It seems that HCQ is off-patent / patent has expired according to:
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0588430B1/en
I couldn't figure out the status of Ivermectin, but it doesnt seem to be off-patent yet....
If that's the case, then I'm certainly going to take the new studies that cast HCQ in a bad light with a massive grain of salt, specially because that latest study in the Lancet didn't include Zinc in the protocol.
Edit: ivermectin seems to be off-patent afterall. Thanks for the comments.
I believe ivermectin has been off-patent for a long time. Merck donates tons of this med to third world countries. It's cheap.
It's easy to imagine reasons some might desire to bury HCQ and other off-patent drugs. But how do those reasons apply to the ivermectin study, why would they write up a favorable study at all.
Thinking out loud, one would hope Merck would see some amount of potential profit (marked-up price) in the US if ivermectin is even somewhat effective; I'm not sure whether that's a correct guess, considering that there are generics available.
1) A team of respected researchers, one of whom holds a chair at Harvard, published an ivermectin study as cover so later they could publish against HCQ so Gilead makes more money.
2) The researchers looked at the data and reported what they found.
That one is easy for me.
But I'm not a cynic who believes that the only reason people do things is for money -- or that organizations like Lancet or the WHO are corrupt.
[-] elkrange | 2 points | May 26 2020 14:14:51
As others have noticed, these authors are also listed on the Lancet study against HCQ. I'm curious about possible reasons/motivations.
permalink
[-] Gotanno | 1 points | May 26 2020 14:30:56
Interesting!
It seems that HCQ is off-patent / patent has expired according to: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0588430B1/en
I couldn't figure out the status of Ivermectin, but it doesnt seem to be off-patent yet....
If that's the case, then I'm certainly going to take the new studies that cast HCQ in a bad light with a massive grain of salt, specially because that latest study in the Lancet didn't include Zinc in the protocol.
Edit: ivermectin seems to be off-patent afterall. Thanks for the comments.
permalink
[-] elkrange | 3 points | May 26 2020 14:43:17
I believe ivermectin has been off-patent for a long time. Merck donates tons of this med to third world countries. It's cheap.
It's easy to imagine reasons some might desire to bury HCQ and other off-patent drugs. But how do those reasons apply to the ivermectin study, why would they write up a favorable study at all.
Thinking out loud, one would hope Merck would see some amount of potential profit (marked-up price) in the US if ivermectin is even somewhat effective; I'm not sure whether that's a correct guess, considering that there are generics available.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | May 30 2020 01:15:43
I believe ivermectin has been off-patent for a long time.
Since 1997.
permalink
[-] kunkr | 2 points | May 26 2020 19:11:24
Ivermectin is off-patent, very cheap, easy to acquire.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | May 30 2020 01:18:04
I'm curious about possible reasons/motivations.
Occam's Razor:
1) A team of respected researchers, one of whom holds a chair at Harvard, published an ivermectin study as cover so later they could publish against HCQ so Gilead makes more money.
2) The researchers looked at the data and reported what they found.
That one is easy for me.
But I'm not a cynic who believes that the only reason people do things is for money -- or that organizations like Lancet or the WHO are corrupt.
permalink