When it comes to Ivermectin, Seriously, y'all, stop it.

Photo by Matt Seymour on unsplash

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now officially joined the ranks of federal agencies that have scuttled their own credibility with media-enabled nonsense. At 5:57AM on a Saturday morning, August 21, it issued the folksy tweet: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all, stop it… Using the drug Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.” 

By Monday morning, as if on cue, every compliant media outlet from Seattle to Miami published articles as if this were a serious problem. Rod Miller was the first out of the gate in the Cowboy State. He profanely opined, “I sure as h--- wouldn’t ingest it [Ivermectin].” He failed to notice that over a billion doses have been given to human beings since 1988. In all that time, and in 125 countries, zero deaths have been tied to its use. 

Rod Miller, columnist

What is more, the FDA approved Ivermectin for human ingestion in 1996 and it made the World Health Organization’s “Model List of Essential Medicines” in 2019. Nevertheless, the FDA deliberately created a narrative that Ivermectin is horse medicine. The condescending, “y’all” was calculated to paint anyone who might imagine otherwise as uneducated yokels. 

Soon Ellen Fike parroted the narrative by calling Ivermectin an “anti-parasitic medication most often used to treat livestock.” While admitting that the FDA had approved it for human use, the unmistakable point was that Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for treating COVID-19.

In the pharmaceutical industry, this is called “off-label” use. Doctors do it all the time some for good, and some for ill. As this column discussed several weeks ago, Testosterone is regularly prescribed off-label to minor girls! For more examples, Wikipedia has an entire page on the subject. 

What good could come of prescribing Ivermectin for COVID-19 off-label? Here is where it gets interesting. Barely a month after COVID-19 hit America, researchers submitted a paper to Antiviral Research that found Ivermectin to be effective against COVID-19 in the lab. It turns out that the same properties that make it effective against parasites also make it promising against viruses. 

Before the paper even could be published, the FDA issued a “Letter to Stakeholders” that threatened “FDA investigation and potential enforcement action” against any doctor with the temerity to try it against COVID-19. The letter stated: “Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19.” It then went on, bizarrely, to warn against people taking Ivermectin packaged for animal use.

Okay. That’s a weird caution. But at least we could expect the FDA to do the additional testing that would either prove or disprove the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. After all, thousands were dying daily, and millions of cases were available for Randomized Controlled Trials that could provide a definitive answer.

One might think that while granting “emergency use authorization” to Remdesivir, two mRNA injections (Moderna and Pfizer), and one vaccine (J&J) against COVID-19, the FDA could have included a study of one of the safest drugs known to man. But, alas, 17 months later and we still have no such study. Nor has the FDA updated its guidance based on multiple external studies. Rather, on August 21, 2121 we got a snarky tweet bringing up the same unlikely scenario that it had imagined on April 10, 2020. 

The intellectually curious soon asked: Where are all these people slurping down ointments intended for cows? Dr. Jason McElyea went on the Rachel Maddow show to say that they lived in Oklahoma. In the very heart of hick-dom, supposedly, so many people were ill from taking “horse de-wormer” that gunshot victims were turned away from emergency rooms. Rolling Stone even put his claims into print. But he was lying.

The hospital issued a statement saying that Dr. McElyea didn’t currently work there, and that it had treated no cases of Ivermectin abuse—not a single one. We are still waiting to meet the knuckle-draggers that the FDA is so worried about.

Why am I taking up this subject? I am no doctor—not even a veterinarian. But two things kept me from passing over this ridiculous tale. First, a newspaperman, whom I respect, asked me to address it. Second, people are tired of lies. They just want to know what is real and go about their daily lives. If Ivermectin is proven ineffective, just show the receipts. But don’t peddle silly narratives that make even Rolling Stone print a correction. 

Ellen Fike, reporter

Truth begins with accountability for lies told. People need and deserve reporters and columnists who will publicly apologize for public falsehoods. Where that doesn’t happen, they will look elsewhere for reliable information, and they should.

Those at the CDC and FDA, who have spent a year and a half failing to study Ivermectin, should be put out of a job. The Centers for Disease Control was created to control diseases, not to control the narrative. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.

Post Script: 

On May 25, 2021 the Indian Bar Association sued Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO chief scientist for India. On June 13, 2021 an additional legal brief was filed. Both seek prosecution for causing the deaths of Indian citizens by sending a Tweet that caused the state of Tamil Nadu to withdrew the use of Ivermectin from their protocol. 

On August 19, 2021 Haruo Ozaki, Chair of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association explained the data on why doctors should prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19. Perhaps this explains the timing of the FDA tweet on August 21.

Also published in the Cowboy State Daily, September 9,2021, and in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, September 10, 2021.

