What about Ivermectin, Fauci?

OPINION:

Last weekend Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on “Full Court Press” in which he described a new Merck drug called Molnupiravir. As Van Susteren noted, the drug works similarly to Tamiflu (used for the flu) in reducing symptoms if taken at the onset of COVID-19. According to Fauci, the drug has shown promising results. That is great news.

But wait — aren’t there other drugs that we’ve known about for at least a year that, if taken when symptoms first appear, might also reduce the effects of COVID-19? These are drugs essentially outlawed by big tech and Hollywood, such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Yes, I’m sure I heard Dr. Pierre Kory testify before Sen. Ron Johnson’s congressional committee in 2020 that another Merck drug called Ivermectin could potentially have beneficial results if taken at the onset of COVID-19. Dr. Kory even mentioned that over 100,000 lives in the U.S. alone could have been spared by using Ivermectin.

Isn’t that something? So why would a new drug manufactured by Merck get such rave reviews from Fauci while another gets swept under the pharmaceutical carpet? As pointed out by Dr. Kory, could it be that Ivermectin, a drug that has been successfully used around the world on humans, may have been overlooked because its patents expired and dosages are relatively inexpensive? Worldwide usage of Ivermectin would not do much for Merck’s bottom line. In the interview, Van Susteren disclosed that she is a Merck investor. Fauci did not mention anything about his holdings with the company.

What is going on here? Most Americans just want any available help in combating COVID-19. Aren’t doctors, such as Fauci, under an obligation to save lives, owing to the Hippocratic Oath? Or is the oath only deemed feasible when it leads to profitability?

ED MULVANEY JR.

Anniston, Ala.