-
I worry that the scientists who are supporting Ivermectin are too naive. They scratch their heads, puzzled and frustrated about why people are being overly cautious about Ivermectin. They might even excuse it as an overreaction to hydroxychloroquine, which was unfortunately hyped prematurely. But this is not just a battle over caution versus speed, cost-benefit analysis for patients with lethal prognoses. This is not a repeat of the HIV medication battle where gay activists successfully shamed the FDA into loosening their strict standards on experimental drug approval and use. Those activists didn’t have a strong interest group that was threatened by the approval of cheap readily available treatments. But you do.
1) Everyone seems to focus on the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to eliminate cheap generic competition to their expensive new patentable therapeutics. That is correct but it is the least of your worries. Journalists do NOT usually get in bed with pharmaceutical companies; the media usually attacks these companies for charging too much, making too much profit. There are much more powerful forces arrayed against you.
2) The government and medical establishment has a strong incentive to deny or at least delay any acknowledgment of a practical therapeutic because that might threaten the vaccination program in two ways: (i) it might increase the resistance to vaccination; (ii) it would remove the justification for accelerated approval of the vaccines. Unfortunately, this is a misplaced worry. People forget that the primary goal is to reduce hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 while eventually allowing herd immunity. If a combination of therapeutics and vaccination can reduce hospitalization and death most efficiently and quickly, then we shouldn’t be concerned if vaccination rates are slowed. After all, a COVID-19 infection contained by therapeutics, like Ivermectin, is essentially a live and cheap vaccination. But for those who believe in the religion of only vaccination, Ivermectin is heresy. That’s why we have scientists supporting Ivermectin, like the FLCCC, who are all PRO-vaxxers, being smeared as anti-vaxxers.
3) There are powerful political forces that want to keep the country in lockdown and preserve the concentration of emergency powers at the federal, state, and municipal level. If you have vaccines and a good drug to cover both unvaccinated people and virus variants, how can you be the CDC director and tell everyone that you have a sense of “impending doom”. Thus, good cheap therapeutics pose a threat to their ability to use the pandemic emergency to pursue their political agenda. These forces will try to muzzle or cancel you, if your pursuit of therapeutics threatens this agenda. Look at how BigTech has been censoring videos on alternative therapeutics because it is “disinformation” (including Senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC). Look at how the only Ivermectin paper the media has publicized is the JAMA article. Don’t underestimate the determination and reach of these forces!