Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeuxardents | Hacker News Reader

If its effective it means there is a treatment available. If there is a treatment available in the beginning stages of ncov19 then the justification for EUA, by law, becomes invalid.

And pfizer and pharma companies lose billions and billions of dollars.

Hence why it has been so strange...

View on HN

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the law. The FDA is allowed to issue EUAs even when other treatments exist.

It is you who is mistaken.

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

No I have it exactly right and you still don't understand the law. The FDA has wide latitude in how they interpret the word "adequate". And while it's possible that ivermectin may prove effective for COVID-19 treatment, as of today it's still not formally "approved" for that use. Doctors can prescribe it to COVID-19 patients but it's considered off-label use.

Even if Ivermectin were established as adequate in its conjectured/hyped/potential COVID-related role, it and vaccines would not be alternatives, since they don't substitute for each other.

Some of the monoclonal antibody treatments under EUA would be closer to being at risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com