Jump to content

Merk announces antiviral Molnupiravir.....this is important


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ivermectin   Description Ivermectin is an orally bioavailable macrocyclic lactone derived from Streptom

Nope.  Chuckle. Unlike the drug you are referring to, this is a genuine anti-viral not an anti-parasitic.  The trial size was compact but the results in a genuine blind placebo trial were statisticall

It’s patent expired in 1996  its a generic drug available globally for 1 $  

Posted Images

32 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Nope, I'm not saying the insurance companies have to cover off-label prescriptions.  The pharmacists can charge the full $1.85 it costs for Ivermectin if they like. 

But if you don't have a problem with insurance companies and pharmacists trying to control the doctors (individuals that actually went to medical school and have a license to practice medicine) then you are seriously short sighted.  The next drug that might be politically unpopular might be one that you agree with.  Would you be OK with evangelical pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control?

Plenty of people went to medical school and have medical licenses who are cranks, quacks, or outright crooks. How do you think the US prescription opioid epidemic got so bad?

If you're a pharmacist, you have to decide whether you are going to listen to the advice of your professional association, mainstream medical associations, and the responsible US government agencies, or to a quack who is prescribing something off-label against the recommendations of virtually every recognized professional medical entity and agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, accnick said:

Plenty of people went to medical school and have medical licenses who are cranks, quacks, or outright crooks. How do you think the US prescription opioid epidemic got so bad?

If you're a pharmacist, you have to decide whether you are going to listen to the advice of your professional association, mainstream medical associations, and the responsible US government agencies, or to a quack who is prescribing something off-label against the recommendations of virtually every recognized professional medical entity and agency.

If you’re a pharmacist you listen to the salesman from big pharma 

they tell you which products need to be pushed 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Nope, I'm not saying the insurance companies have to cover off-label prescriptions.  The pharmacists can charge the full $1.85 it costs for Ivermectin if they like. 

But if you don't have a problem with insurance companies and pharmacists trying to control the doctors (individuals that actually went to medical school and have a license to practice medicine) then you are seriously short sighted.  The next drug that might be politically unpopular might be one that you agree with.  Would you be OK with evangelical pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control?

Hey. You won't find me defending the insurance companies, I'm all for single payer. Even with single payer, you'll find some drugs won't be paid for already (check what Medicare will cover, and why there is part B, etc)

And, in some states, pharmacists already refuse to fill birth control meds. 

 

There's nothing new in pharmacists choosing not to fill certain scrips, ofor many reasons. 

I suppose you're one of those small gov't types who now thinks we need to force a private business to do something they'd like not to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tharsheblows said:

All doctors have the authority to prescribe "off label" which means prescribing an FDA approved drug for use other than what its approved for.  The pharmacist would not face liability for this.

And while pharmacists are professionals in their own field, they do not often if ever have equal expertise as the treating physician that examined the patient.

This practice usurps the authority of the doctor to practice medicine and should offend those who have worked hard to earn a medical license.

Unless that particular doctor is a fuckin' quack and loney-tunes RWNJ who wants to give people Ivermectin for covid, which is not approved.... and a lot of the same people are refusing, and urging that others refuse the vaccine, on the grounds that it's not approved.

Make up your tiny minds, huh?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Unless that particular doctor is a fuckin' quack and loney-tunes RWNJ who wants to give people Ivermectin for covid, which is not approved.... and a lot of the same people are refusing, and urging that others refuse the vaccine, on the grounds that it's not approved.

Make up your tiny minds, huh?

- DSK

No, no, no. The Vaccine is experimental and unproven and kills people! 
Can't you see that Ivermectin is an amazing treatment for head lice(and intestinal worms), which is what covid sufferers really suffer from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

No, no, no. The Vaccine is experimental and unproven and kills people! 
Can't you see that Ivermectin is an amazing treatment for head lice(and intestinal worms), which is what covid sufferers really suffer from?

Well, they certainly don't seem enjoy their head lice and intestinal worms.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Can't you see that Ivermectin is an amazing treatment for head lice(and intestinal worms),

 

45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, they certainly don't seem enjoy their head lice and intestinal worms.

- DSK

You two really have no idea about disease and what Ivermectin does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

You two really have no idea about disease and what Ivermectin does.

I know it hasn't been proven to do shit (other than make people shit) for Covid. Either prophylactically or as a treatment. But if you're constipated...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I know it hasn't been proven to do shit (other than make people shit) for Covid. Either prophylactically or as a treatment. But if you're constipated...

