9 ms·
After clicking to read the middle authors, I saw some familiar names, Pierre Kory being one of them. A doctor that testified to a congressional committee early
by jjeaff 5y ago
After clicking to read the middle authors, I saw some familiar names, Pierre Kory being one of them. A doctor that testified to a congressional committee early last year that "the pandemic will end, the economy can reopen, social interactions and activity can resume, and life can normalize" if we simply give ivermectin to everyone.
He has made countless claims like these long before any good research had been done. So he and his organization have a lot riding on proving that ivermectin works for COVID.
- ComradePhil 5y agoWhat's the problem with that? Pfizer and their friends have everything riding on the idea that it never ends, none of the cheap treatments work and the only solution is to slow the spread (so that it stays around for longer) while vaccinating everyone frequently... and they are only motivated by profits.
- acdha 5y agoVaccines are far less profitable than most of their other drugs. If they were looking to get rich, they'd want something like the HIV inhibitors where each patient is buying from them on a frequent basis.
- brippalcharrid 5y agoVaccines can potentially be mandated for entire populations and funded by the US taxpayer for distribution around the world and require adjustments several times per year. The development of new related vaccines of this type is apparently quite cheap and straightforward (this was boasted about at various points over the last few years) and vaccines are also pretty unique in the way that manufacturers can effectively be immune from liability. Add in the magic word Pandemic, with careful orchestration from public health authorities and politicians I think you can have a dream combination of volume, revenue and commercial risk limitation.
- Vrondi 5y agoYes, as a person with a medical history of immune system disorder triggered by a vaccine, I am repeatedly astonished that the medical system and government keep claiming things we don't yet have data for, and trying to force _everyone_ to take these vaccines for which there is no legal recourse. The vaccine that gave me an auto-immune reaction is part of the established system that will allow some compensation to some victims. These new vaccines are too new, and not yet even eligible to be listed there, and so if your immune system reacts to one of the new vaccines by attacking your own body, it's not even eligible to be legally considered to give you compensation. But they're safe. Everyone should have them. Lucky you if it ruins your body or life.
- brippalcharrid 5y agoAlso, those compensation schemes are run by the government. And it's worth mentioning that a lot of the research and development costs are borne by government departments as well (eg. via Fauci), but the IP is retained by those private companies. With which there is a revolving door of personnel from government and regulatory bodies. And that's before we get into the potential for vaccinations to be suppressing people's innate immunity and creating a raft of new medical conditions that would in turn require new pharmaceuticals to be developed.
- jjeaff 5y agoI'm not sure that the distinction means much. I don't think anyone has been able to successfully collect anything from that compensation fund offered by the government in decades.
- ConceptJunkie 5y agoAlso those new pharma billionaires in the past two years say it's pretty lucrative.
- pure_simplicity 5y agoWhat would be his ulterior motive? there's no money in it for him; ivermectin is dirt cheap and he doesn't produce it. If you think it is all reputational, then it would have been easier and better to salvage his reputation by just admitting his educated guess was wrong if it is in fact wrong, but more research was necessary to prove that. No one would fault him for that, and he knows that. I think he is just sincerely convinced by the evidence and wants to help tackle the pandemic. He made multiple recommendations some of which got adopted as standard of care (ivermectin wasn't adopted), before any good research was done, simply because that was the best that could be done in a new pandemic. He has got a pretty good track record, even discounting ivermectin Then again, there are also studies designed to undermine the evidence for off label treatments, such as the one about HCQ that was retracted from the Lancet. So if you are gonna question people's motives then at least question both sides. resistance to ivermectin may also be unscientific in nature. Pharma companies have a lot more riding on mass vaccination than Kory has on ivermectin
- pfisch 5y agoIn the us ivermectin is not cheap to take as a prophylactic. https://m.goodrx.com/ivermectin https://m.goodrx.com/ivermectin The vaccine is much, much cheaper.
- loudtieblahblah 5y agoIt's not if this then that. One is a preventative One is a treatment. Why is everyone so fucking broken.
- 5y ago
- Applejinx 5y agoI'm given to understand it can be very helpful if you also have worms. It's good at fighting worms, that's what it is, and if you're comorbid with COVID and worms it makes pretty good sense :) Beyond that, I suspect nah…
- WaxedChewbacca 5y agoIvermectin is also apparently a potent protease inhibitor. Inhibition of protease sabotages viral replication. Does that change the picture for you?
- bayesian_horse 5y agoNot at dosages a Human would survive.
- maxerickson 5y agoIt's not potent against SARS-CoV-2 though. Here's a comparison with the Pfizer drug: https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlovid-compare-ivermectin-15967 https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlov...
- Mvandenbergh 5y agoAt what IC50?
- vintermann 5y agoEven if it was, (I don't know why you believe that), protease inhibitors need to match the enzymes a virus uses. It would be very odd and surprising if a pharmaceutical with a completely different mechanism and purpose would just happen to inhibit coronavirus proteases.
- martneumann 5y agoMan, aren't people tired of reposting the same things? This was only shown in a petri dish at very high concentrations. You could say the same about a number of chemicals which we also would not survive in that concentration. I do not understand why people want Ivermectin to work so badly.
- refurb 5y agoI’m upvoting this comment simply because it’s factual, points out new information people may not know and leaves the implications to the reader.
- galosh 5y ago> He has made countless claims like these long before any good research had been done This could describe almost anyone working on COVID over the past 2 years
- acdha 5y agoNo, it really couldn't. If you look at the history of statements by medical professional, the claims made were reasonable advice based on the best facts available. There were improvements as information clarified — for example, people stopped worrying about spread on surfaces after it became clear that this was not happening on an noticeable scale — but the advice was generally reasonable and had plenty of scientific support (e.g. it's not controversial to say masks and ventilation help control a respiratory disease). The Hydroxychloroquine / Ivermectin sales people picked random pharmaceuticals and started recommending them without any serious theory or evidence supporting that they worked and, far more tellingly, they were clearly uninterested in testing their faith: it was all based on anecdotes and flawed studies and, unlike real scientists, when gaps or contradictory evidence were observed they tried to confabulate explanations which supported the conclusion they already had rather than question it.
- dionian 5y agoWhat if we take the theory, however outlandish, that Dr. Kory is one of those traditional physicians who, however rare these days, wants want is best for the patients (e.g. lower mortality rate)?
- jjeaff 5y agoThat may well be true. But back it up with good data or your good intentions mean nothing.