Just laws should protect everyone from medical mandates

Photo by Prasesh Shiwakoti (Lomash) on Unsplash

We regularly hear people with medical credentials claim that abortion is “health care.” Not only is this obviously untrue for the unborn, it has not been demonstrated for the mother either. Never has a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated any physical, emotional, mental or spiritual health improvement attributable to elective abortion.

Nevertheless, abortion advocates make this unsubstantiated claim to advanced policies that entice women to procure abortions, use tax-payer dollars to subsidize them, and coerce doctors, nurses and pharmacists to participate in them. This is bad medicine. But it happens.

Similarly, we now hear claims that mastectomies, hysterectomies, puberty blockers and unnatural hormones are “health care” for minor children suffering gender dysphoria. Again, although there are no RCTs that prove the benefits of these “treatments,” politicians are stripping away the rights of parents to object to them. The Biden HHS Department, in anticipation of the so-called “Equality Act,” already is coercing physicians and psychologists to perform these procedures against their best medical judgment.

Medical conscience rights exist to protect people from abuses like these. Nobody should be forced to perform or to undergo a medical treatment that he or she believes to be harmful. This is especially true when medicine has been politicized. But it is just as true when there is simply an honest difference of opinion. 

In America, a million medical interventions are prescribed every day. And yet, not one of these is begun until the patient, facility, and physician all agree that it is the best option for the given situation. If a physician or hospital disagrees, the patient is referred elsewhere. If the patient disagrees, he or she withholds consent and declines the drug, injection, or procedure.

It is unlawful and unethical to coerce anyone into giving that consent. Every patient has the right to be fully informed of the benefits and the risks of a recommended procedure. Every patient has the right to be free of pressure from outside parties. Every patient has the right to be free of enticements that could weight a medical decision.

Now however, in a bizarre turn of events, we are hearing calls for one medical procedure to be denied such protection. Make no mistake, “vaccine mandates,” and “vaccine passports” are calling for unlawful coercion to be applied to people who know their own bodies, have studied the medical options, and have freely decided the best health care for their situation. 

Coercion comes in many forms. The most egregious form of medical coercion is when guns, incarceration and fines are used to coerce medical procedures. The Chinese Communist Party is currently doing this to the Uyghur people under the banner of “health care.” They force women into abortions and sterilization against their will and the will of their husbands.

Coercion also happens when people are threatened with loss of job, access to goods and services, and denial of visits to loved ones. Medical workers, military personnel, and others are facing such extortion as we speak. This is illegal. But it is happening, nonetheless. Until these cases are justly overthrown in court, people are being intimidated into compliance. 

Even forcing patients to choose between two medical procedures, like a jab in the arm or a swab up the nose, is a form of unethical coercion. Nor should we fail to mention monetary enticements. Currently the University of Wyoming is offering students a chance to “win” thousands of dollars—but only if they submit to a COVID-19 vaccine. Likewise, faculty and staff of the Cheyenne school system are being paid $500 to get the same shot. What elected official authorized our tax dollars to be used in this unethical way?

There is at least one elected official who is fighting to keep medical coercion away from Wyoming citizens. Rep. Sue Wilson (R-Cheyenne) is the prime sponsor of a bill that would prevent Wyoming’s “health care facilities, governmental entities, and providers of essential services,” schools, and places of employment from mandating immunizations against the willing consent of Wyoming citizens.

Kudos to Wyoming’s Joint Labor and Health Committee that recently voted 13-1 to sponsor it. This reasonably written bill upholds existing laws and medical ethics while accommodating those who needlessly worry. CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, has stipulated that the vaccine does not prevent a person either from catching the virus, or from infecting others. There is no reason to think that the unvaccinated are more dangerous than the vaccinated. 

Rep. Sue Wilson

Nevertheless, for those who are not convinced by the CDC, the bill allows schools, health care facilities and places of employment to impose “reasonable accommodations” on those who choose not to get vaccinated. As long as these “reasonable accommodations” do not coerce other medical procedures, this clause will preserve the bedrock principle of bodily integrity: no one should be coerced to receive or to provide a medical intervention that he or she believes to be harmful.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on September 3, 2021.

Impossible yet abundant: Pondering the marvel of life

Photo by Tyrel Johnson on Unsplash

We were westbound on I-80 just past the inlet of Echo reservoir. My eyes were lazily scanning the hills when it hit me. Here, in one of the most arid of the western states, we were nevertheless surrounded by living things. If I could catalogue every distinct life that fit into a single glance, it would be unimaginable in both number and variety.

In a single frame of vision, there were untold varieties of grasses. There were millions, perhaps billions, of discrete plants of sage and mushrooms, grain and weeds, flowers and trees. Each one an absolute stunning marvel of engineering and unique expression of its species.