But you don't know WHAT it has done do you?  You'll just bag it as a "horse wormer".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, accnick said:

Plenty of people went to medical school and have medical licenses who are cranks, quacks, or outright crooks. How do you think the US prescription opioid epidemic got so bad?

If you're a pharmacist, you have to decide whether you are going to listen to the advice of your professional association, mainstream medical associations, and the responsible US government agencies, or to a quack who is prescribing something off-label against the recommendations of virtually every recognized professional medical entity and agency.

Yes, plenty of people get medical licenses that are cranks, quack, and outright crooks, but that issue is for the AMA and each state's licensure board to deal with.  There are also many very smart doctors who prescribe drugs off-label, which their license allows them to do, because they have a hypothesis they want to test or "try" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient.  If it works well they share their results with others.   Many times this is how the "standard of care" is actually developed.  

It is absolutely not the place of the pharmacist who has not received the same level of training to practice medicine, and has not examined the patient, to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship.

And contrary to the previous comment that pharmacist may be trying to avoid liability, intervening with the doctor-patient relationship without a medical license and having not examining the patient is far more likely to lead to legal liability...perhaps even criminal liability if it is considered practicing medicine without a license.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Unless that particular doctor is a fuckin' quack and loney-tunes RWNJ who wants to give people Ivermectin for covid, which is not approved.... and a lot of the same people are refusing, and urging that others refuse the vaccine, on the grounds that it's not approved.

Make up your tiny minds, huh?

- DSK

I believe a pharmacist that refused to fill a prescription for a vaccine written by a doctor would be out of bounds too. (although vaccines aren't typically picked up at a pharmacy)

The doctor has gone through far more medical training than a pharmacist and in many cases a prescription is being written by a specialist that has gone through far more medical training in their particular field than the average doctor.  The doctor has earned a certain latitude to experiment or "practice medicine" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient.

The pharmacist's job is dispense the proper drugs in the proper amount and make sure people understand the basic instructions.  They do not have the training, knowledge, or authority to second guess the doctor's decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

You two really have no idea about disease and what Ivermectin does.

:lol:

Fuck I love this place.

It's true, I don't know much about disease and medical science. But I know a shit-load more about it than you. Not a high bar to get over, of course.

10 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

... There are also many very smart doctors who prescribe drugs off-label, which their license allows them to do, because they have a hypothesis they want to test or "try" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient.  If it works well they share their results with others.   Many times this is how the "standard of care" is actually developed.  

It is absolutely not the place of the pharmacist who has not received the same level of training to practice medicine, and has not examined the patient, to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship.  ...

Uh huh. Well there's this thing about Trump having no place to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship.

A pharmacist has his own license on the line, as well as being liable for malpractice.

If a doctor is prescibing outside the formulary, and outside the standard of care, -and- can demonstrate good faith and good reason then a pharmacist may well supply him. But you can't just snap your fingers and say "74 million Trumpalo whackadoodles CAN'T be wrong!" because yes they easily can. And politics has zero business intruding into medicine.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

Nope, I'm not saying the insurance companies have to cover off-label prescriptions.  The pharmacists can charge the full $1.85 it costs for Ivermectin if they like. 

But if you don't have a problem with insurance companies and pharmacists trying to control the doctors (individuals that actually went to medical school and have a license to practice medicine) then you are seriously short sighted.  The next drug that might be politically unpopular might be one that you agree with.  Would you be OK with evangelical pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control?

It is not at all uncommon for pharmacies to decline to fill a prescription. It has steadily become more frequent over the last 5 years. Five to six years ago, it would occur in my practice approximately 2-5 times a year. It now occurs on a weekly basis for both on label and off label uses (No I dont prescribe Ivermectin or Oxy)

Pharmacies have computer systems which alert them when a Pharmacy Benefit Manager recommends an alternative or that the payor will decline coverage  and in either case the pharmacy will  require an approved prior authorization. The prior authorization request must then be submitted by the physician and it is time consuming and expensive to do. We do the work but we are not reimbursed for this work, nor can we charge patients.  More worryingly, it has been proven to affect patient compliance because it is such a process for them to go through.  The net result is that insurance companies save money, doctors lose money and time, but worst of all patients are treated less well and eventually cost the system more.

 

In Ivermectin's case, I suspect it is not the pharmacy but the PBM that is not approving the prescription without prior authorization.  With a valid prescription from a state and board certified MD,  prior authorization and approval from the PBM, then the  pharmacy would have to fill it.

