Most of the conspiracy theories are hogwash, but now and again, one turns out to be right. We have to choose a conspiracy to fight, if you fight all the conspiracy theories at once, you'll end up like miahoneybee or jmc. Those guys allow themselves to get carried away by every conspiracy theory going. So, the laws of averages prohibit all the conspiracy theories from being true, I mean, honestly, 5g networks, george soros, Klaus Schwab, bill gates? So let's be selective, and take on the best prospect. I'm looking at Ivermectin.
The WHO, EMA, FDA, Merck, are all pretending to look exactly in the wrong direction.
First a large meta analysis by Andy Hill gets shot down,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_4PnJ-Lzw
Then Pierre Kory's senate testimony gets cancelled by You Tube!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061
although kingbeen has put the work up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeYoXGoh96w
Then Tess Lawrie's Cochrane Review gets it in the neck! after 500 hours of work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2FWPQm6sxw
Even good old John Campbell is starting to get ruffled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY
Ivermectin is in the news, since Oxford is going (finally ) to try it out
I can not see the full story, but I can see the outline of it. Ivermectin works, merck wished it did not since it has no patent and there is no profit in it. Merck has a bigger fish to fry (but we don't know what type of fish yet, vaccine or therapeutic. but merck is making deals trying to get in on the act after its own vaccines failed totally). Hence it has put its effort into spoiling ivermectin's prospects.
$200bn firms can throw a lot of weight around, so Merck is using it to buy time for a deal on a bigger fish. It does not want ivermectin to cure everybody too soon. So Merck is buying time to allow govts. to put their hands in their pockets.
I guessing the secret weapon is molnupiravir
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/merck-ridgeback-molnupiravir-us-supply-deal/601545/
But the ivermectin story is leaking out.... suspicions have been raised Markets have noticed and Merck's share price has come off the boil a bit. the dogs in the street have sensed the game is up. If molnupiravir fails, it's all over. And if ivermectin is half as good as they say it is the Pandemic is over too!
So far only poor quality studies performed on ivermectin. Then metastudies, combining this poor quality data. This is not good enough to draw reliable conclusions.
So if Oxford does a good study and concludes that there is a clear benefit, that's great news. If their conclusion is not positive, will you accept that?
regardless of patents, Merck seems to be the only manufacturer of the drug, so don't see why they would hold it back. It would make them lots of money. Your theory is just a guess at a conspiracy.
So far only poor quality studies performed on ivermectin. Then metastudies, combining this poor quality data. This is not good enough to draw reliable conclusions.
So if Oxford does a good study and concludes that there is a clear benefit, that's great news. If their conclusion is not positive, will you accept that?
regardless of patents, Merck seems to be the only manufacturer of the drug, so don't see why they would hold it back. It would make them lots of money. Your theory is just a guess at a conspiracy.
If you search the published literature you will find a wide discussion on the possible anti-viral properties of ivermectin and related analogues and their potential uses as anti-virals going back to the 1980's. It was one of those, well that's interesting, might be useful treating something else, areas of discussion. There are lots of candidates for retargeting existing pharmaceuticals for novel uses for treating other disease. Based on clinical observations. Its a pretty common phenomenon. Some of the most successful treatments came out of such serendipity.
You will also discover if you read the published clinical treatment reports that came out after the 2003 SARs CoV 1 outbreak that quite a few novel treatments were tried. Not just the standard HCQ etc. Depending on the individual patent and what was available. The goal was not a "cure". The goal was to slow / stop symptoms severity escalation. Success was reducing / stopping patients reaching the ARDs stage. When they were basically screwed. Which are very different goals from the typical "study". Doctors just want to keep their patient alive. Not prove some positive treatment effect is statistically significant. The two are often mutually exclusive.
Some interesting results of these experiential treatments were published after 2003. But as the only reliable data was from outside China and the patient count was so low reliable conclusions could not be drawn. Then SARs CoV 1 mysteriously "disappeared" in the summer of 2003 and that was that. Very difficult to do long term studies on something that was only seen outside China for a few months and had a few thousand cases.
As for some greater "conspiracy" by Merck. The patent expired almost 25 years ago. So generics would be trivial to produce if demand was there.
Good news jmc..at last recognition as being free thinkers that dont follow the sheep and have done our research...true ls...and that's coming from the trolls...
😀
Thankfully, plenty of the stuff is manufactured in India, from where I purchased 6 month's supply for this household. (But then Fon has told me before that I'm thick so please don't let me influence anyone)
Despite the regurgitated wisdom that all the dozens of trials have been of poor quality, the Dark Horse Podcast (number 81, I believe) noted incidental supporting evidence of low incidence of Covid in areas of Africa that had used the stuff against parasitic infestation. Proper large-scale, blue- chip trials cost a fortune to run - usually by Pharma-and why would they blow the budget on showcasing an old therapeutic when they have a shiny new one to bring to market waiting in the wings?
I would not bet the farm on a favourable outcome from the Oxford trial; too much rides on ivermectin being judged to be ineffective, but they might graciously concede it has uses treating long Covid.