There were deer and horses, antelope and rabbits, field mice, muskrats and toads. How many varieties of worms, slugs, insects, spiders and flies played in the tapestry only God knows, and I mean that sincerely and reverently.


Photo by Pree Bissessur on Unsplash

Consider, also, the microscopic organisms. On average, one ton of earth’s soil contains 100 quadrillion of these microbes. At six feet deep, there are about 7.5 million tons of soil every square mile. And I was taking in dozens of square miles in a single glance.

What dawned on me that day is the simple fact that all this life was packed into a single moment of a single day of a single citizen on a planet with 7 billion people. There were 100-times more living organisms before my eyes in that moment than there are stars in the universe.

All that life, and yet, when you step off our planet and scour the universe—as we have been doing for 60 years—we have yet to find even one single instance of life anywhere. Not a bug or a weed, neither algae nor an amoeba has ever been found. We haven’t even found a planet that could theoretically support life.

I make no claims about what we might find in the future. I know of no scientific or theological reason why biological life could not be found somewhere else in the universe. But the stubborn fact remains. Even the most optimistic probability models find it practically impossible.

All of which underscores how astoundingly special is our living world.

For the last century and a half, preachers of the enlightenment have been working on a project to explain all this life by means of undirected, random changes vetted through an ongoing battle for survival. The technical term is “Natural Selection.” More popularly, it is known as the Theory of Evolution.

I have been critical of this theory in past articles, but I am not going to talk about it today. Today’s topic considers a prior question. It’s about a world before evolution was even a possibility—a world without life. After all, before the fittest can survive, it must be alive in the first place.

While almost everyone has been taught that every living thing evolved from a single cell being, no one can tell you how that imaginary one-celled creature came to be. Most do not even know the scientific name for how it might have come to be. That name is abiogenesis.

Photo by Elevate on Unsplash

Abiogenesis discusses how life happened in first place. Every form of life carries information and moves toward self-preservation, repair and reproduction. But in a purely chemical world, there is nothing but randomness. How did matter ever arrange itself to become alive in the first place? What would it take for a random stew of chemicals to form the first living cell? After a century of theorizing, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.

The famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1952 created a highly controlled laboratory environment to synthesize a few of the amino acids necessary for making the proteins necessary for life. Scientists thought they were well on their way. Now, 67 years later, they have progressed no further. To this day, nobody knows how to link these amino acids together to make a protein in nature. Much less can they build an impossibly complex cell.

A living cell is an astounding assembly of molecular machines. Each machine performs amazingly complex and specific functions that contribute to the total life and well-being of the organism. The more we learn about the intricacies of the cell, the more marvelous it is.

Part of what we have learned is the interlocking nature of these molecular machines. They are made of multiple parts—none of which could possibly benefit the organism unless they are all assembled in exactly the right way. Scientists have dubbed this phenomenon, “irreducible complexity.” Examples are found everywhere.

On top of that, the machines themselves only work in combination. Molecular machines designed to transport material only work if there are cells that build a thread-like road on which the transporter can “walk.” Either without the other is useless. The complexities only increase from there.

For life to happen, it’s not enough for a few of these irreducibly complex machines and machine-systems somehow to have come together. At the same time they came together, the living cell also needed other machines to make replacement parts. In a living being, molecular machines are constantly being assembled, wearing out, breaking down and being replaced.

The constant manufacture of replacement cell parts is itself directed by an entire system of code and code readers. We call the code, “DNA.” A single Amoeba dubia has 670 gigabytes of information coded in its DNA. But this cannot be read and translated to the rest of its molecular machines without the proper reading and communicating machines.

Finally, all of these machines and all of this information must be protected by a cell membrane. Without it, the earth’s oxidizing atmosphere would destroy everything instantly. But the membrane cannot be just a simple barrier. It must have dozens of different gates that let in specific chemicals at specific times while letting other chemicals out before they destroy the cell from within.

If all of this can come together in a random way, you have a living cell—but only for a few seconds. Unless that cell knows how to make machines that duplicate the DNA and divide into another cell before it dies, all this information and complexity would be lost in a single generation.

Life is an amazing thing. This brief outline only begins to scratch the surface. Abiogenesis is far more complex and interconnected than I can hope to describe in a single article. In fact, it probably exceeds all the powers of your imagination as well. Before we even start the discussion of evolution, life itself is a thousand times more unlikely.

Yet, despite the impossibility of life arising by random processes, we are utterly surrounded by it. These two facts are worth pondering together.

While you are pondering how these two things can simultaneously be true, you have good reason to laugh out loud. You are alive. You are an impossibly complex and wonderful organism planted in the middle of a world filled with equally impossible life forms. And you, above every other living creature, have this additional gift: you can read these words and ponder these facts.

Life is good.