Yes there are legal implications for a doctor that submits a prior authorization request for an ineffective drug. As there should be. The PBM is not stupid, they are basically passing the buck to the prescribing physician.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No.  Who is Bruce Hudson?

Is your first name Wendy?

My apologies. The grammar looked familiar.

 

No I am not Dr. Wendy, but I have a good friend, also a good sailor who was on that show with her . I was there when they got the Emmy. Everyone from ABYC knows who I am talking about.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

It is not at all uncommon for pharmacies to decline to fill a prescription. It has steadily become more frequent over the last 5 years. Five to six years ago, it would occur in my practice approximately 2-5 times a year. It now occurs on a weekly basis for both on label and off label uses (No I dont prescribe Ivermectin or Oxy)

Pharmacies have computer systems which alert them when a Pharmacy Benefit Manager recommends an alternative or that the payor will decline coverage  and in either case the pharmacy will  require an approved prior authorization. The prior authorization request must then be submitted by the physician and it is time consuming and expensive to do. We do the work but we are not reimbursed for this work, nor can we charge patients.  More worryingly, it has been proven to affect patient compliance because it is such a process for them to go through.  The net result is that insurance companies save money, doctors lose money and time, but worst of all patients are treated less well and eventually cost the system more.

 

In Ivermectin's case, I suspect it is not the pharmacy but the PBM that is not approving the prescription without prior authorization.  With a valid prescription from a state and board certified MD,  prior authorization and approval from the PBM, then the  pharmacy would have to fill it.

Yes there are legal implications for a doctor that submits a prior authorization request for an ineffective drug. As there should be. The PBM is not stupid, they are basically passing the buck to the prescribing physician.

 

It sounds like you are mostly referring to a pharmacy that is switching to a generic version of the prescribed drug or a drug that is accepted as interchangeable rather than disagreeing with the doctors prescription/medical advice.

There was a lot of litigation over this issue a few years back because of pharmacies refusing to sell “plan b” pills.

Some states have passed laws that prohibit pharmacies to refuse to fill a prescription (because they disagree with the doctor’s medical advice).   Other states allow pharmacies to refuse but only if they provide the patient with an acceptable alternative pharmacy.  In all states the pharmacy can be sued and many plaintiffs have won such cases.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's true, I don't know much about disease and medical science. But I know a shit-load more about it than you. Not a high bar to get over, of course.

Proof?

Cats know more medical science than you do

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

It sounds like you are mostly referring to a pharmacy that is switching to a generic version of the prescribed drug or a drug that is accepted as interchangeable rather than disagreeing with the doctors prescription/medical advice.

There was a lot of litigation over this issue a few years back because of pharmacies refusing to sell “plan b” pills.

Some states have passed laws that prohibit pharmacies to refuse to fill a prescription (because they disagree with the doctor’s medical advice).   Other states allow pharmacies to refuse but only if they provide the patient with an acceptable alternative pharmacy.  In all states the pharmacy can be sued and many plaintiffs have won such cases.

 

 

 

It is typically the PBM , not the pharmacy, that requires the prior authorization.  In my case it is not generic alternatives (which I will  prescribe if it is the right drug). The alternatives they offer are sometimes absurd or even dangerously wrong.  They are not "declining", they are just setting up a process with hoops to jump through.  You are right in that the hoops are higher for more expensive drugs.  

I note from the article that it was a case of requiring prior authorization.  I doubt it was about cost. I think the PBMs just want to ensure that the responsibility/liability lies very clearly to the prescribing doctor.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior authorization has a lot to do with insurance formularies. One of my meds is not on my plan as a preferred drug so my doctor has to do a prior auth every several months so I can get it at a higher copay of $1.33/pill, as opposed to $10/pill cash payment. The med they prefer has creepy side effects for me but would be 10 cents a pill.  Every pharmacy would have to go through this getting me to ask my doctor to do the prior. Ordinarily they require you to try the preferred drug first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

Yes, plenty of people get medical licenses that are cranks, quack, and outright crooks, but that issue is for the AMA and each state's licensure board to deal with.  There are also many very smart doctors who prescribe drugs off-label, which their license allows them to do, because they have a hypothesis they want to test or "try" with the voluntary informed consent of their patient.  If it works well they share their results with others.   Many times this is how the "standard of care" is actually developed.  

