Merck undermines use of Ivermectin
I’m confused, the thrust of the argument is about IVM being used as a treatment for COVID. Here is what Merck said on the matter:
“It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
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.”
Which we know to be false.
So the U.S. manufacturer of ivermectin (Stromectol), who stands to benefit financially from its widespread use, repudiates its own product?
The fact that Merck doesn’t have a vaccine candidate makes this even odder.
Nothing about the way this pandemic is being handled makes sense…
That is exactly the way I feel.
I looked at that article and then looked at the links cited. One of the links cited was an another article by Merck attacking the safety of the drug.
This is their own drug. It is a drug with a great safety record.
Another link cited an old article that was written long before all the scientific data came out supporting the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid 19. That article said that there were no studies supporting the efficacy of the drug in treating Covid 19. Well, that was true at the time. It is not true now.
The whole thing makes no sense at all.
>> Nothing about the way this pandemic is being handled makes sense…
Perhaps the trick is to pretend one is deaf and can’t hear what the Official Gov. Ciphers say.
Then just judge them by their actions.
In the face of an out-break of a novel virus, the US gov. denies the usefulness of useful vitamins, and withholds effective treatment.
Meanwhile, the US medical industry books the $ Revenues from 27 million official cases.
MAYBE the hospitalization rate is 6%, as it was in a recent article that I read.
The Cha-Ching effect is magnified in those cases. That’s 1.5 million Americans having their bank accounts drained on their way off the planet.
Don’t judge them by what they say.
Judge them by what they do.
Does that sound like something Yoda would say ?
If you judge them by what they do, you could come to five possible conclusions:
1) They are suppressing legitimate cures so as to make a huge amount of money off a vaccine.
2) They are suppressing legitimate cures so as to test mRNA technology with the hopes of make huge profits (if it works) in the future.
3) They are trying to control as many people as possible.
4) They are incompetent beyond measure.
5) They are just trying to kill as many people as possible.
Or several combinations of those five possibilities.
Or, … they secretly sell millions of IVM doses at a great profit, but never talk about it.
Pesetas are exchanging hands.
#4 for sure but they’re all good.
I think there is something else more than just $$$. First, they are the manufacturer. They are liable for any all types of injuries due to the drug. Having the whole world on the drug – without any regards to all the different chemistries, conditions and drug combinations an individual may be on, really opens them up too all sorts of issues.
It obvious that a maker of drug would not want the whole world on a drug ( with all medicine combos possible and health conditions -weak old and other ) and be liable to them without the drug ever being tested for all those possibilities. Even if they stand to make money on it. So, they obviously are not going to be the ones to tout this. ( they have a serious financial risk , though i personally think the gain is 10 times the risk of not 100 times )– ( now you see why so much was invested in vaccines. — protection from suits.. but all the benefits of putting the whole world on it ) Too bad we are sue happy nation.. This is part of the problem not just deep pockets.. its about being crushed by law suits as well .
The only other thing is that they are stating , which is an issue, is they do not know of any scientific proven method of action for the drugs roll in Covid therapy. Meaning – we do not understand how this helps and works for Covid. it doesnt mean that it doesnt.. But they are just clearly stating.. It is one thing that if the manufacturer can describe the method of action by which their drug affects the illness. They have not seen or done any science to that effect. So , you must take their statement with grain of salt.
Again, you do not need to use a drug for its intended use for it to have use elsewhere. Dont expect the manufacturer to push the FDA to approval for another use – without facts , data , science , research, testing and evidence. ( other than empirical experience by frontline drs. )
As a final note , there are some papers that try to describe the over-all method of action that ivermectin has on chemistry and how it may be effective as a broad spectrum anti-viral anti-microbal drug.
Bingo! They are covering their assets. IVM is dosed once or twice a year for river blindness and once or twice in a single month for scabies.
We don’t yet know if taking it every other week for months at a time might create an adverse event.
I’ve scaled my prophylaxis back to every 3 weeks. If I get sick, I can always kick it up a notch. More isn’t always better!
If IVM does in fact take off as the new standard of care, MERCK will make their money. Why not throw a caution out, just to cover your assets if your med is going to suddenly be used on a global scale. Every drug has side effects, and we may well see something arise with extended use or large doses.
I still thank God I’ve found this med every night as I go to sleep (and sleep the sleep of the saved!)
Trying to think of reasons behind this, I’ve come up with only two.
Is there a supply issue? Is this like the “masks don’t work” early proclamation when the supply of masks was limited?
Or, more likely, does Merck have a Covid drug in the pipeline, so they want to downplay the effectiveness of Ivermectin?