Jump to content

left field

Members
  • Posts

    2483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

left field's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

1.6k

Reputation

  1. Two different things. They are licensing out the rights to manufacture to smaller companies and, I assume, allow them to handle the distribution to third world countries via the Medicines Patent Pool, an NGO. My best guess is that Merck still receives a small fee for this. They also get to look like good guys while they retain the more valuable markets. The article literally states that. Important sentence: "excludes key upper-middle-income countries." If Merck started handing out licenses to its multinational competitors, then I think you may have a point. Until then, I'll stick with the idea that any of the Big Pharma corporations would happily dance on the graves of the others.
  2. Great news and a smart business move. I hope this works as well as expected. Maybe Merck was lucky in failing to develop a viable vaccine and shifting focus to a treatment.
  3. I wasn't sure. Did we have a pleasant chat? A beer? As I recall, everyone had a good time. I look forward to the next one.
  4. You have no idea where I get my info from. I will say that I try to spend a little time and effort in getting to the actual source versus your regurgitating whatever facebook/gatewaypundit/OANN feeds you. You do understand that they are designed to keep you angry and have no relationship to the truth? You are a one-trick pony, seemingly incapable of addressing the facts and counter opinion or mustering up any rational argument or defense of your position. And when your falsehoods are exposed, you simply move the goalpost. You remind of this woman who when faced with actual numbers from the guy on the ground counters with, "But I just know in my hearts of hearts ..." Solid. It's fun to banter, but you are catching me at a very stressful time in my life and I have little to no patience for nonsense. That said, I'm sure you're a decent enough guy and were we to meet we would have a beer and shoot the shit about whatever. The Doorknob Lickers would be a great band name.
  5. What colour is the sky in your world? I said Merck would gut their competitors and dance on their entrails given the opportunity and you think they're in collusion with the other corporations to sell vaccines that they don't actually sell. As usual, you offer no proof, just the same old goalpost-moving bullshit. The same thing happened with the Covid orphan numbers. You said it was cherry picking, I provided the study showing the numbers and you moved onto the next sealioning topic. I'm not having a great night and have little tolerance for this shit, so I'm going to retire and you can have the forum for the night.
  6. I can write slower if it helps you. Your term, "Big Pharma", is the nickname given to world's top multinational pharmaceutical companies of which Merck is one. You're suggesting that Merck aligned themselves with the other companies to suppress ivermectin as a treatment for covid in order to sell more vaccines. Merck would rather burn their competitors to the ground then give them a percent share of the market. And they would happily sell ivermectin for pennies to the billions of the world. They don't because they can't show it works. Despite what you've read there isn't a pharmaceutical Star Chamber.
  7. So Merck (who doesn't have a vaccine and couldn't develop one) is potentially sitting on an efficacious treatment if not a prophylactic for this horrible disease but suppressing that knowledge so they can help their competitors sell more vaccines? Solid.
  8. Merck walked away from money because money? Solid.
  9. Oh, so you looked up some discount retailers? That's I posted the U&C (Usual and Customary) price or the "average cash price" paid at a pharmacy counter. That was to indicate full market potential. Obviously, Merck doesn't make all that but feel free to determine what their Average Manufacturers Price and Average Wholesale Price is and then multiply the AWP cost by 6 billion. Didn't you accuse someone of cherry picking info? I'm a fair guy and like to get the best info I can whether it fits my narrative or not. But your point was that "big pharma" was suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin because why? Reasons?
  10. Do you do any research? Price history for 20 tablets of ivermectin 3mg Average cash price - $108.34 Not sure what the "docs" are "prescribing" but let's say it's a course of 20 pills. Multiply that by 6 billion people. (Let's be super fair and say they give away a few billion doses.) $650,040,000,000. Chump change.
  11. Because "big pharma" just cares about the dollars? Or are they evil? Merck developed and marketed ivermectin. Do you think that if there was the slimmest positive result from this product as a treatment for covid that they wouldn't be trumpetting it from the highest mountain? That would be worth what? Billions? If I was an investor in Merck and found out that they suppressed positive results I would be calling for this guys immediate dismissal. This is their statement on covid. By the way, Merck seems to have a heart as they donated a lot of ivermectin to stop river blindness.
  12. So the doctor whose main income comes from youtube (per his Rogan interview) says that he has an anonymous source that a wildy approximate number of congress took his covid protocol and didn't go to the hospital? No other information provided. Solid.
  13. 700K+ people died in the US. How many were parents, grandparents, guardians or cared for underage children? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01253-8/fulltext
×
×
  • Create New...