Mark, you are correct in your past posts that the studies used to ban the very safe and cheap an widely available drug Hydroxychloroquine were based on inpatients when the niche where it was found to be effective (and even used in the POTUS early on in the pandemic) was in the earlier outpatient setting to prevent worsening of the disease to the point of hospitalization.
It is also true that Pfizer’s (and Merck’s) new drug does indeed target the same class of proteases that Ivermectin does also inhibit.
The specific proteases are different however which could be crucial. Still, it is amazing how the liberals were marched out with the impression that these alternatives were witch doctor medicine when in the case of Hydroxychloroquine, there were AT THE TIME good studies out of France, China, and Detroit at the time when there was no other options. Still it was banned from off label use. Ivermectin was portrayed as nothing more than an animal med for worms, when it’s mechanism of action had sound medical reasoning.
Having been in the system for many years, I do find the politicization and demonizing of reasonable off label options (at the time) by this administration and it’s state controlled media to be both disturbing as well as convenient wrt to the Big Pharma profits.
At the same time, off label options should really only be used when proven options are not available. Both drugs from Pfizer and Merck are more proven, and even if based on the molecules themselves that were condemned, they are more specific and undoubtedly more effective.
Here’s a nice simple summary to date. Of the options listed, the treatment for severe disease that is by far the best so far are monoclonal antibodies. They are a lifesaver.
PS - Pfizer’s new drug will cost $700 per treatment regimen.
Link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19