Replies

Yes, Invermectin has indeed been out for many years. That doesn’t change it’s current retail price, which is ~$100 for 20 whole 3 mg pills. So the point about Merck not being able to make “big bucks” is flawed - it’s MORE EXPENSIVE (given the dosing needed) than the vaccines are. So, as I said earlier..IF Invermectin did anything for COVID, you better bet Merck would be lining up to get their fair share of the billions being spent.

All that said, Merck themselves has said Invermectin DOES. NOT. WORK. for COVID. Here’s their exact language:

“Company scientists 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, to-date, our analysis has identified:

- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

So, even the MANUFACTURER of the drug saying “IT DOES **NOTHING** FOR COVID” isn’t enough to convince you guys, eh? That’s OK..keep listening to the internet “Doctors” (who by the way are raking in huge $$s selling their fear porn seminars and vitamins) instead of the company that actually MAKES the drug being recommended by said “Doctors”. Sigh...

I can personally attest that a regular 20 pill box of 3 mg Ivermectin is available for the low-low price of $24 at my local pharmacy in California. I know this because I filled a prescription for it in January of this year. I’m not disputing that you may have found the MSRP as it were, but that’s certainly not what one must pay.

The question of efficacy is not settled. Merck’s statement is not dispositive, and frankly, at this point seems at best to be less than the full truth.

The best information has been presented by Tess Lawrie, who is no “internet doctor”, and sells nothing, offers no seminars, and has actually put her livelihood at some risk by reporting truthfully the results of her meta analysis of a couple of dozen studies of early use Ivermectin for COVID.

It seems that you may be unaware of her work, so I’ll provide this link that will, if you wish, let you research some contrary view.

https://bird-group.org/conference-programme/

In any event, she and her collaborators are no cranks.

Pierry Kory is not a crank, nor is Paul Marik, nor is Andrew Hill. All are distinguished physicians and researchers, whos work cannot be honestly dismissed as internet quacks.

This is particularly urgent in light of the current push to extend vaccination to lower-risk cohorts. Business as usual is no longer acceptable.

That doesn’t change it’s current retail price, which is ~$100 for 20 whole 3 mg pills. So the point about Merck not being able to make “big bucks” is flawed - it’s MORE EXPENSIVE (given the dosing needed) than the vaccines are.

The ignorance is so strong with your post....where to begin??

Ivermectin 3mg can be bought for 30.00, for 30 tabs.

It’s now generic, so....yes, Merck isn’t making $$$ off of it.

You call it a horse pill, to try and smear something that has saved countless lives, from China virus....much to the chagrin of the BigPharma trolls, here.

Oh, and these experimental shots are NOT free, nor inexpensive.

We the Taxpayer have paid these drug companies billions for them.