Its cheap because its developed for killing worms in animals.
Developed countries are paying around 20USD for Pfizer so for 80USD you could have a pretty safe and affective course of double VAX and two boosters, or you could save a few bucks and take a worming tablet with no/questionable benefit.
One of these options represents a proactive, sensible, and medically approved approach that respects your own life as well as those of your loved-ones and wider community; the other option is an obtuse, missinformed, selfish attempt at feeling in control during a stressful time in the world.
With all due respect that “Its cheap because its developed for killing worms in animals.” doesn’t answer the question.
It’s like, if someone said “the US invades the middle east for oil.” And then in response “that’s not true, because there’s lots of oil in the middle east because of the location of the tethys ocean during the mesozoic.”
I don’t care why the middle east has oil in this case, just like I don’t care about why ivermectin is cheap. It’s a non sequitor.
With all due respect that “Its cheap because its developed for killing worms in animals.” doesn’t answer the question.
I think it does answer the question of “big pharma doesn’t like it because cheap.” Drugs for animals are cheap because they don’t need as intensive validation. Every pill, shot, anything medical meant for humans must pass rigorous quality control and certification, and that’s for every unit of the product, not just for the class of drug in general. So yes, if you take the pills actually meant for humans, it’s more than likely to be much more expensive than for your horse or something.
Do you actually know the profit margins for both ivermectin and the vaccine or are you just making it up?
Also, profit margin is irrelevant here, for at least two reasons. First, from the viewpoint of the producer, the vaccines are administered in multiple doses to as large a share of the population as possible, while ivermectin would only be prescribed for patients with severe covid, which is a much smaller share of the population. It’s a thousandfold increase in the quantity of medication sold.
Second, from the viewpoint of the consumer, the vaccine is free, and ivermectin costs money.
Antivaxx family member: “The only reason why Big Pharma doesn’t wanna use ivermectin is cuz it’s cheap”
Its cheap because its developed for killing worms in animals.
Developed countries are paying around 20USD for Pfizer so for 80USD you could have a pretty safe and affective course of double VAX and two boosters, or you could save a few bucks and take a worming tablet with no/questionable benefit.
One of these options represents a proactive, sensible, and medically approved approach that respects your own life as well as those of your loved-ones and wider community; the other option is an obtuse, missinformed, selfish attempt at feeling in control during a stressful time in the world.
With all due respect that “Its cheap because its developed for killing worms in animals.” doesn’t answer the question.
It’s like, if someone said “the US invades the middle east for oil.” And then in response “that’s not true, because there’s lots of oil in the middle east because of the location of the tethys ocean during the mesozoic.”
I don’t care why the middle east has oil in this case, just like I don’t care about why ivermectin is cheap. It’s a non sequitor.
I think it does answer the question of “big pharma doesn’t like it because cheap.” Drugs for animals are cheap because they don’t need as intensive validation. Every pill, shot, anything medical meant for humans must pass rigorous quality control and certification, and that’s for every unit of the product, not just for the class of drug in general. So yes, if you take the pills actually meant for humans, it’s more than likely to be much more expensive than for your horse or something.
Do you actually know the profit margins for both ivermectin and the vaccine or are you just making it up?
Also, profit margin is irrelevant here, for at least two reasons. First, from the viewpoint of the producer, the vaccines are administered in multiple doses to as large a share of the population as possible, while ivermectin would only be prescribed for patients with severe covid, which is a much smaller share of the population. It’s a thousandfold increase in the quantity of medication sold.
Second, from the viewpoint of the consumer, the vaccine is free, and ivermectin costs money.