Hacker News Reader

Here is why this is a conspiracy theory and likely complete bull: there are 190 somthing countries in the world. Many of them have public health systems with socialized healthcare. Many of them are completely free of influence from Merck or the FDA. Ivermectin is cheap and widely available. There is no way Merck and the FDA could suppress a global consensus if the drug was strongly effective.

Conspiracy thinking often relies on a simplified model of the world, one in which other countries, other governments, and other healthcare systems simply do not exist. One where a single centralized entity could have ironclad control over a messy, complex and heterogeneous world.

If you are engaging in these patterns of thinking, I recommend you step back, get out of your bubble and your normal context, diversify your information diet and try to ask more pointed questions of the viewpoints you are taking in. And please stop wiggling your eyebrows at us.

> If you are engaging in these patterns of thinking, I recommend you step back, get out of your bubble and your normal context, diversify your information diet and try to ask more pointed questions of the viewpoints you are taking in. And please stop wiggling your eyebrows at us.

I am not. I clearly pointed out that I think this is a conspiracy theory. However I should still be allowed to ask questions that help me point people that believe in these conspiracy theories into the right direction. That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist.

> If not, could there be some truth to the allegations that Merck somehow is stalling the Ivermectin studies?

You are holding this conspiracy theory up as something that should be discussed and considered as possible truth. You didn't say you believed it, only that it was worth our attention.

The problem is that if the in-vitro studies are correct on their dose curves, then the majority of the human trials are at ineffective doses. This doesn't mean they must be wrong, but it's not a good look. If the studies were showing unequivocal benefit, we could overlook the dose curves. But the studies are still quite equivocal.

On the other hand, molnupirivir is a nucleoside polymerase inhibitor, with a slam-dunk mechanism of action, evidence of efficacy against a broad range of viruses, and increasingly compelling human safety profile.

I don't know if Merck is stalling but the ivermectin case is certainly less compelling.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ivermectin-covid-1...

Those in vitro studies were done with Vero cells, from the kidneys of a green monkey, which do not appear to be a good analogue for human lung cells with Covid. Even if you could give the Ivermectin doses recommended by the study without killing the patient, chances are it wouldn’t actually work.

How could Merck stall those studies? Ivermectin is widely available, you don't need to get Merck's permission to use it in a study.

That's a good point, thanks.

The FDA isn't immune to the same kind of corruption/conflicts of interest that impacts other federal agencies.

Scott Gottlieb worked at the FDA at a high level, before leaving for a stint in the private sector which included being a partner in a VC fund which invested in many medical startups. He left that to become the commissioner of the FDA under the previous administration. Gottlieb is currently on the board of Pfizer, and has relationships with several other companies in the pharma space.

It's not insane to think this person still has sway with people who are working within the FDA and are considering a move to the private sector.

> The FDA isn't immune to the same kind of corruption/conflicts of interest that impacts other federal agencies.

Do you think there's only one organization in the world that could possibly study these things?

Doesn't matter. The USA is the key market for pharmaceuticals because of the outrageous prices that can be charged there. Example: Mylan charges $600 for an EpiPen that's $100 in other parts of the world, for no other reason than they can.

If a company wanted to, they could certainly use the online social media polarisation to poison any discussion.

Any discussion of the validity of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment is now "political", in the sense that Team Red thinks that its a gift from god, and Team Blue thinks any consideration of it is anti-science stupidity.

And since there is a strong correlation between Team Blue and the vocal science community, in a sense someone could drive consensus about a drug to make and studies into Ivermectin political instead of evidence-based - because who wants their university peers to think they are Team Red instead of Team Blue.

Even though there are peer reviewed studies that show some correlation between Ivermectin and COVID viral loads - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

I'm not saying they did, but its not unimaginable to do.

Is there any evidence they are?

Otherwise, that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself.

Not that I know if. I'm a layman I know pretty much nothing in that field so I'm just having a hard time dismissing the whole Ivermectin thing. Especially now that Merck will make a boatload of money with their new drug.

