The demonization of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is yet another in the FDA’s lengthy list of failures to comply with its own mandates.
In a purely legalistic sense, however, the FDA has an out in the word "adequate". The same gray area that damns them on the body of evidence regarding the mRNA inoculations tends to exonerate them o…
The demonization of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is yet another in the FDA’s lengthy list of failures to comply with its own mandates.
In a purely legalistic sense, however, the FDA has an out in the word "adequate". The same gray area that damns them on the body of evidence regarding the mRNA inoculations tends to exonerate them on Ivermectin--the simple defense is Ivermectin is not "adequate".
Still, regardless of the evidence for and against Ivermectin, without solid evidence of efficacy and safety for the inoculations, they should not receive EUA.
I agree with you on Ivermectin, but view that as an amplifying argument rather than a core argument.
Agree that their most egregious crimes are the promotion of ineffective and arguably harmful (albeit VERY profitable) treatments. Their obfuscation, suppression, and lies about safe alternative (less profitable)treatments supported and justified their primary offense. My reason for pointing it out was that the absence of alternative treatments is a prerequisite condition for EUA that many (including me) would argue was not met. Seems pretty important when you consider the lack of safety data for EUA drugs at the outset and the suppression of safety data as the “emergency” progressed.
The demonization of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is yet another in the FDA’s lengthy list of failures to comply with its own mandates.
In a purely legalistic sense, however, the FDA has an out in the word "adequate". The same gray area that damns them on the body of evidence regarding the mRNA inoculations tends to exonerate them on Ivermectin--the simple defense is Ivermectin is not "adequate".
Still, regardless of the evidence for and against Ivermectin, without solid evidence of efficacy and safety for the inoculations, they should not receive EUA.
I agree with you on Ivermectin, but view that as an amplifying argument rather than a core argument.
Agree that their most egregious crimes are the promotion of ineffective and arguably harmful (albeit VERY profitable) treatments. Their obfuscation, suppression, and lies about safe alternative (less profitable)treatments supported and justified their primary offense. My reason for pointing it out was that the absence of alternative treatments is a prerequisite condition for EUA that many (including me) would argue was not met. Seems pretty important when you consider the lack of safety data for EUA drugs at the outset and the suppression of safety data as the “emergency” progressed.