https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...
The dissenters are advocating things even the company that stands to profit from those things opposes.
That’s how off the deep end this is.
E: To add, I'm not a doctor but Brett Weinstein seems adamant that ivermectin is a very safe drug for humans.
One point he has made is that because ivermectin is safe for consumption, there's no (Or very little) downside to taking it in an attempt to prevent or help with COVID.
Can we please stop trying to rationalize an irrational market. There is no reason to believe that the age of the drug has anything to do with it's profitability.
Also, it might be that some or all of the insulins are just naturally costly to manufacture, so that when competition is not prevented by patents, the price stays high. (This would be the case for example if the insulin must be extracted from pigs and if each pig yields only a few doses of insulin.) That doesn't contradict the fact that many drugs still under patent sell for 100s of times their cost of manufacture, then when the patent expires the sell price drops to close to the cost of manufacture.
I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"), but it does not make sense from Merck's point of view.
it's not like riverblindness is a first-world problem you can charge people more money for treating
I'm no proponent of big pharma, and it's possible executives at Merck convened and decided to bet it all on drug X and at the same time not to profit from ivermectin. I think it's very unlikely, because it doesn't make sense.
It only makes sense in a comic world where everything is black and white and the motive of the bad guy solves the mystery.
I'm very confused that Bret, who I respect, is falling for this simplistic ad-hominem argument.
It's against their financial incentive to have ivermectin, an out-of-patent drug, be authorized for treatment of covid. See https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441...
[1] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...
Or are you saying Merck couldn't go for several EUAs for Covid at the same time?
Same thing for the mRNA vaccines. They're all under EUA. It would've been impossible to get them an EUA if we had found out Ivermectin worked.
> No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210609005142/en/Mer...
https://mobile.twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/140264794837...
> > No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
If "no basis for a potential therapeutic effect" is not an argument against using it, then why suggest Ivermectin and not some other drug with no known connection to Covid-19? Why Ivermectin and not, I don't know, Escitalopram?
In the topsy turvy world of ivermectin proponents, this is seen as a argument in favor of ivermectin
Why are people blindly accepting what big pharma says when it comes to Covid, as though the industry has suddenly turned a new leaf?
"Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology." - here he is discussing Ivermectin with Bret Weinstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
Another video Bret had to re-upload and only a short amount of it, because YouTube removed the original and gave him a strike for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q01LUg97eto
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/25/bret-weinstei...
People might take you seriously if you were Michał Sędziwój and had the published studies from the 1600s to prove it. But then they may not, as they did with Sędziwój. Malone has published studies on mRNA from ‘89.
Big money has a decent amount of influence over what information is accessible to the general public. We're witnessing the modern version of burning books...but many are too WOKE to realize.