Merck undermines use of Ivermectin
Sure enough, Merck has a “promising” drug called MK-7110 for the treatment of severely ill Covid patients.
Now why would you want to suppress use of a cheap drug that nips Covid in the bud when you have developed an expensive drug that treats full blown Covid?
Raise your hand if you have an answer.
Hello all, it seems upon reading the actual Merck statement that they are talking about adverse symptoms when using ivermectin for the treatment of parasites. Reading other Merck information in the past about this subject most of the adverse reactions are caused by the dead debris of the parasites themselves in the body. It doesn’t seem like new information to me about the use regarding covid. I am missing something?
Hello Kathy P raising my hand up and assuming your question is serious…
I think the answer is that the medical establishment and big pharma are focused on sick care rather than wellness maintenance. Seems to be more money in that orientation or maybe it’s just a lack of imagination on their part. Which puzzles me because a wide distribution of a cheap effective early treatment medication would be a good money maker too.
The sick care frame works for me. Why try to prevent an illness when you can make gobs of money treating it? Thanks for that.
I, too, have puzzled over your latter point. Is it because Ivermectin, being off-patent can be sold so cheaply (and by every Tom, Dick and Harry manufacturer) that even profits from wide distribution wouldn’t hold a candle to the profits from a new drug, (patent) especially if the new drug is effective? Seems like Merck could have it both ways. I don’t know enough about how pharmaceutical companies make their profits.
Thanks for taking my question seriously. I’m really trying to make sense of this.
MERCK’s MK-7110 looks like another med only for those who’ve progressed to critical illness.
Patients may survive, only to suffer long term pulmonary & cardiac issues. Better beef up the Social Security Disability funds.
Instead of preventing progression to advanced disease with IVM, we’re going to salvage them in hospital and send them home on oxygen to watch TV for the rest of their lives.
Rocco Galati (@roccogalatilaw ) is a Canadian Constitutional Lawyer.
Executive Director (Founder)– Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. (CRC), founded November, 2004.
Rocco Galati posted this on his Twitter feed January 26:
Merck Scraps COVID Vaccines; Says It’s More Effective To Get The Virus And Recover.https://t.co/R01Sugd10n
— Rocco Galati (@roccogalatilaw) January 26, 2021
Linking to this article:
Merck Scraps COVID Vaccines; Says It’s More Effective To Get The Virus And Recover
A Swiss doctor had this to say. Source: https://swprs.org/fight-against-ivermectin-begins/
The fight against low-cost and highly effective Ivermectin has begun.
Dozens of studies and several meta-studies have already found low-cost ivermectin to be highly effective against covid. In January, even the US NIH had to change its stance from ‘negative’ to ‘neutral’. Detractors of ivermectin had to act, but they knew that this time, it wouldn’t be easy.
In their fight against low-cost HCQ – which was also found to be effective in the early treatment of high-risk patients, thanks to its anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic properties – detractors published a made-up study in the Lancet (the Surgisphere scandal) and ran trials with toxic overdoses in ICU patients (the ‘SOLIDARITY’ and ‘RECOVERY’ trials). But Ivermectin is very difficult to overdose, and unlike HCQ, it works as a prophylaxis against infection and even in ICU patients.
Thus, it would be much more difficult to design a deceptive study against ivermectin.
Finally, a ‘solution’ was found: US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin – has just published a statement simply claiming, without evidence, that their (unpublished) “analysis” had 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.”
An NIH operative quickly retweeted the Merck statement, adding: “Merck’s statement on ivermectin is the leadership and commitment to quality translational science that we need to see from pharma/biotech.” In reality, Merck’s claim is completely baseless and also ironic: after having safely sold ivermectin for several decades, Merck now suddenly questions its safety.
Interestingly, Merck recently signed a $356 million deal to supply the US with a much more expensive, newly developed experimental anti-covid drug. Meanwhile, Youtube removed a C-SPAN video of FLCCC President Dr Pierre Kory’s US Senate testimony on ivermectin.
The reality is this: a low-cost and highly effective drug against covid, like Ivermectin, would disrupt not only the multi-billion dollar global vaccine campaign (which does indeed lack long-term safety and efficacy data), but also follow-up ‘lock step’ policies like vaccine passports, smartphone-based global contact monitoring, as well as programs like ID2020 and ‘Known Traveler’ promoted by vaccine investor Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and similar groups.
Because if IVM is seen as a successful antiviral some well-meaning dolt might discover it is effective against influenza. And those increasingly mandatory yearly flu shots have been the bread and butter of big pharma for decades.
As enraging as this is, I’ve appreciated the opportunity to learn a lot about how the world works so that my quality of life will be a lot better in the years ahead than it would have been otherwise.
I feel like I was totally blind a year ago compared to where I am now and the fact is that I went into last year already not believing most of what I saw in official sources. I thought medicine/public health would be a little different than relations with Syria, or banking regulation but no, its all the same shit.
Everyone is a compromised shill or charlatan waving their “expert papers” around and questioning the sanity of anyone who points out that their pronouncements do not align with the evidence or have internal consistency.
The hard part is letting go of that need for a shared reality with the wider culture. Once you can do that, live becomes at lot more fun and interesting. There are lots of practical problems to solve, like “How long can I make this horse paste last in storage?” and its easy to get back on the track of being angry at the Mercks of the world for doing this to us.
Of course we still have to read these stories. We still have to try to help the people around us who are also reading these stories.
I keep thinking about the “How To Have Impossible Conversations” book. What I am doing is not convincing people that I’m right about Ivermectin. I’m “Giving people the gift of doubt”