You seem to be missing the point, which is that the unapproved and untested mrna injections were given an EUA under the false premise that there were no known adequate treatments available, which these documents show were known since at least April 2020 (though we know Fauchi knew about HCQ as a prophylactic and treatment for SARS for at least 15 years), and these newly released documents are not only calling them treatments, but curatives in all stages.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

Furthermore, there are dozens of current observational data and randomized clinical studies showing both HCQ and IVM are highly effiencient prophylaxes as well as treatments, and, yet, the FDA has recently issued an EUA for mrna injections for 5+ year-olds under the same false premise of "no adequate treatments ( warning direct pdf link to FDA EUA from Jan 3, 2020).

The EUAs can not stand in the face of documented proof of three known "curatuves" in April 2020, known at least several months before the EUA-application was filed by Pfizer/BioNtech on Nov 20, 2020. . An added bonus is "the robust data" they submitted showed a 95% efficacy in preventing transmission.

Another detail I have not seen mentioned, but believe will be legally important in the future, is that this document states IVM "modulate(s) the immune response", which is considered a "vaccine" under the definition which was revised to include mrna injections.