Hydroxy cloroquin and ivermectin are old drugs that are very safe and very cheap. Big pharma would rather have us using drugs like Remdesavir that cost $3,000 per treatment.
Hydroxy cloroquin and ivermectin are old drugs that are very safe and very cheap. Big pharma would rather have us using drugs like Remdesavir that cost $3,000 per treatment.
From same comment mentioned above (IM Doc on Naked Capitalism...)
"Remdesevir is loaded with all kinds of safety problems that I have seen with my own eyes. And it has the extra benefit of obviously not working тАУ it literally does not do a god damned thing. Multiple studies have hinted at this."
It was my understanding that remdasivir was given early on with mixed results. At that time no one knew WHAT worked and so doctors were trying all sorts of things.
"The agency added that the NIH has also determined there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for the treatment of COVID.
Not actually correct тАУ the NIH current status on ivermectin is there is not enough data to recommend OR to discourage its use. The NIH changed this recommendation in December of 2020 as previously the NIH status on ivermectin usage was to discourage its use. Usually the status in which ivermectin is now placed would be accompanied with all kinds of funds to study the true efficacy of the drug, to see if it is successful. That of course is not being done at this time.
Interestingly, 2 of our other COVID modalities have exactly the same recommend/discourage status. That would be remdesevir and outpatient monoclonal antibodies. EXACTLY the same status on both of these as ivermectin currently. The NIH states there is not enough evidence to recommend or to discourage the use of either of these.
And yet we continue right on with both the others without a blink of an eye.
A little math тАУ
Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.
A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at 8800 dollars.
An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at 23000 тАУ 25000 dollars with all the infusion costs added."
Hat tip to IM Doc (commentariat on Naked Capitalism....best source for info on Covid I've found...)
major, controlled studies of efficacy going on, two in the US and one in Britain. So the FDA, or somebody with money, thinks it's worth a try - not at all what they're telling us. It would be unethical to trial a drug with no reason to think it might work.
Dude, I KNOW that you are fully aware that Big Pharma, and "unethical" are *not mutually exclusive concepts ! The "somebody with money" of your *own statement really was NOT, as you note, the FDA ! The FDA could even be the one to "initiate the action", but they are *not the motive power behind this SARS Co V 2 racket.
Hydroxy cloroquin and ivermectin are old drugs that are very safe and very cheap. Big pharma would rather have us using drugs like Remdesavir that cost $3,000 per treatment.
Working in pharma, this is true. Remdesavir should not have been approved in my opinion. It's a lousy drug that barely works.
From same comment mentioned above (IM Doc on Naked Capitalism...)
"Remdesevir is loaded with all kinds of safety problems that I have seen with my own eyes. And it has the extra benefit of obviously not working тАУ it literally does not do a god damned thing. Multiple studies have hinted at this."
Seems to agree with you.
Yeah. I looked at the data. It sucked.
It was my understanding that remdasivir was given early on with mixed results. At that time no one knew WHAT worked and so doctors were trying all sorts of things.
"The agency added that the NIH has also determined there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for the treatment of COVID.
Not actually correct тАУ the NIH current status on ivermectin is there is not enough data to recommend OR to discourage its use. The NIH changed this recommendation in December of 2020 as previously the NIH status on ivermectin usage was to discourage its use. Usually the status in which ivermectin is now placed would be accompanied with all kinds of funds to study the true efficacy of the drug, to see if it is successful. That of course is not being done at this time.
Interestingly, 2 of our other COVID modalities have exactly the same recommend/discourage status. That would be remdesevir and outpatient monoclonal antibodies. EXACTLY the same status on both of these as ivermectin currently. The NIH states there is not enough evidence to recommend or to discourage the use of either of these.
And yet we continue right on with both the others without a blink of an eye.
A little math тАУ
Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.
A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at 8800 dollars.
An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at 23000 тАУ 25000 dollars with all the infusion costs added."
Hat tip to IM Doc (commentariat on Naked Capitalism....best source for info on Covid I've found...)
I don't have a link to hand, but apparently there are THREE
major, controlled studies of efficacy going on, two in the US and one in Britain. So the FDA, or somebody with money, thinks it's worth a try - not at all what they're telling us. It would be unethical to trial a drug with no reason to think it might work.
@Charles
Dude, I KNOW that you are fully aware that Big Pharma, and "unethical" are *not mutually exclusive concepts ! The "somebody with money" of your *own statement really was NOT, as you note, the FDA ! The FDA could even be the one to "initiate the action", but they are *not the motive power behind this SARS Co V 2 racket.