Is “Big Pharma” using the same tactics used by “Big Tobacco” to defeat ivermectin? Although researchers such as Richard Doll and Bradford Hill in the 1950s were in hot pursuit of the correlation between lung cancer and tobacco or for that matter Ernest Wynder and Evarts Graham’s investigation showing a strong association between bronchogenic carcinoma and smoking, history may just repeat itself. Well, despite the fact that this research revealed the dangers of smoking, the cigarette industry was too big and too powerful—what with their multibillion-dollar lobby by the mid-1960s, a few rogue scientists couldn’t’ get in the way. Enter Big Tobacco scientists, armed with lots of money and infrastructure, they made the case that genetics was the key cause, not smoking. They suggested that if one were born with the gene, they were more likely to get cancer. And for any scientists wanting to prove a causal link between cigarettes and smoking, we’ll go fund even bigger, better studies to generate compelling enough data. Big Tobacco even offered to help fund the studies via its Tobacco Industry Research Committee or TIRC. This approach led to billions more in profits over a half century. In this way, big industries, such as Tobacco, can confuse the matter much like Big Pharma, some argue today in targeting alternative COVID-19 treatments such as ivermectin.
From the Surgisphere study to those studies involving extraordinary high doses of the drug hydroxychloroquine to late in the COVID-19 virus life cycle, went to discredit that particular approach even though some studies showed real results and the proponents always recommended including the drug only in early stage studies. But Big Pharma may have distanced themselves from such studies once fraudulent articles, such as Surgisphere, were exposed, argues Justus R Hope, MD. TrialSite immediately smelled something fishy with the Surgisphere study—it made no sense. Yet, it was published in the Lancet with no problems only then later to be retracted.
Dr. Hope shares examples concerning Dr. Tess Lawrie, a guest on the TrialSite podcast and others. He suggests that much like Big Tobacco in the 1950s, Big Pharma is circling the wagons to stop the ivermectin truth from getting too far out of the bag. Most people that follow research seriously know that ivermectin administered at early onset of COVID-19 may lower the death rate and severity of the condition. Of course, this isn’t “proven” yet but so many studies showcase positive results. With 50 plus studies mostly showing considerable benefit from the antiparasitic drug, the potential to depress profits are real.
The Merck Edict
Take Merck, which in a brazen move, outright declared there was absolutely no evidence for ivermectin in regards to COVID-19. TrialSite responded, pointing out that on the one hand, we understood Merck had to protect its business, given it paid $425 million for a company with a COVID-19 drug in November and then just a month later received $356 million from the U.S. government to develop the same drug known as MK7100. TrialSite suggested the tactics were unethical and could damage Merck’s brand over the long run. After all, this is the company that helps produce ivermectin and has donated billions of doses to the third world to fight parasites. They turn around and say their own drug is possibly not safe yet the track record says the complete opposite.
What emerges is a cross between the Big Tobacco moves of the 1950s and an emerging medical-industrial complex, where industry lobby power and intertwining relationships leads to a somewhat to outright cozy situation for industry, government agency, regulators as the companies that receive lots of money from government (taxpayer) work aggressively to kill, indirectly, any research that poses a threat.
What Dr. Hope refers to is “obfuscation” and of course their “offer-to-fund-the-research” via various campaigns built on, among other things, manipulative hope to sway the public, which is typically accomplished. For example, NIH offered to conduct an ivermectin study as reported in the Washington Post’s April 8, 2021 entry. Dr. Hope suggests, “Thanks but no thanks, to the NIH, in their magnanimous offer to conduct more ‘research’. We already know what they will find.”
Dr. Hope suggests here that the NIH isn’t neutral in this game. What are your thoughts?