I think the whole #ivermectin is primarily about business - cleverly stimulated demand, based on "counter-cultural" mythology, just as with #homeopathy, and other alt-med like all kind of "miracle" cancer drugs. Just look at these prices - and dozens of shops can be found online:
And the vaccines, made by billion dollar corporations that aren't held liable for any side-effects aren't primarily about business?
Vaccines save lives with 1/1'000'000 serious side effects and in most countries are distributed for free.
Snake oil "remedies" do *not* provide any protection, have unknown side effects and people pay highly inflated price out of their pocket.
Guess who's screwing you more.
Nobody is mandating that I take Ivermectin, Introducing ivermectin passports or blaming me for the pandemic if I don't take Ivermectin.
I think I know who's screwing me more, and it's not Ivermectin salespeople.
BTW, there are numerous studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
I think you make a valid point that there are unscrupulous actors making large margins on Ivermectin sales and that these people therefore have a financial incentive to push a certain narrative.
Of course, the exact same logic can be applied to vaccine manufacturers, who make much more money on vaccine sales and have much more (advertising) money available to shape public discussion and policy making.
> the exact same logic can be applied to vaccine manufacturers
It's absolutely not the same, not even comparable. Vaccine manufacturers take orders from health authorities, with solid scientific base, full quality *and* efficiency assessment, reporting of side effects and periodic re-assessment.
In case of ivermectin you've got random members of the public buying some pills from some websites because they've read some stories on Facebook, no different from "buy viagra online" spam.
The same health authorities who are 75% funded by vaccine manufacturers?
Sorry but you're drastically misrepresenting the article. It's like saying "people pay for driving license exams so testing centres are funded by driver candidates so it's massive scam". It's not, they pay specifically for an independent and mandatory assessment of their drugs. Even your source says that explicitly:
There is a power imbalance between billion dollar corporations and their regulators that doesn't exist between people wanting to get drivers license and the testing centres.
Your owns source says otherwise, but you still prefer to believe in "funded by vaccine manufacturers" conspiracy. There's some serious quasi-religious bias here.
I said was that 75% of funding for the FDA comes from Pharma companies, and I used the source to back that up, which it did.
Can you see a scenario where financial incentives shape certain processes, like for example regulation?
Regulatory capture is a well-known phenomenon.
Thanks for throwing the dog-whistle words "conspiracy" and "religious" in there.
My point is that things aren't so clear-cut and black-and-white as you seem to want to present them.
> financial incentives shape certain processes
Sure, the economically sound course of action for the FDA assessment teams would be to escalate the levels scrutiny as that would directly translate to more money.
Revolving door is a frequent phenomenon in all industries and while it looks bad from ethical point of view, it's legal. The company is clearly relying on his experience to make the process as efficient as possible, but again, they are doing it within the frames of the existing laws. Hiring Gottlieb doesn't replace the whole regulatory process, which is driven by an institution, not a single person.
Ok buddy, whatever you say.
@kravietz
LOL
It would also mean that you'll never get a cushy job on the board of Pharma company.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/452654-for-big-pharma-the-revolving-door-keeps-spinning
"Gottlieb recently resigned from his spot as the top federal drug regulator to take on a role at Pfizer—the top drug producer in the United States. The move came with a nice cash bonus as well, as stock options doubled the former commissioner’s income to upwards of $330,000. "