Meg Hansen: We need bold advocacy of ivermectin for early COVID-19 treatment

Editor’s note: This is by Meg Hansen (MBBS, MA), the former executive director of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, a health policy think tank. She ran for state-level public office in 2020.

In their Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (July 28), David Henderson and Charles Hooper raised important concerns about the FDA’s irrational vilification of ivermectin. They followed it with an excessive mea culpa (“we have egg on our faces”) for having included a retracted study in their argument — the removal of which does not change the conclusion that ivermectin significantly reduces hospitalizations and deaths (“Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction,” July 29). Clarification is one thing, self-flagellation is another. The latter betrays a fear of being canceled and indicates the power differential between those that question the narrative and those that enforce it. Dissenters, facing a constant threat of public ridicule and ruin, feel compelled to qualify the assertions they dare make.

Our public health agencies, and most of the media and political class, agree with Big Pharma that repurposed generic drugs have no role in COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis. Thus no amount of data attesting to the ivermectin’s safety and efficacy will suffice. The opposite is true for brand name drugs. The FDA approved antiviral remdesivir based on three small clinical trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) endorsed remdesivir after one study sponsored by its division, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). In April 2020, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci announced that the drug (sold by Gilead Sciences at $3,120 per patient for a treatment course) would become the standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This decision came even though studies show that remdesivir does not improve patient outcomes or survival and the World Health Organization recommends against it. Note that eight members of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel have disclosed financial ties to Gilead, which spent more money lobbying Congress last year than in its history.

Not only is unwavering confidence in ivermectin warranted by the clinical and epidemiological evidence at hand, but it is also integral to confronting the hyper-politicized narrative of treating and preventing COVID-19.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/TajPharmaImages

8 thoughts on “Meg Hansen: We need bold advocacy of ivermectin for early COVID-19 treatment


    A reliable and relatively inexpensive source for ivermectin. You have to be comfortable with texting for this to work but I believe they might work with you if you’re not.

    I was dealing with one group that charged $195 for an initial consultation (now up to $200-something) and $95 for refills. Not good.

    My own doctor refused to prescribe this. Doctor everywhere are being told not to.

  2. This is a re-print of an article this morning…

    From American Thinker
    August 24, 2021
    There are lots of reasons to question the FDA’s greenlighting Pfizer’s vaccine

    Last Monday I had my annual doctors visit to my DO in West Brattleboro, Vermont and he would not even discuss Ivermectin with me? Every time I stated data or a fact he gave me back opinions or feelings. Told me he was using science and implied I did not have a scientific background.

    Now I’m thinking about horse Ivermectin as an alternative to this horses Ass! Not like there are a plethora of doctors in southern Vermont and none advertise as FLCCC docs

  3. Was just reading a comparison chart between the vax’s in the US and ivermectin
    in India.. the deaths and under treatment numbers were astoundingly low for
    India who is a major drug development country.. This whole vax is being pushed
    on the masses here as a pay off for the pharmaceutical Industrial complex which has
    taken over from the military industrial complex….It’s not about the healing but it is about the payola,, your tax money to the drug king pins

  4. The withholding of ivermectin and how as well as other therapies by HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS and the alphabet agencies is criminal. Their ignorance has done nothing but force use of those meds disigned for animal use OR a black market where those that can afford it CAN purchase either option… for a price. It seems the lords of the land don’t care that it’s devolved down to the haves and have nots. The poor, potentially, will pay the price with their lives.

  5. Either the dust will settle on all this and we’ll realize what a shameful role our purported health leaders played in the pandemic– starting at the very top– or we’ll turn into a totalitarian medical police state where dissent isn’t allowed and people are arrested for spreading ‘misinformation.’

    The choice is ours. We’d better start waking up because the noose is tightening.

  6. Ahh… The politics of coronavirus.
    The FDA, August 21st on twitter released a warning against using Invermectin, reminding us we aren’t horses or cows. Fox picked up on the story with the headline “FDA warns against ivermectin as a COVID treatment”. Reading further, one would discover that the warning is for using veterinary formulations of ivermectin, not pharmaceutical formulations for humans. While ivermectin is discounted in the US, India was forced to rely on it- in addition with HCQ, zinc and other compounds to make a regimen- with success. Israel has done trials ( In Greece, as there weren’t enough sick at the time in Israel) with success. I’d like to have a supply of all the regimen’s drugs and vitamins.
    Meg Hansen is spot-on in her assessment, it’s about the money, not about treatment. The intentionally bad and misleading information spouted by all the alphabet federal agencies – and followed by our state government should be considered for what it is- criminal acts.
    As many already knew and some are discovering now, Orange man wasn’t all that bad. He actually cared about Americans, not grift.

Comments are closed.