4 ms·

It's way too cheap, iirc Dr. Kory was estimating it would cost like $12 per person to use Ivermectin as a preventative, and this is at current prices. Also, sa

It's way too cheap, iirc Dr. Kory was estimating it would cost like $12 per person to use Ivermectin as a preventative, and this is at current prices. Also, said company, Merck, is in the process of releasing a new drug that will cost in the thousands.

geofft 5y ago
$12 per person per what unit of time? $12 gets you like three tablets. That's according to some claimed protocols enough to (probably) get you out of the hospital alive, but that's not a long-term preventative. Meanwhile, the government pays about $20 per dose of the vaccine. The difference between $12 and $20 is not substantial.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  The dose for prevention is a fraction of the dose for people already infected. Maybe per year? I don't know, I don't recall the details, but even so that's without the economies of scale that would intervene if it was a worldwide effort. Re: vaccines, JP Morgan estimated Pfizer alone will make $100B from vaccines. I don't think manufacturing Ivermectin is complex enough that it would net ANY profit, the effort would be organized completely differently. Lastly, I don't think this is a conspiracy, either for money or politics, going for vaccines was just the easiest sell for both people and governments, and doing anything different would have been extremely difficult (see Sweden and lockdown policies).
  - OminousWeapons 5y ago
    > Lastly, I don't think this is a conspiracy, either for money or politics, going for vaccines was just the easiest sell for both people and governments, and doing anything different would have been extremely difficult (see Sweden and lockdown policies). This is not true. Governments were and are being hammered by their inability to manage COVID. There is a massive incentive to find a therapeutic that can treat the infected rather than just a vaccine, which is how crazes surrounding Ivermectin and other unproven therapeutics got started to begin with. Not only that, but generic therapeutics that could be easily manufactured and transported to poorer nations are clearly the best option to solve this problem. Vaccines were the hardest sell and the worst option for governments given their long developmental timeline, the FUD surrounding them, and the clear complexities surrounding distribution and scarcity.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
shlant 5y ago
grifters are making millions off of selling HCQ, IVM, and consultations: https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy... https://archive.md/eyopT https://archive.md/eyopT
- didjathinkmess 5y ago
  Took a look through through that Intercept article. It reads like any of the biased opinion based drivel passing for journalism these days. Trying to conflate politics with medicine and say Doctors who risked their careers to speak up for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are "extremely pro Trump". Immediate red flag. They call out Simone Gold for posting anti-vax content on Twitter by retweeting Joe Rogan's experience that he got covid and treated it with a cocktail of drugs including Ivermectin. This first hand account of recovery was apparently not true because... Ivermectin isn't shown to be effective.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Only, politicians have insinuated themselves into medicine, so that ship has sailed. When a medical professional is both sending strong political signals and their professional opinion is strongly aligned with the party line (and also conspiracy theorists), far out of line with the vast majority of their profession, that's suspect. Joe Rogan's treatment is a single anecdote, and invermectin was one component of a "cocktail." He recovered, yes, but there's more noise than signal and most people recover from covid without any treatment.

geofft 5y ago

$12 per person per what unit of time? $12 gets you like three tablets. That's according to some claimed protocols enough to (probably) get you out of the hospital alive, but that's not a long-term preventative. Meanwhile, the government pays about $20 per dose of the vaccine. The difference between $12 and $20 is not substantial.

lambdaba 5y ago
The dose for prevention is a fraction of the dose for people already infected. Maybe per year? I don't know, I don't recall the details, but even so that's without the economies of scale that would intervene if it was a worldwide effort. Re: vaccines, JP Morgan estimated Pfizer alone will make $100B from vaccines. I don't think manufacturing Ivermectin is complex enough that it would net ANY profit, the effort would be organized completely differently. Lastly, I don't think this is a conspiracy, either for money or politics, going for vaccines was just the easiest sell for both people and governments, and doing anything different would have been extremely difficult (see Sweden and lockdown policies).
- OminousWeapons 5y ago
  > Lastly, I don't think this is a conspiracy, either for money or politics, going for vaccines was just the easiest sell for both people and governments, and doing anything different would have been extremely difficult (see Sweden and lockdown policies). This is not true. Governments were and are being hammered by their inability to manage COVID. There is a massive incentive to find a therapeutic that can treat the infected rather than just a vaccine, which is how crazes surrounding Ivermectin and other unproven therapeutics got started to begin with. Not only that, but generic therapeutics that could be easily manufactured and transported to poorer nations are clearly the best option to solve this problem. Vaccines were the hardest sell and the worst option for governments given their long developmental timeline, the FUD surrounding them, and the clear complexities surrounding distribution and scarcity.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

shlant 5y ago

grifters are making millions off of selling HCQ, IVM, and consultations: https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy... https://archive.md/eyopT https://archive.md/eyopT

didjathinkmess 5y ago
Took a look through through that Intercept article. It reads like any of the biased opinion based drivel passing for journalism these days. Trying to conflate politics with medicine and say Doctors who risked their careers to speak up for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are "extremely pro Trump". Immediate red flag. They call out Simone Gold for posting anti-vax content on Twitter by retweeting Joe Rogan's experience that he got covid and treated it with a cocktail of drugs including Ivermectin. This first hand account of recovery was apparently not true because... Ivermectin isn't shown to be effective.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Only, politicians have insinuated themselves into medicine, so that ship has sailed. When a medical professional is both sending strong political signals and their professional opinion is strongly aligned with the party line (and also conspiracy theorists), far out of line with the vast majority of their profession, that's suspect. Joe Rogan's treatment is a single anecdote, and invermectin was one component of a "cocktail." He recovered, yes, but there's more noise than signal and most people recover from covid without any treatment.