Is the Ivermectin Situation Rigged in Favor of Industry: Is the Big Tobacco Analogy Appropriate?

Is the Ivermectin Situation Rigged in Favor of Industry Is the Big Tobacco Analogy Appropriate

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.

Shady Dealings

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.

Medical-Industrial Complex?

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?

Responses

  1. I have been able to get Ivermectin and first took 2 x 4 packs.
    I then reduced to two tablets a week for a month and probably down to one a week after that. May go to one a month.
    NO COVID!

  2. I don’t know for sure that Ivermectin works, but I would be willing to receive it as treatment in favor of being sent home to wait it out. Instead, we waste our money on remdesivir and find reasons to obfuscate the study on Ivermectin. Aviptadil and a few others as if we still have no idea how this killer disease progresses. Pathetic.

  3. I have one more thought on this article. Maybe the tobacco analogy is not quite right. As the article mentions,the tobacco companies tried to use science as an excuse. They may or may not have been lying but they actually used it as an excuse. With Ivermectin there is no excuse. The constant reply is there isn’t enough evidence that it DOES work. It is proven to be safe for anyone millions of times over so the argument that it is not safe is an obvious lie. So the real question is why NOT use it. Pass it out like candy. Advise people of the proper dosage and see if it helps. The reason not to do this is because if the cases drop significantly the pharma companies won’t sell as much vaccine. That is where the reckoning will come from. It is ALL about the money.

    1. Ivermectin is a very cheap generic miracle drug in use and somewhat like hydroxychloroquine was.
      Way too cheap and generic to get real medical approval in spite of being used for years and years safely & effectively.
      Glad I was able to get it when outside the US.

  4. Thank you Trialsite. I believe this article is spot on. I hope that eventually all the companies and people who discredited Ivermectin and cost so much pain and suffering and death are held accountable and all that money is redistributed to the people who suffered in in way because of this horrible selfishness.

  5. I believe that you are highlighting the most minor force against Ivermectin approval. The media and Big Tech have a Leftist bent and as such are enemies of the pharmaceutical industry, believing that they make too much profit. So you can’t explain their anti-Ivermectin stance as support of Big Pharma. Here is another analysis of the forces against Ivermectin:

    1) The pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to eliminate cheap generic competition to their expensive new patentable therapeutics. For example, it is otherwise hard to explain why Merck issued such an antagonistic statement against Ivermectin, going so far as to question the safety of a drug they generously donated billions of doses for mass administration to entire communities in Africa over 25+ years.  But this reason only applies to pharmaceutical companies and is the most minor force against Ivermectin.

    2) The government and medical establishment has a strong incentive to deny or at least delay any acknowledgment of a practical therapeutic because that might threaten the vaccination program in two ways.  It might increase the resistance to vaccination.  It would remove the justification for accelerated approval of the vaccines.  But people forget that the primary goal is to reduce hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 while achieving herd immunity.  If a combination of therapeutics and vaccination can do it most efficiently and quickly, then we shouldn’t be concerned if vaccination rates are slowed.  After all, a COVID-19 infection contained by therapeutics is essentially a live and cheap vaccination.  

    3) There are powerful political forces that want to keep the country in lockdown and preserve the concentration of emergency powers at the federal, state, and municipal level.  They have the support of the medical establishment, regulatory agencies, one political party, media, and Big tech.  Good cheap therapeutics pose a threat to their ability to use the pandemic emergency to pursue their political agenda. These forces will try to muzzle or cancel you, if your pursuit of therapeutics threatens this agenda.  Look at how BigTech has been censoring videos on alternative therapeutics because it is “disinformation” (including Senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC). Look at how the only Ivermectin paper the media has publicized is the JAMA article, an irresponsible if not fraudulent publication. These forces are delighted that you are focused against Big Pharma and don’t see their hand in suppressing Ivermectin.

  6. The best way to understand this is to read “Emperor of All Maladies.” The 1950s is too far back for most of us, yet we can easily see the same things taking place today once we read this book. History has a way of repeating itself, and it is true of medicine as well as politics. Great article!

  7. My thoughts are that you are exactly on point, TSN. These many months-long episodes of outright ignoring, omissions of positive studies, then a deluge of slanted, conflated articles, followed by outright brazen attacks against the drug itself and the doctors pleading for its use has been a thoroughly repulsive affair. Some day, a non-partisan book will be written and all the names and figures in this gross mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic will be in black and white for all to see. This ugly web of bought, greedy organizations and corporations will be fully exposed and their vampiric natures brought to light. Until that day, jail time will be too lenient a punishment for these crimes against humanity they have perpetrated on the entire Earth.

  8. I am a veterinarian and have been taking ivermectin orally for the past 3 months. In late February of this year, all 7 of my employees got the virus all within a week time period. Guess who did not get sick? Me. I didn’t even a sniffle. I am convinced it is due to me taking ivermectin.

  9. Big tobacco lost – human frailty brought the industry back from the dead.
    The average person generally believes that good will always triumph over evil. In fact, the history of civilization proves that evil prevails most of the time, only to be occasionally set aside by good.
    Expecting to win because you’re on the side of the ritcheous is a fool’s errand. If you want to win, you have to fight harder than your opponent. Period, end of story.