing, Physicians Assistants, and Dental issued a joint statement about “prescriptions being issued for hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin for preventative purposes in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.” The boards wrote: “This updated joint statement does not impose any mandatory requirements on prescribers or pharmacies or create any new legal requirements. The purpose of this joint statement is in no way meant to act as a deterrent for prescribers to use the identified medications in the manner in which they have been verified to be effective.”

While the joint statement acknowledged prescribing “off-label” drugs such as hydroxychloroquine would not result in disciplinary action, discovery in my lawsuit reveals that medical board staff undertook unlawful investigations for such lawful actions taken by physicians including myself.

In December 2021, Kent Nebel, then director of the Iowa Board of Medicine announced that 17 physicians were investigated for “spreading misinformation about COVID-19” and the “misinformation” that we were spreading was that there was an effective “off-label” treatment for COVID-19.

By Iowa law, all governing boards' licensee's investigatory files are deemed to be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. This is to protect both the accuser and the accused. Even though a pharmacist may violate Iowa law by discriminating whether a patient receives a prescription based on what disease the prescription is for, the board governing their license has abused prosecutorial discretion to not discipline said pharmacist. This is what happened to me and my patient that precipitated the action that is currently being reviewed by the Iowa Supreme Court. However, Iowa Code §272C.6 4.a. requires when such investigative information “indicates” a crime has been committed “the information shall be reported to the proper law enforcement agency.” And Iowa code 721.1 defines non-felonious conduct of public officials when they attempt to prevent the public from engaging in lawful acts. Similarly, the federal code defines such an offense.

The FDA only has authority of the marketing of drugs but not how the physicians use the drug U.S. Code 21 sec 396 states, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” Once a drug is publicly approved by the FDA as safe and effective for any indication, physicians may use it for others uses that they see fit. The federal code specifies that the FDA cannot interfere with the patient-physician relationship. The FDA ignored this limitation and surreptitiously worked through the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy in order to get the state medical and pharmacy boards to do their dirty work and prevent patients from getting ivermectin or other treatment for COVID-19.

In essence, the FDA has manipulated the state boards to do its bidding rather than the state boards follow the law. The FDA was not trying to protect the public from “off-label” drugs to treat COVID-19. By federal statute the FDA cannot issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine as long as there is a treatment for the disease. Without EUA, the vaccine manufacturers don't enjoy liability protection from adverse effects patients may experience. The FDA had to be sure that there was no treatment for COVID-19 to preserve vaccine makers' ability to market the vaccine. They had to be sure that physicians would not treat COVID-19. The FDA determined that some people must die so the others will be vaccinated. The only other option to market the vaccine would be to get congressional approval.

The investigative information released in Hartsuch vs. Iowa Board of Medicine substantiates the involvement of the FDA in initiating Hartsuch's investigation contrary to the wishes of the Iowa legislature and the Board of Medicine itself. It is possible that medical board staff did not inform their board of their actions. This indicates that a criminal act and should be treated as such. Since the FDA has no authority to prevent off label prescribing of drugs, their attempt to do so is violation of section 721 of Iowa Code.

In comparison with Nebraska, which defended the right of physicians to prescribe “off-label” drugs to treat COVID-19, Iowa experienced a 37-percent increase in the COVID-19 case fatality rate which indicated that approximately 2600 people in Iowa died unnecessarily due to lack of treatment for COVID-19. As part of my filing with Supreme Court, I provided two affidavits from individuals with firsthand knowledge of people who died of COVID-19 because they could not get their prescriptions filled at their pharmacy. A recent article by Maggie and James Thorp alleges that two national pharmacy chains, as a condition of receiving money from the federal government, agreed to not fill “off-label” prescriptions for COVID-19. In the latest filing for my Pro Se case against the Iowa Boards of Medicine and Pharmacy (started in December 2022), I have asked the Supreme Court to refer the documented violations of not filling Ivermectin for a lawful prescription from a licensed prescriber back to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy for an investigation with the help of our Attorney General.

What remains for the Iowa Supreme Court is the issue of whether the Iowa Board of pharmacy has censored free speech of physicians. One physician, who is also a veteran, was investigated by the Iowa Board of pharmacy for criticism of the military for requiring the vaccination of all military personnel. The Board of Medicine never had to actually discipline doctors but merely to chill their speech through the threat of investigation. The Iowa Supreme Court is uniquely enabled to answer legal questions concerning censorship.

Thus far, America has had a very stable form of Constitutional government. However, there exist many who seek to bypass the checks and balances that this Constitution has put in place. Fortunately, our Constitution and law have created organs of our government such as the judicial branch, Attorney General, and the ombudsman’s office that hopefully shall be alerted and ready to right the ship. Ultimately, it is up to the people to exercise their writ and determine whether our Constitutional form of government will be upheld. The Pro Se case filing and associated documents can be found at RCReader.com/y/hartsuch.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher