We heard that all the time. It strikes me as a red herring excuse because the feds could have easily relaxed or suspended that prohibition against EUA if there was a therapeutic treatment available. It's a man-made regulation that might make sense in non-pandemic times. But a man-made reg could be easily undone for a year or two specifically for COVID. Why was there no effort or political will to do that?
The optics would have been very bad for them.
First, they'd have to admit to an existing treatment, or face questions about why they are removing a restriction that doesn't apply.
Then they would have to address requests for the existing treatment over the experimental new vaccines.
It was in their best interests to keep the regulation as it was and just kill the hopes of using HCQ, even if they had to flip-flop and go against longstanding prior opinions on the matter.
-PJ
“Ch-Ching!” And suddenly I hear The O’Jays singing For The Love of Money in my head … “Money, money, money, money …. Money!”
And, of course, Power!
Because, while some got very rich, some lost power and some retained power and some regained power!
And, because not having readily available, cheap and well understood APPROVED drugs and protocols was essential for not letting this crisis go to waste, so they made the most of it?
That is my observation. How about you? Or did I misunderstand your question?
My question is: how many politicians and judges would you need to run America?
My best guess is that someone knows this answer and their collection has become more than adequate to do this … which would explain a great deal that doesn’t make sense any other way.
How about you?