undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjeaff4y ago0 comments

Your assertion of the financial incentives of on patent vs off patent doesn't make sense for ivermectin.

For one, the company that sells ivermectin in the US (Bayer) does not currently have an alternative covid treatment. They have publicly stayed that they do not believe ivermectin helps against covid. Secondly, an RX of ivermectin (for humans) appears to cost more ($35) than the vaccine ($20). Additionally, the vaccine is already paid for, whether or not people use it, many countries (especially the US) pre-purchased hundreds of millions of vaccine doses.

Given that vaccines are already sold and adding ivermectin is pretty safe and is being added to the cocktail of treatments, already being used, I see no financial incentives for drug companies to discourage it.

0 comments

jpadkins4y ago

If the FDA approves a therapeutics for covid19, then the emergency approval for experimental vaccines is gone. Not only do they lose vaccine mandates with that, but they also lose liability shield. There is a financial incentive to suppress covid19 therapeutics from pharma (and their stockholders).

jjeaffOP4y ago

This is a myth that keeps getting passed around. The FDA actually had more than one therapeutic with eua for covid19 when they created the eua for the vaccine. There is no rule forbidding an EUA for a vaccine if a therapeutic exists.

ImpressiveWebs4y ago

> I see no financial incentives for drug companies to discourage it.

Then you’re not looking hard enough. You don’t think endless booster shots are an incentive to dismiss Ivermectin? Discouraging Ivermectin means, not billions, but trillions in revenue.

And that’s not even considering the fact that the vaccines could never be legally approved for emergency use if Ivermectin works.

jjeaffOP4y ago

False. The existence of a therapeutic does not block approval of other treatments or vaccines. In fact, there were multiple emergency authorized therapeutics for c19 when the made the eua for the vaccine.

And no one is talking about endless vaccines. We now have a 3rd booster for at-risk populations. It's possibly/likely that if they extend that recommendation to the rest of the population that 3 doses may be all that is needed for long term, strong immunity. Just like there are 3 doses for hep B and several other vaccines.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjjeaff4y ago0 comments

Your assertion of the financial incentives of on patent vs off patent doesn't make sense for ivermectin.

0 comments

jpadkins4y ago

jjeaffOP4y ago

ImpressiveWebs4y ago

> I see no financial incentives for drug companies to discourage it.

Then you’re not looking hard enough. You don’t think endless booster shots are an incentive to dismiss Ivermectin? Discouraging Ivermectin means, not billions, but trillions in revenue.

And that’s not even considering the fact that the vaccines could never be legally approved for emergency use if Ivermectin works.

jjeaffOP4y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse