BNR, NOS, OMT, Volkskrant, NRC, yes even the state attorney uses this argument because even in court top doctors and doctors beg to lift the ban on ivermectin – and always in vain, see for example here. Hardcore anti-quacks vote against ivermectin because evidence really has to come from the pharmaceutical companies, otherwise it can't be trusted. And those pharmaceutical companies, in turn, say 'No, we are not going to invest in that'. Even producer Merck doesn't want that. Why not? Again topical, because of the fuss about the column by Marianne Zwagerman. She had to adapt at the insistence of the BNR editors.
[update of article by Dec '21]
BNR radio did not want to post the column because of the phrase that 'Ivermectin does indeed work against corona' according to an article by Reuters.Source Reutersweakened the head to 'Ivermectin has an antiviral effect'. BNR wanted to have formulated that as well. In retrospect, I think Marianne would have been better off mentioning another source than changing the headline. Read on.
In their accountability for this editorial intervention, BNR writes:
"This is what is known so far about Ivermectin. A Japanese company, which did not yet share its research results, showed 'an antiviral effect'. Dozens of studies have been done on the effectiveness of Ivermectin for corona patients. Oneextensive scientific analysisof all studies show that there is no proven effect of Ivermectin. There is also no evidence that it does not work. Butmanufacturer Merckand theEuropean Medicines Agencydo not recommend use, because if there is already an effect of using the agent, it only occurs at high doses."
BNR claims to know what is known about ivermectin. I would like to supplement that with a selection of what else is known.
"A Japanese company"
ÅŒmura Satoshi, inventor of the free drug ivermectin distributed in Africa, has urged large pharmaceutical companies to investigate the effectiveness of ivermectin with an RCT (Randomized Controlled Trial, a widely accepted form of research that only large parties with deep pockets can pay for and execute). However, the 86-year-old Nobel Prize winner got the stocking on the head everywhere, including at Merck, which has had the patent on ivermectin. Unfortunately, they were not interested. See also this message from biznews.com.)
"that his research results did not yet share"
The investigation is ongoing. After all the controversies, no one benefits from spreading rumors too early, no matter how panting the press is chasing. Incidentally, a lot has already been previously demonstrated that ivermectin showed an anti-viral effect in the lab, so that's a bit old news.
"Dozens of studies have been done..."
Dozens? There are now 148 studies of which 98 peer-reviewed, including 78 with results comparing treatment and control groups. Below are two websites that keep overviews of almost all ivermectin studies.
https://ivmmeta.com/ (the 78 peer reviewed placebo studies)
https://c19ivermectin.com/ (broader overview)
"Aextensive scientific analysisof all studies"
"One" analysis. 1. The German analysis in question deals with studies until May 2021. A lot has already been said about it. In the meantime we are nine months further with much exploded knowledge, advanced insights, withdrawn studies, censorship and all kinds of controversies. It is a bit easy to get over it. Nevertheless, this study delivers a "undecided", after rejection of the majority of all existing studies.
So here is the overriding argument:
"Butmanufacturer Merckand theEuropean Medicines Agencydo not recommend use"
EMA, like rivm, adopts the weighty (even decisive) argument from the FDA: "the manufacturer Merck advises against it itself". Among other things, for safety reasons. That's strange for a drug that has already been prescribed billions of times (I don't count people, horses and small pets). Then we would like to know how, why and in what context.
Something about Merck and the pharma business
Merck is a healthy company and it's their responsibility to keep it that way. If a producer like Merck sees the opportunity to become a co-producer of a vaccine to be rolled out worldwide (semi)annually, then it would be bad entrepreneurship to promote a pill instead whose patent has long since expired. The management would be replaced immediately.
A patent-free drug means competition and therefore suboptimal profit margins. That is not the business model of pharmaceutical companies. They invest large parts of their research budget in developing new versions of a drug that deviates enough to apply for a new patent and is good enough to replace the old one. It is all about the unique patent ownership because that gives the exclusive right and so interesting margins can be realized in negotiations with governments, insurers and healthcare institutions.
Merck itself also worked on a Covid vaccine, but that apparently did not go smoothly. They dropped that development when they could become a co-producer of the Janssen vaccine.
With COVID-19, it was about "emergency vaccines" that would be temporarily permitted under very strict conditions due to the emergency situation (EUA). After all, the development time was absurdly short. That was thanks to prior knowledge and a process with which there was already experience to combat metastatic cancer in the final phase. Merck could not compete with that.
Now a EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) becomes difficult to impossible if other medication is already available. Ivermectin could therefore throw a spanner in the works. Shareholders would ask questions. For example, Janssen had also come up with the idea of getting Merck on board so that they would not promote their ivermectin. See below the development in official press releases of Ivermectin producer Merck.
Merck discourages Ivermectin – timeline. Pay attention to the dates 
I have cited these Merck press releases several times. Given the current events, thanks to the BNR report, the NOS news and ongoing court cases, I repeat them here:
January 25, 2021 6:45 am ETKENILWORTH, NJ – (BUSINESS WIRE) – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, today announced that the company is halting development of its SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine candidates.
Feb. 4, 2021 11:45 a.m. ETKENILWORTH, NJ – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, today confirmed its position regarding the use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that our analysis to date has shown:
- No scientific basis for a possible therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence of clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A worrying lack of safety data in most studies.
2 March 2021 - Merck/MSD will help with the production of the "Leiden vaccine" of Janssen. On March 2, 2021 we announced our collaboration with Johnson & Johnson (the parent company of Janssen), making production capacity available in the US.
They can be found at https://www.merck.com/media/news
Merck's objections to ivermectin can be questioned:
- There is indeed scientific basis for a possible effect against Covid-19. Sufficient to justify a large-scale investigation. See for example this very recent study with 28,000 subjects, or this with 223,128 subjects, both from January 2021. Much earlier, even at the time, there was already an overwhelming amount of signals. These can also be traced via c19ivermectin.com and the website of the flccc.
- “No meaningful evidence". That way everything is swept off the table: what is" meaningful "? They dare not use the word significantly (because just not investigated, so why not meaningful?). With some bad will you only looked at the observations and local investigations that did not meet research standards that only the pharmaceuticalists can pay.
- “A worrying lack of safety data"Of the medicine of which Merck has already sold and handed out many billions of doses, with minimal side effects. Less than various worldwide painkillers, for example (see videos from John Campbell).
"If there is an effect at all, it only occurs at high doses"
This is if I remember the finding of the first in Vitro Lab studies and examining in seriously ill patients. It is a matter of using early, within a week of contamination. That argument has therefore expired, certainly with developments such as ivermectin administered by inhalation.
In order not to make this article too long, I am not going to make all kinds of other arguments again (such as here). It was now about analysing the motivation and expertise of the BNR editors. And to give Marianne a helping hand.
We ⤠you Marianne!!!
Videos
The new Covid pill from Merck, Molnupiravir, is something less effective but patented. This also applies to the new Pfizer pill Paxlovid, which has (partly) the same mechanism as ivermectin.
Dr. John Campbell on Paxlovid vs ivermectin, 22 minutes:
Dr. John Campbell on Molnupiravir vs ivermectin, 29 minutes:
Sweet junk may strangely enough be used against Covid, while we are still dealing with largely obese Covid patients. ivermectin is strictly prohibited. I really wonder what's worse for those people.
"Even the producer (Merck, ed.) says ivermectin does not work against Covid-19."
Bouncer of the arguments in the boycott campaign dated 21 Dec. 2021 in the NOS news.
