Brazil fines doctors $11 million for 'advertising' early COVID treatments

Brazil’s Federal Public Ministry (MPF) last week fined a group of doctors $11 million (55 million rais) for illegally “advertising” cheap and effective early treatments for COVID-19 during the pandemic.

The Médicos Pela Vida (MPV), or ”Doctors for Life,” is an association of tens of thousands of doctors across Brazil and Latin America who advocated for effective early COVID treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. After conducting copious research, MPV’s doctors shared their findings with the public in a publication called “Manifesto for Life”. They also prepared protocols, published scientific studies and gave lectures on the evidence-based medicine supporting affordable early treatments. 

But despite a preponderance of evidence showing the safety and efficacy of these treatments, the public ministry claims there is none.

“[I]nformation about medicines must be scientifically proven, which is not the case with those listed in the [MPV’s] manifesto when applied to cases of COVID-19,” says the ministry.

However, as a Brazilian judge recently ruled, the judiciary may not interfere with how doctors — who have “professional freedom and autonomy” — treat their patients.

Instead, the MPF is now seeking “moral and health damages” from the physicians, claiming they engaged in “irregular drug advertising” for Vitamedic, which manufactures ivermectin.

The allegation comes despite a finding by the Brazilian Health Agency (ANVISA), which regulates medicinal advertising, that MPV did not engage in any such advertising. In its manifesto, the physicians do not mention any pharmaceutical companies, and the drugs listed are not patented by any brand:

We emphasize that the early approach is not just about the use of one or another drug, but the correct combination of medications such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, bromhexine, azithromycin, zinc, vitamin D, anticoagulants, among others, in addition to corticosteroids, which are used at the right moment in the inflammatory phases of the disease, always observing the adequacy of the combinations to the state and evolution of each patient, who will be followed up extensively, including carrying out tests as necessary, and recommending non-pharmacological interventions, such as physiotherapy.

MPV Coordinator Dr. Carlos Eduardo Nigro has promised to appeal the 55 million rais fine, citing ANVISA's conclusion. He also emphasized that support for early COVID-19 treatments is widely shared by scientists around the world.

“History has proven that doctors for life and all other health professionals around the world who advocated and implemented immediate treatment were correct. The results are evidence of this, and countless lives have been saved as a result of their actions,” he said in a public response to the MPF’s ruling.

Sources tell Frontline News that the crusade against scientific freedom stems from judicial activism, a philosophy which teaches that prosecutors and judges should adjudicate not only based on law, but on social justice ideology. Ultimately, this results in punishment for those who do not conform to globalist organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) or the United Nations (UN).

In February, the Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU) filed a motion in February to prevent doctors from treating COVID-19 patients with early treatments. The DPU brought the complaint against the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM), Brazil’s physicians associations, claiming that the drugs are “ineffective” against COVID-19. The government asked the court to fine the physicians R$60 million ($12,025,494) for “collective moral damage”.

However, the judge ruled that medical questions should be left up to medical professionals, who must have freedom and autonomy to practice medicine.

“[D]octors, despite having their profession duly regulated, have professional freedom and autonomy, which includes prescribing medication to patients based on their scientific knowledge,” said the court.

The judge also noted that non-physicians should not be telling physicians what to tell their patients.

“It is not up to the Judiciary, which does not have technical qualification in medicine to order the Federal Council of Medicine to guide physicians or the general population about the non-use or ineffectiveness of some medicine, which would represent an undue interference in the technical inspection body of the medical class, by a lay body of the Judiciary, which precludes the granting of injunctive relief,” the judge concluded.

Dr. Nigro agrees.

“Physicians need to work with the best scientific evidence available and have the necessary autonomy in their practices. Furthermore, citizens have the right to make their own choices regarding their treatments,” he said.

“Undoubtedly, it would have been easier for us doctors if we had worked in silence, just caring for and saving the lives of our family members and close friends affected by such a serious illness. However, this is not in line with our understanding of medical ethics and compassion, so we exercise the right – or duty – to expose our position to the general population, without obtaining any financial benefit,” Dr. Nigro added.

The physician reaffirmed the organization’s support for early treatments, which he said is in line with the Hippocratic Oath.