If I was Merck and I had a drug #1 that costs a few cents that might work and I can develop a new drug #2 that will cost $1000, then I'd probably not look into #1 much simply for financial reasons.

That might not be how it works but I simply don't know that.

Sure, but you're suggesting that they are doing that without any evidence.

This is classic conspiracy theorist rhetoric, whether that's your intention or not.

Sorry, I don't know how else to question the conspiracy theory itself without mentioning the conspiracy theory. I even called it a conspiracy theory.

I mean I think "some large entity (government, pharma company, facebook, etc) is screwing us over to make a ton of money or enact their agenda" is an idea that most people are pretty happy to subscribe to across the political spectrum, particularly in America.

Part of it is because we can see this shit happening in real time now - Epipen prices getting jacked up by the daughter of the currently-most-consequential senator (Manchin), who is basically refusing to enact even basic Democratic agenda items particularly in regards to healthcare, etc etc.

These theories just take on a different flavor depending where you are on the political spectrum. If you're on the right, Facebook is silencing right wing voices. if you're on the left, Facebook is silencing left wing voices, etc.

There's an ongoing study: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investiga... and I've also seen https://web.musc.edu/about/news-center/2021/09/17/trial-of-o...

I've read elsewhere that the problem with Ivermectin treatment for covid is that the dosages showing results have to be higher than for previously tested usages of the drug so side effects are also not explored enough

We wouldn't need to spend $1000/dose if people just got the free vaccine!

The vaccine is free to patients, but the US government negotiated a price of about $20 per dose of the Pfizer vaccine and insurers can be charged $150-$190 per dose.

Pfizer reported $10.6B in net income in the first half of 2021, up $3.6B from 2020 - largely due to the Covid vaccine.

I'm not complaining though. $60 (2 shots + booster) to drastically reduce the chance of dying from covid seems worth it. Hospitalization can also cost $10K+ per night.

Not to mention that high vaccination rates probably helped California move past the delta peak.

Drug companies have lots of products. Did J&J discontinue their baby powder because they secretly knew talc powder cures covid but they wanted to sell more vaccines?

>A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

This is the part of Merck's statement that really rubs me the wrong way, and suggests to me that this communication was released with an agenda. The implication is that one of our safest, 60+ year old medications is suddenly potentially dangerous, and this press release is all too convenient when you consider that Merck was working on newer and more profitable alternatives.

The dosing regime purported to be most effective against covid is way higher than the antiparasitic therapeutic window, so the safety history is not as applicable.

Based on a single in vitro study. In isolation such a study is good indication that in vivo dosing is impractical (though a 35x dose is still far under the ld50 for ivermectin[0]), but given that there are dozens of studies suggesting positive effect and the complexity of human/viral biology, the effective dose in vivo may be far lower than the in vitro study indicated.

To be clear I'm not suggesting with certainty that ivermectin works, but I need a better explanation than "these 2 dozen+ studies are all low quality and/or use manipulated/fake data" before I'm willing to rule it out and jump on this bandwagon.

0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/ [see section titled Toxicology]

Almost a year ago, nih.gov wrote about a study, 'Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

Over one year ago, Nature said ivermectin has antiviral properties. 'It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses.'

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

Literature says Ivermectin has antiviral properties. It is cheap and has few side effects. It appears to be safe and useful enough to be used as a prophylactic for those who suspect they have been exposed to the virus.

The literature doesn't just say it has antiviral properties, The Lancet itself has published papers that show that "A concentration dependent antiviral effect of ivermectin in COVID-19 was identified, with significant reductions in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in respiratory secretions among patients"[^1].

The fact that you are being downvoted, even though the science is relatively sound shows how polarised this topic has become.

[^1]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

I am not surprised that the medical establishment are focused on the high-priced drugs while ignoring a promising treatment which is cheap. The people who turn health issues into blue/red or left/right seem to have missed out on the joys of healthy living and being physically fit. While I understand the medical monopolies want more money, I don't understand how regular people actively resist taking charge of factors of their own health.