Common theme: Stick to business — not science .
We knew it would happen. Readers would tell us how wrong and stupid we are and that we should stick to business, not science, in the Business Observer.
They wrote in response to the column two weeks ago, “The Battle for Ivermectin.”
This excerpt from one email pretty much covers the sentiments of those who objected to what we did:
“Once again, and sadly, Matt Walsh opens his ignorant and ill-informed mouth in the “Review and Comment,” Business Observer, Aug. 27-Sept. 2, to spew forth inaccurate and potentially dangerous information.
“Clearly, Matt has overstepped his bounds as editor (again) and tried to insert his Trump and DeSantis fawning in an inappropriate venue. Matt should stay out of the science realm since he clearly has no scientific expertise. The Business Observer should be just that, a Business Observer.
“I subscribed as a small business to learn about local businesses and possibly connect with them to enhance my business. I can no longer stand to see Matt’s opinionated and useless commentaries not related to business.
“In addition, when he tries to put forth his business opinions, they are typically incorrect and inflammatory. Why not just report the business news, factually, without all of the biased drama? Honestly, I haven’t looked up his credentials, but I definitely question every single word he prints.”
This individual ended with the stern, blunt request: Cancel her subscription immediately, and refund what’s owed. She declined to have her name revealed.
In addition to that slashing, here are a few more choice words from readers’ loveless letters:
- “(The) article is just his misguided hearsay opinion.”
- “An abomination” … “a disservice to the community for writing that drivel.”
- “Take down that article.”
- “Why don’t you keep these types of harmful BS stories to your Facebook and other social media cesspool groups?”
Even newsroom colleagues at the Business Observer and our Jacksonville business paper, the Jacksonville Daily Record, winced and resisted what we published. And this week they urged we not publish in print readers’ chastising letters and responses to their criticisms from one of the pro-ivermectin doctors who co-founded the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
Wrote one editor in an email: “I think this falls way out of the Business Observer’s model and mission for readers. … I think most readers of Business Observer and Daily Record … are going to be like: ‘What the hell is this doing in the Business Observer?’”
Indeed, three letter writers said the same thing: Stick to business.
When we published the original column, we admitted to readers it was out of the norm. But sometimes you need to challenge the status quo and conventional thinking. After all, isn’t that what a lot of you have done with your own businesses? You’ve said: “I can do that job better than what’s being done.” You challenged conventional wisdom.
Isn’t that what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction”? The act of taking new information and testing it to determine whether it’s better than what already exists?
In the case of ivermectin, we for sure don’t pretend to know the science of clinical trials. But when we read “The Case That Cracked Covid” by acclaimed journalist and author Michael Capuzzo, the most startling aspect to the story was how the Washington and world medical establishments so summarily have dismissed this FDA-approved drug and the signs it was showing to fight COVID-19.
Call us ignorant and ill-informed, but we can’t help but ask the question: Why didn’t Dr. Fauci and all the other medical and Big Pharma know-it-alls do whatever it took to explore every therapeutic option?
Think about this: Dr. Pierre Kory testified to the U.S. Senate on May 6, 2020, that his research group at U.S. medical schools and research hospitals were saving 95% of their ICU COVID-19 patients with generic FDA-approved steroids. He returned in December and testified this time that ivermectin was saving lives around the world. Both times the Senate ignored him.
From Kory’s first testimony, it took 10 months before the vaccines began distribution. In that time, 442,829 Americans died from COVID-19. You have to wonder: How many of those deaths and COVID-19 cases could have been prevented if the same efforts had been applied to the efficacy of ivermectin as to Big Pharma’s vaccines?
What’s more, consider the cost. U.S. taxpayers have spent $21.18 billion on the development and distribution of the vaccines. With 176 million Americans fully vaccinated, that equates to $120 per person for two vaccine shots.
Dr. Kory told us his group received a quote for ivermectin from a supplier for 34 cents for a 12 mg tablet. A year’s treatment would be $41.
We’ll admit again: The ivermectin story is out of the normal bounds of the Business Observer and Jacksonville Daily Record. But it is definitely a business story as much as a medical story.
Just think how different your business and your life might be if aggressive research on ivermectin proved its efficacy and in turn avoided the disaster of shutting down the world economy.
That research can and should be done.
This article has been updated with added information on Kory's testimony to the U.S. Senate