Covid Pills

Columnist: Why Is The Biden Admin Set To Approve Big Pharma’s COVID Pills, But Ignore The Abilities Of Ivermectin?

Pfizer and Merck could each reap billions of dollars from a new, but still untried, pill therapy to combat COVID-19.

That’s atop the billions Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson have made from their respective COVID vaccines.

But Daniel Horowitz, a senior editor at the conservative website The Blaze, wonders why the federal government is pursuing the new pills while dismissing an alternative that’s cheaper, possibly better and more readily available – the much-maligned (at least on the left) Ivermectin.

In a column on Wednesday, Horowitz maintained Pfizer and Merck’s pills are “extremely dangerous and unproven,” and the pending approval of their use by the FDA “is as shocking as it is revealing and should serve as a warning to those who don’t believe the FDA would approve vaccines that aren’t safe and effective.”

Horowitz noted that the three FDA-approved drugs for inpatient treatment of COVID all have a “black box warning” for serious adverse side effects, in addition to not showing any effectiveness. One is known to cause liver toxicity and renal failure; another is suspected of causing blood clots; the third can lead to other “serious infections and malignancy.”

The new pills, Merck’s Lagevrio and Pfizer’s Paxlovid, have similar issues, Horowitz contends.

According to Horowitz, the Merck product could cause birth defects and changes in DNA, and was never studied for its potential as a carcinogenic – even as studies showed recipients in trials who received the placebo performed better than those who got the actual drug.

Meanwhile, he added, “Even the mainstream media has warned that the drug really is not up to snuff, yet shockingly, the FDA is set to give it approval, as if basic safety and efficacy facts no longer matter.”

“This move in itself, in conjunction with what we know about the approved inpatient drugs, should tell you everything you need to know about the juxtaposition of the vaccine approval to the war on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and the refusal to approve or encourage the use of numerous other safe and effective drugs,” Horowitz wrote.

On the other hand, Pfizer’s is considered as a “defensive drug”  as a “protease inhibitor.”

Horowitz explained that COVID forms a long chain of proteins that in time gets clipped and snipped and reforms to spread within the body. A protease inhibitor prevents that clipping from happening, thus reducing the virus’ ability to replicate.

But, Horowitz asks, “Do you know what else is also the most effective protease inhibitor on the market? Ivermectin.”

Ivermectin, which is repeatedly labeled in the media as “unproven” against COVID, actually has at least 19 other “mechanisms of action” that could help fight the virus, which are lacking in Pfizer’s product.

“So why would we rely on an expensive drug with one of Ivermectin’s 20 mechanisms of action – yes, 20 – that does not have an established safety profile when we can use an off-patent drug with the safest profile imaginable and mechanisms that work even in advanced stages?” Horowitz again asked.

And he pointed out that research has shown COVID can sidestep the one mechanism of action found in Pfizer’s drug. At the same time, Ivermectin has already been shown to rescue some COVID patients from ventilators.

Horowitz allowed that Pfizer’s medication is “probably not as dangerous as Merck’s,” but it has problems.

One reason is that it must be combined with an anti-AIDS drug called ritonavir in order to give it staying power within the body. Yet, as Horowitz noted, ritonavir’s side effects can include life-threatening liver inflammation, pancreatitis, heart arrhythmias, and possibly nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, confusion, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, stomach or intestinal bleeding, numb hands and feet, a skin rash,” among others.

“Can you come up with a non-sinister explanation as to how our government will not only approve, but purchase this untested and dangerous product while declaring war on its broader, safer, cheaper, and more established counterpart?” Horowitz concluded.

Someone should probably answer that question. It might tell us much about what drives the media’s and the government’s war on Ivermectin, whose effectiveness has been touted by COVID patients such as Aaron Rodgers and Joe Rogan.

Editors Note: Talk to your doctor or clinic about your health and the latest information on the COVID-19 vaccine. 

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Free Press.

Check out for PoliticsTampa Area Local NewsSports, and National Headlines. Support journalism by clicking here to our GoFundMe or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here

Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. It’s Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

Login To Facebook To Comment
Share This:

3 Replies to “Columnist: Why Is The Biden Admin Set To Approve Big Pharma’s COVID Pills, But Ignore The Abilities Of Ivermectin?”

  1. What a waste of time. Way to repeat someone else’s writing and add absolutely no value. Liam Edgar. Got it. Never waste time reading his work.

  2. It would be nice if more people had enough basic medical knowledge to be able to differentiate between antiparasitic, antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral drugs. While hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have found use in the treatment of certain parasitic infections, they are NOT antiviral drugs. They are of NO use in the treatment of COVID-19. Why are so many people so willfully ignorant?

    Sure, you could take ivermectin if you get sick with COVID-19, and if you recover, you could ASSUME it was the ivermectin that helped. You could also say the same for zinc, or aspirin, or liverwurst.

    Here’s an article worth passing along:
    “The roots of ivermectin mania: How South America incubated a fake-medicine craze that took the US by storm”\

Comments are closed.