NOS: "Even the producer advises against ivermectin"

[this article has a more recent version]

All the way to the court, top doctors and doctors beg to lift the ban on ivermectin – and always in vain, again this week. Hardcore anti-quacks vote against: It really has to come from the pharmaceutical companies, otherwise it can't be trusted. And those pharmaceutical companies say 'no'. Why is that? Already discussed earlier but again topical.

The NOS news concludes crystal clear that ivermectin does not work, that even the producer of ivermectin says that it does not work.

"Even the producer (Merck, ed.) says ivermectin does not work against Covid-19."

Bouncer of the arguments in the boycott campaign last night 21 Dec. 2021 in the NOS news.

How about that?

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. That means competition and therefore suboptimal profit margins. That's not the business model. 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.

Now this was an emergency vaccine that would be allowed under very strict conditions, possibly because of the emergency situation. An 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. See below the development in official press releases from ivermectin producer Merck.

Merck discourages Ivermectin – timeline. Pay attention to the dates

Merck's objections can be questioned:

• There is indeed a scientific basis for a possible effect against Covid-19. Sufficient to justify a large-scale investigation. See for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ (recent study; even at that time there was already an overwhelming amount of signals, see the heading metastudies.)
• "No meaningful evidence". This swept everything off the table as soon as it does not meet the research standards that only the pharmaceutical companies themselves can afford. That is precisely why there is a need for capital to organize a large study.
• "A worrying lack of safety data" is reason for Merck to discourage a drug of which they have already sold many billions of doses and distributed them for free, with minimal side effects. Less than several worldwide used painkillers for example (see videos by John Campbell).

Dr. Satoshi Ōmura, the discoverer of the Nobel Prize-winning ivermectin, has asked Merck to set up a trial. Merck refused. (More info and interpretation in this message from biznews.com.)

Merck's new Covid pill, Molnupiravir, is admittedly less effective but patented. This also applies to the new Pfizer pill Paxlovid, which has (partly) the same mechanism as ivermectin.

Meta-studies

Below are two websites that keep overviews of almost all ivermectin studies. There are also negative studies, for example among ICU patients. These "Late treatment studies" often give a bad picture. It has never been claimed that ivermectin is the panacea that cures the seriously ill. Yet it is tried out that way. The pre-selection of subjects (treated/placebo) is also sometimes problematic.

https://ivmmeta.com/

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Videos

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.