A federal judge in Minnesota today granted the motions to dismiss filed by Walmart and Hy-Vee Supermarkets, in the lawsuit funded by We The Patriots USA on behalf of Bill and Karla Salier. Bill, a retired U.S. Marine who served valiantly in Somalia and at Camp David, attempted to get a prescription for ivermectin filled at both Walmart and Hy-Vee after he and his wife became seriously ill with COVID-19 last year. After pharmacists at both stores denied him, he resorted to using horse paste for treatment. After they recovered, Bill turned to We The Patriots USA for help, which funded the lawsuit that was filed earlier this year.
We are not surprised by this decision, especially given the hostility that has been shown to patients across the country who dare to seek treatment that does not conform to the narrative propagated by the mainstream medical establishment mob. In our view, there are a lot of problems with Judge Patrick Schiltz’s decision, but here are some highlights:
“The Saliers have asserted various tort claims related to Walmart’s and Hy‐Vee’s refusals to fill the Saliers’ prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, two drugs that the Saliers wanted to use to treat their COVID‐19 infections, even though virtually every medical and governmental authority to address the issue has said that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine should not be used to treat COVID‐19.”
– Judge Schiltz, Bill Salier et al. v. Walmart et al.
This is a major problem with the American judicial system, one we have highlighted time and again over the years. When the authority of the PERSON is asserted over the authority of the EVIDENCE, the court substitutes lofty titles and educational credentials for actual scientific data. It is irrelevant how many so-called “authorities” have said ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are dangerous or ineffective to treat COVID-19. The evidence shows otherwise. Until we stop elevating public health authorities over the authority of real, scientific evidence, justice will not be served.
“The implications of recognizing the right asserted by the Saliers—not just the right to do whatever you want with your own body, but the right to force others to help you (so much for their right of self‐determination)—would be mind‐boggling, even if it were just limited to medical providers. If a pharmacist at Walmart is legally required to fill a prescription for ivermectin because the patient demands it, then is every doctor in Minnesota legally required to provide an abortion if a patient demands it? Is every nurse legally required to assist a patient in committing suicide?”
– Judge Schiltz, Bill Salier et al. v. Walmart et al.
First of all, the Saliers were not “demanding” or “forcing” the pharmacists to do anything. They were simply requesting that the pharmacist do his job, i.e., fill a prescription ordered for them by a duly licensed physician. Moreover, the fact that the judge would compare a patient requesting that a pharmacist fill his doctor’s prescription to a patient demanding that his doctor commit murder, is utterly reprehensible. A more appropriate comparison would be a doctor refusing to provide medical treatment to a patient bleeding on the ground in front of him. This was a refusal of a pharmacist to provide life-saving treatment, not life-taking treatment. By substituting their judgments for the judgment of the Saliers’ physician, the pharmacists were practicing medicine without a license, a practice apparently endorsed by the court today.
REST ASSURED, WE WILL BE APPEALING THIS DECISION. The medical rights of every individual in this country are at stake, and we will not back down. Please be on the lookout for updates not only here, but on our Telegram channel. Please also consider a donation to our organization, so we can continue to take on many more battles like this from coast to coast. We won’t win every case, and that’s why we need to file as many as possible! Most of all, we ask that you please keep us (and the Saliers) in your prayers.