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 cheaper 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.
Not to mention, ivermectin is a highly mature drug with an optimized and large scale production process. So chances are, the profit margin will be larger than the vaccine, which you think the pharma companies would be all over if it actually did what it’s claimed and had a chance to be approved.
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.
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 cheaper 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.
Not to mention, ivermectin is a highly mature drug with an optimized and large scale production process. So chances are, the profit margin will be larger than the vaccine, which you think the pharma companies would be all over if it actually did what it’s claimed and had a chance to be approved.
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.