Two weeks ago, I addressed the reset at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) due to their failure to adequately guide the American public through the COVID-19 outbreak, and last week I addressed how the military has failed to adjust their policies to the facts about the COVID-19 vaccinations and natural immunity. So, today I would like to focus my attention on the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved a new booster shot last week. Because of this latest development, I believe it is time to inform the public about the latest science regarding that booster shot as well as other treatments for the coronavirus.

As I said, last week the FDA approved a new booster shot for the new strains of the coronavirus. The new booster is a “bivalent” booster shot meaning that it has been specially formulated to target the original coronavirus as well as the Omicron variant and the latest subvariant of the coronavirus known as BA.5. The booster shots are being manufactured by both Pfizer and Moderna and contain the same problematic mRNA technology used in the original vaccines and boosters that caused 44 percent of pregnant women to lose their babies.

These new bivalent booster shots should be considered experimental. Although Pfizer and Moderna have administered the boosters to some human beings, the FDA is mostly relying upon experimental doses given to mice. When the new boosters were introduced last week Dr. Robert M. Califf, the FDA Commissioner, admitted publicly that regulators do not know when they will see data on how well the new boosters are working. Until we have this data, which could take years, these new bivalent boosters should be considered experimental.

The FDA is chasing its own tail, but you don’t have to take this from me. Last week Dr. Gregory Poland of the Mayo Clinic compared the FDA’s booster shot strategy to a dog chasing its own tail because the virus tends to mutate faster than the pharmaceutical companies can keep up with new boosters. Because of the virus’s tendency to rapidly mutate, Dr. Poland told the New York Times that, besides the elderly and those with immune deficiencies, the new bivalent booster shots likely won’t make a substantial impact with the rest of the population.

So, while the FDA continues to chase its own tail by creating more and more boosters, which only last for a season, other countries around the world are discovering the benefits of using therapeutic drugs to treat the symptoms of the disease. For example, the latest study on the use of ivermectin to treat the symptoms of the coronavirus was published on August 31 by a team of scientists in Brazil. That study can be found online at www.cureus.com.

What the Brazilian study found was absolutely amazing! The study focused on 223,128 subjects from the City of Itajai. 159,560 adults were not infected by the coronavirus until July 7, 2020, and among them 28.7 percent never used ivermectin, while the other 71.3 percent did. The study found that among the regular users of ivermectin, there was a 100 percent reduction in the hospitalization rate! Moreover, the study also found that the mortality rate was 92 percent lower among regular users of ivermectin than among non-users of the drug!

So, there you have it. The FDA continues to discourage the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 on its website. Meanwhile, there are about 40,000 people hospitalized in the United States for the coronavirus, and we continue to lose about 500 Americans per day to the disease. Common sense would dictate that the FDA reconsider its strategy and take a hard look at therapeutic drugs, such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and budesonide inhalers.

We now have an abundance of sound scientific evidence that these therapeutic drugs keep large percentages of infected people out of the hospital and prevent them from dying from the disease. For the FDA to continue to deny the American people access to these therapeutic drugs is criminal, and they should be held accountable for every death that occurs without access to these drugs. Whether or not to administer these therapeutic drugs is a decision which should be made between a patient and his or her physician without any more interference from the FDA.