Lol. That’s funny. Someone makes it! They stand to profit if they sell more.
You think the people who make ivermectin will make less money if they sell more of it…interesting theory.
A graph is evidence? Where is the regression analysis to eliminate other possible causes for the decline (increased mask usage, stay at home orders, natural progression).
I’m not sayng FLCCC are grifters or motivated by greed, but they are not dispassionate observers (one of their key members and the first author listed in an earlier paper you linked to called Ivermectin a “miracle drug”, which seems a bit hyperbolic) and had an earlier paper removed because of flaws in their analysis.
No, since they are drug companies they stand to make many times more if ivermectin doesn’t work and they have to come up with a new treatment or if it is discredited despite it working.
1 Like
Yet another study posted after you claimed we can’t trust the studies!
No pharma companies involved as far as I can see.
1 Like
That is Dr Kory’s organization.
They are the one’s that relied on the flawed data sets I have been talking about.
I don’t think that they are clearheaded when it comes to proving the efficacy of Ivermectin. I think that they have reached a conclusion and are backfilling in anything that looks like positive info no matter the source and ignoring anything that refutes their hypothesis.
Ok, ok…but what if…just maybe, what if there is a drug company that makes ivermectin and they haven’t come up with a new treatment?
Then what happens?
Feel free to show anyone involved in compiling that data have any ties to a pharmaceutical company period, let lone one that makes ivermectin.
Why would Merck, who does not produce a Covid19 vaccine but does produce ivermectin, tell people not to use ivermectin to treat covid?
A meta-analysis shows no evidence that Ivermectin is effecitve in treating Covid
yes, anyone who believes anything out of CNN is not capable of learning.
If Russian collusion and the 1000’s fake stories didn’t teach them anything, censoring the Wuhan lab story should have.
A slow pitch.
They made the recommendation back in February before this agreement. They could have had 7 months of increased sales of ivermectin if they kept their mouth shut.
How much?
How much are they going to increase the sales of their new drug by recommending against using Ivermectin back in February?
How much would they have made had they backed ivermectin instead, keeping in mind it would have blown up the vaccine emergency approval as well, since one of the reasons it was allowed was because there were no known effective therapeutics. But don’t worry, the people who stand to profit off it being found not to work are conducting large studies right now.
So federal, state and local health agencies, medical universities, hospitals, et. al. in not only the US but in most of the developed world all recommend against Ivermectin use because they have a vested financial interest?
Once again… they are using that meta analysis that includes the fraudulent Egyptian study.
There is no need to construct a conspiracy.
We can all hate on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for using their weight to make sure that the vaccine developed by Oxford not be open source but instead proprietary to Astra-Zeneca… because forbid there be a vaccine that anyone who is capable of making it be able to make it.
I guess they don’t want to use penicillin or its derivatives either.
