Non-white people apparently bear "systemic health and social inequities" that require them to be bumped to the front of the line for Paxlovid, Pfizer's new antiviral pill, according to the FDA. And for Sotrovimab, the only monoclonal antibody treatment that supposedly works against the Omicron (Moronic) variant, it can only be selectively administered based on "race or ethnicity."
While clinicians are not required to follow these provisions, those who wish to do so now have a powerful government agency on their side should they decide to selectively ration care based on skin color.
"The FDA has acknowledged that in addition to certain underlying health conditions, race and ethnicity 'may also place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19,'" reads a plan out of Minnesota, where health officials have decided to adopt a new "ethical framework" that prioritizes black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds, even though the latter demographic is far more at risk of developing severe disease.
"FDA's acknowledgment means that race and ethnicity alone, apart from other underlying health conditions, may be considered in determining eligibility for [monoclonal antibodies]."
MacArthur Medical Center (MMC) in Irving, Tex., has adopted a similar stance, prioritizing non-whites for care unless a white person is over the age of 65.
White people under 65 can be placed at the back of the line for monoclonal antibodies behind younger black people.
Utah also prioritizes "Latinx ethnicity" above someone with "congestive heart failure" simply due to race and skin color. This is nothing short of medical discrimination and it appears to be gaining traction in some areas.
In the Utah plan's "Ethical Justification for Using Race / Ethnicity in Patient Selection," it is noted based on FDA guidance that "race and ethnicity may be considered when identifying patients most likely to benefit from this lifesaving treatment."
The FDA has not specifically commented on either Utah or Minnesota's plan, however the agency did reveal that "there are no limitations on the authorizations that would restrict their use in individuals based on race."
Much of this seems to stem from the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor incidents from 2020, which dovetailed with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic. It would appear as though this was a strategic psychological operation to justify a push for "antiracism" in medicine.
Last March, Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston outlined its own "antiracist agenda for medicine" that explicitly offers "preferential care based on race." This is no accident, having been timed as a "response" to the race riots that were stoked in mid-2020.
Roger Severino, the former civil rights director at the Department of Health and Human Services, says that the idea of race-based medicine is "corrosive and grossly unfair."
"Our civil rights laws are not suspended during a public health emergency," he is quoted as saying. "We should never deny someone life-saving health care because of the color of their skin."
Another former senior HHS official added that the FDA is clearly "injecting politics into science" with this latest guidance.
"That's something the Trump administration was pilloried for allegedly doing."
Evidence of this is the fact that men in the United States are about 60 percent more likely than women to die after testing "positive" for the Fauci Flu, and yet the FDA has said nothing about how they should be placed ahead of other demographics that are less at risk.
The latest news about covid can be found at Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include: