evidence: A panel of conservative judges has revived a lawsuit over the Food and Drug Administration's statements about the anti-parasitic and de-worming drug ivermectin—statements meant to clarify that the drug is not effective against COVID-19 and that formulations for animals, including livestock, are not safe for use in humans. [...] The lawsuit over the posts comes from three doctors, all of whom have faced charges and/or discipline from their respective state medical boards and employers over their ivermectin prescribing. The disgraced trio argues that the FDA's statements interfered with their ability to prescribe the antiparasitic drug to COVID-19 patients—including some patients the doctors had never actually examined, according to allegations by state medical boards. [...] In an attempt to overcome the FDA's immunity, the doctors argued that the agency's ivermectin-related statements (including a consumer update and social media posts) were outside the agency's authority—and even the legal standard of a "colorable basis for authority." Specifically, they argued that while the FDA's posts seemed targeted to people trying to use the animal versions of ivermectin for COVID-19, the information also advised against using human versions, which are approved for some conditions, though not COVID-19. Thus, use of the human version for COVID-19 would be an off-label use—and off-label use of an approved human drug is common and generally at a doctor's discretion. The lawsuit argued that the FDA doesn't have express authority to advise against using an approved drug for off-label uses, and therefore, it exceeded its authority.