The quote you shared from RFK Jr. captures a claim he's made repeatedly in interviews, speeches, and his book The Real Anthony Fauci (2021), where he argues that federal law forced officials like Anthony Fauci to suppress or discredit cheap, repurposed drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to secure Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines. He frames this as a profit-driven conspiracy, implying it led to unnecessary deaths. This narrative has circulated widely in alternative media and on platforms like X, often amplified by posts echoing the same video clips (e.g., from interviews with Megyn Kelly or events like the Limitless Expo). But let's break it down factually—based on the actual law, scientific evidence, and historical record—to see what's accurate, what's misleading, and why the "genocide for millions" accusation doesn't hold up.

The Legal Claim: Does Federal Law Block EUA for Vaccines If Effective Alternatives Exist?RFK Jr. is referring to Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3), which governs EUAs during public health emergencies. Here's the key criteria for issuing an EUA (paraphrased for clarity):

• The agent (e.g., SARS-CoV-2) can cause a serious or life-threatening disease.
• The product may be effective (based on available evidence, not full approval-level proof).
• Benefits outweigh risks.
• There are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

This last point is real—it's not a "little-known" secret, but a standard safeguard to ensure EUAs fill genuine gaps, not compete with proven options. However, RFK Jr.'s spin is off-base in two critical ways:

1. It applies to all EUAs, not just vaccines. EUA is a tool for unapproved products or unapproved uses of approved ones. If an alternative exists, it blocks any EUA, whether for a drug, device, or vaccine. For example, the antiviral Paxlovid got an EUA in December 2021 after vaccines were already authorized and rolling out—proving the rule doesn't single out vaccines.
2. **The alternative must be "adequate, approved, and available" for that specific use. Ivermectin (an antiparasitic) and hydroxychloroquine (an antimalarial) were FDA-approved for other purposes, but not for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. To qualify as an "alternative," they'd need demonstrated efficacy against COVID-19 via rigorous evidence. Without that, they don't block anything.

In short: The law didn't require "eliminating" these drugs. It required evidence they worked against COVID-19 to count as alternatives. No such evidence existed at the time (more on that below).The Science: Were Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine "Proven Efficacious" Against COVID-19?No. Early hype came from small, flawed studies (often observational or non-randomized), but large-scale, gold-standard randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently showed no benefit—and in some cases, harm. Here's a quick timeline and evidence summary:

Drug	Early Hype (2020)	Key Revocations/Findings	Outcome
Hydroxychloroquine	Trump touted it as a "game-changer" based on in-vitro lab tests and anecdotal reports. FDA issued a brief EUA in March 2020 for hospitalized patients.	Revoked in June 2020 after RCTs (e.g., RECOVERY trial, n=4,716) showed no reduction in mortality or hospital stay; increased risks like heart arrhythmias. WHO and NIH halted trials.	Ineffective and risky for COVID-19. Later meta-analyses (e.g., Cochrane 2021) confirmed no benefit for treatment or prevention.
Ivermectin	Promoted online as a "miracle drug" after small studies suggested antiviral effects. Nobel Prize for its original use (parasites) fueled misinformation.	No EUA ever granted for COVID-19. Large RCTs (e.g., TOGETHER trial, n=1,358; PRINCIPLE trial, n=5,000+) showed no reduction in hospitalizations, symptoms, or deaths. FDA warned against self-dosing (e.g., animal versions).	Ineffective per FDA, CDC, WHO. 2022 meta-analysis in JAMA (27 trials) found no meaningful benefit; some studies retracted for fraud.

By December 2020 (when Pfizer's vaccine got EUA), these drugs had been tested and failed as COVID alternatives. Officials like Fauci didn't "suppress" them—they followed the data. If anything, the brief hydroxychloroquine EUA shows regulators tried repurposing them before evidence shut it down.The Profit Motive and "Genocide" AccusationRFK Jr. claims this was about billions in vaccine profits (Operation Warp Speed invested ~$18B, with pharma giants like Pfizer earning ~$100B from sales). Sure, incentives exist—pharma is profit-driven, and EUAs sped up vaccines without full liability shields (though PREP Act provides some). But:

• No evidence of deliberate suppression for profit. Decisions were public, based on peer-reviewed trials, not backroom deals. Petitions like RFK Jr.'s 2021 Children's Health Defense filing to revoke vaccine EUAs cited these drugs as "effective"—but courts/FDA rejected it for lack of proof.
• "Genocide" is inflammatory and unsubstantiated. U.S. COVID deaths (~1.1M total) were tragic, but vaccines saved lives: CDC estimates 3.2M U.S. deaths prevented by 2022. High death rates in low-vax areas (e.g., rural U.S., parts of Europe) correlate with vaccine hesitancy, not drug suppression. Globally, billions of ivermectin doses were already in use for parasites; access wasn't "blocked"—it just wasn't recommended for COVID.
• Broader context: Repurposed drugs were authorized when evidence supported them (e.g., remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies). The system prioritizes evidence over anecdotes to avoid harm—like the ~10K U.S. poison control calls from self-dosing ivermectin in 2021.

RFK Jr.'s views have been debunked repeatedly (e.g., by FactCheck.org, Politico), yet they persist in echo chambers. As HHS nominee (confirmed in this 2025 timeline), he's vowed a "reckoning," but his claims risk eroding trust in proven tools like vaccines.