The real reason the government panned ivermectin

During COVID, there were allegedly no treatments available, according to the FDA and CDC.  Even through a number of front-line doctors were having success with ivermectin and HCQ, the CDC and FDA put real barriers in place for working doctors to utilize those treatments.  Many doctors were threatened with losing their license if they continued to treat patients, and some doctors were fired.

As the dust has begun to settle, there is a legal issue that might explain the lack of curiosity about a potential cheap treatment for COVID.  If there had been a treatment for COVID, then the Emergency Use Authorization could not be used for the vaccine.  Explained here very well, “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available.”

Well, an interesting development occurred when doctors sued the FDA for interfering in their off-label use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.  The FDA has now tried to argue that it never told anyone not to use it.  It just made fun of people for considering using it.

I believe that the people running the FDA have misrepresented the pressures applied to doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe this and help people.

And we are also learning that FDA and CDC had plenty of warning that the so-called vaccines were dangerous, information they completely hid and ignored.

This is all a setup for a few thoughts.

1) An international study has concluded that ivermectin prevented more serious illness in approximately 62% of cases.  See the Gateway Pundit article referenced above, and find this fabulous line: “There have now been 99 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% improvement in COVID patients.”  Think of the number of ventilator hours saved, and the number of hospital beds that could have been freed up with even a 50% effective rate.

More