4 ms·

Why? I think he has a point. We live in a society that is geared around profit. That is literally how our society functions. Economic activity is incentivised b

Why? I think he has a point. We live in a society that is geared around profit. That is literally how our society functions. Economic activity is incentivised by the profit motive, important national metrics like GDP focus primarily on profit driven output and growth, even engineering or medical problems are often framed in economic terms like cost/benefit. I think it’s silly in this kind of context to ignore the profit motive.

jacquesm 5y ago
[flagged]
- orbifold 5y ago
  The (western) COVID vaccine manufacturers still make ~1000$/s in profit from them. Gates / BMGF are invested in literally almost all of them, even the obscure Indian ones, not just Moderna and BionTech
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes. But compared to what this crisis has cost us to date that is a very small drop in the bucket. think trillions, not billions. And it's not over yet. And Gates has so much money he's probably invested in the whole F500. But the whole Gates/Soros/whichever bogeyman you want to add here story is getting a bit long in the tooth.
    - orbifold 5y ago
      Yeah it also lead to trillions in wealth increase of the ultra rich. There also is a difference between deliberately investing in vaccine companies and then publicly advocation for patent protections to remain in place and buying a vanguard etf. Just because someone is the target of Crazy conspiracies doesn’t make their behavior less reprehensible.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  I'm not talking about the vaccines in this context. The discussion is a lot more nuanced than that.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Sure... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140176 and so on.
    - majou 5y ago
      I found the second thread re: vaccine hesitancy decent. The myocarditis incidence seems higher than reported to me too. I'd also be curious if any studies could be made on needle aspiration being important or not.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    No it's not. What you are saying is everything is biased by money, therefore I can't trust anyone. What people are telling you is that you don't really understand the bias, not that the bias doesn't exist.
    - mewpmewp2 5y ago
      > everything is biased by money I said that. > therefore I can't trust anyone I did not say that. > What people are telling you is that you don't really understand the bias, What I don't understand about it?
- throwawayacc2 5y ago
  Have I missed anything? I don’t think the discussion is about vaccines. For what is worth, I think both the vaccines and ivermectin work. I just think multinational profit driven companies are more incentivised to promote vaccines, which generate a huge profit, over ivermectin which doesn’t make that much of a profit.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    If you think ivermectin works then you are essentially disqualified because as the article linked here nicely explains there are some hypothesis about how it might work if it works but there is no proof, in which case the medical establishment would be all over it, because they too want this pandemic to end asap. Whether they could make more profit off this probably factors for some people but on the whole the medical profession is result driven.
    - csee 5y ago
      Don't use the word "proof". That's a word that's only appropriate in deductive disciplines like mathematics. Also let's accurately represent what the article is saying: "Again and again, more people are surviving (or avoiding complications) when they get the drug. It’s a pattern strong enough to common-sensically notice. But there isn’t an undeniable, unbreachable fortress of evidence." This to me reads consistent with "ivermectin has a reasonably good chance of working a little bit but it isn't conclusive.", which is in contrast to your statement that thinking ivermectin works is equal to quackery. Personally I think it's either a very small effect or no effect at all, but I don't think the quackery designation fits for people who simply believe that there's some small benefit there (although I do think that label fits for those that think it can replace vaccines)
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        You can think ivermectin works just fine. But what you shouldn't do is pass that on to others as fact in a game of Chinese whispers that ends with 'MSM and big pharma are in cahoots to deny us this cheap medicine that really works against COVID to protect the profits of big pharma'. And that's exactly how it goes. Quackery: "dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine." You don't have the knowledge, you don't have the skill, so don't go around giving advice about non-proven cures (or in fact, about any cures).

jacquesm 5y ago

[flagged]

orbifold 5y ago
The (western) COVID vaccine manufacturers still make ~1000$/s in profit from them. Gates / BMGF are invested in literally almost all of them, even the obscure Indian ones, not just Moderna and BionTech
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes. But compared to what this crisis has cost us to date that is a very small drop in the bucket. think trillions, not billions. And it's not over yet. And Gates has so much money he's probably invested in the whole F500. But the whole Gates/Soros/whichever bogeyman you want to add here story is getting a bit long in the tooth.
  - orbifold 5y ago
    Yeah it also lead to trillions in wealth increase of the ultra rich. There also is a difference between deliberately investing in vaccine companies and then publicly advocation for patent protections to remain in place and buying a vanguard etf. Just because someone is the target of Crazy conspiracies doesn’t make their behavior less reprehensible.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
I'm not talking about the vaccines in this context. The discussion is a lot more nuanced than that.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Sure... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140176 and so on.
  - majou 5y ago
    I found the second thread re: vaccine hesitancy decent. The myocarditis incidence seems higher than reported to me too. I'd also be curious if any studies could be made on needle aspiration being important or not.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  No it's not. What you are saying is everything is biased by money, therefore I can't trust anyone. What people are telling you is that you don't really understand the bias, not that the bias doesn't exist.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    > everything is biased by money I said that. > therefore I can't trust anyone I did not say that. > What people are telling you is that you don't really understand the bias, What I don't understand about it?
throwawayacc2 5y ago
Have I missed anything? I don’t think the discussion is about vaccines. For what is worth, I think both the vaccines and ivermectin work. I just think multinational profit driven companies are more incentivised to promote vaccines, which generate a huge profit, over ivermectin which doesn’t make that much of a profit.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  If you think ivermectin works then you are essentially disqualified because as the article linked here nicely explains there are some hypothesis about how it might work if it works but there is no proof, in which case the medical establishment would be all over it, because they too want this pandemic to end asap. Whether they could make more profit off this probably factors for some people but on the whole the medical profession is result driven.
  - csee 5y ago
    Don't use the word "proof". That's a word that's only appropriate in deductive disciplines like mathematics. Also let's accurately represent what the article is saying: "Again and again, more people are surviving (or avoiding complications) when they get the drug. It’s a pattern strong enough to common-sensically notice. But there isn’t an undeniable, unbreachable fortress of evidence." This to me reads consistent with "ivermectin has a reasonably good chance of working a little bit but it isn't conclusive.", which is in contrast to your statement that thinking ivermectin works is equal to quackery. Personally I think it's either a very small effect or no effect at all, but I don't think the quackery designation fits for people who simply believe that there's some small benefit there (although I do think that label fits for those that think it can replace vaccines)
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      You can think ivermectin works just fine. But what you shouldn't do is pass that on to others as fact in a game of Chinese whispers that ends with 'MSM and big pharma are in cahoots to deny us this cheap medicine that really works against COVID to protect the profits of big pharma'. And that's exactly how it goes. Quackery: "dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine." You don't have the knowledge, you don't have the skill, so don't go around giving advice about non-proven cures (or in fact, about any cures).