It is absolutely not the place of the pharmacist who has not received the same level of training to practice medicine, and has not examined the patient, to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship.

And contrary to the previous comment that pharmacist may be trying to avoid liability, intervening with the doctor-patient relationship without a medical license and having not examining the patient is far more likely to lead to legal liability...perhaps even criminal liability if it is considered practicing medicine without a license.

$s

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

It sounds like you are mostly referring to a pharmacy that is switching to a generic version of the prescribed drug or a drug that is accepted as interchangeable rather than disagreeing with the doctors prescription/medical advice.

There was a lot of litigation over this issue a few years back because of pharmacies refusing to sell “plan b” pills.

Some states have passed laws that prohibit pharmacies to refuse to fill a prescription (because they disagree with the doctor’s medical advice).   Other states allow pharmacies to refuse but only if they provide the patient with an acceptable alternative pharmacy.  In all states the pharmacy can be sued and many plaintiffs have won such cases.

 

 

 

And some states allow pharmacists to not sell meds they object to. Like Plan B....  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedAClew said:

Prior authorization has a lot to do with insurance formularies. One of my meds is not on my plan as a preferred drug so my doctor has to do a prior auth every several months so I can get it at a higher lower copay of $1.33/pill, as opposed to $10/pill cash payment. The med they prefer has creepy side effects for me but would be 10 cents a pill.  Every pharmacy would have to go through this getting me to ask my doctor to do the prior. Ordinarily they require you to try the preferred drug first.

This!

You need to thank your doctor. Multiply you by however many patients require this medication. It costs the doctor money to process that prior authorization and she or he is not getting reimbursed.  In my case I prescribe two medicines for which in my opinion there is simply no viable alternative. Both are FDA approved for the treatment. Approximately 2/3rds of insurance plans' PBMs required PA ...although thankfully medicare now acknowledges it is the standard of care.  I also prescribe one drug off label, which is never sent to PA.  Up until recently, prior authorizations were costing me $20,000+ per year. I have brought it down from there with better online processes but it is still causing great angst among many in my profession. 

 

Some of the patients are wonderful when they realize that we dont compromise. I get all kinds of thoughtful gestures....which makes me feel appreciated.

I hav eforgotten how we got from Molnupiravir to here :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do thank my doctor. Actually, the $1.33 copay is higher than the copay for a formulary drug, which is 10 cents. My plan has 3 tiers of copays. 

It's indeed less than the cash price if we didn't get the prior authorization. 

I can get oxycodone for 4 cents a pill. Go figure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2021 at 2:03 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

No.  Who is Bruce Hudson?

Is your first name Wendy?

Are you me?

For the record, my first name isn't Wendy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I remember now.  You are the poster that was banging on about the disaster the Tokyo Olympics was going to be as a Covid superspreader.  Didn't happen did it?!

You mean the one with no fans? Funny how that works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

You mean the one with no fans? Funny how that works. 

You obviously missed that debate but then that's not surprising.  The absence of spectators was known however the discussion focused on the 10,000 athletes in attendance and the local support workers.  Again I guess the concept of having a discussion escapes you as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2021 at 7:24 PM, accnick said:

Plenty of people went to medical school and have medical licenses who are cranks, quacks, or outright crooks. How do you think the US prescription opioid epidemic got so bad?

If you're a pharmacist, you have to decide whether you are going to listen to the advice of your professional association, mainstream medical associations, and the responsible US government agencies, or to a quack who is prescribing something off-label against the recommendations of virtually every recognized professional medical entity and agency.

Happens in hospital. For example, I had a brain-fried meth/crack head ("meth-induced encephalopathy") who would not stop screaming at the top of his lungs for days.  Not oriented/alert in any way but screaming at the top of his lungs every hour every day until he passed out for a little bit and would start up again. 

Hospitalist says give him 10 IV Haldol.  I said "you mean, IM?"   He said, nope, IV.   I enter the order and then pharmacy calls me.  "No way am I releasing that med, the last time somebody got 10 IV they died."   So  he and the doctor have a lively discussion and then I gave 10mg IM Haldol.  Gave him another 10 an hour later. No effect.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatdya know. Merck ain't the supergreedy bastards KShitforBrains has been accusing them of being:

Merck, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics and Emory University Will Not Receive Royalties for Sales of Molnupiravir Under this Agreement for as Long as COVID-19 Remains Classified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization

Collaboration Continues Merck’s Long Track Record of Making Its Medicines and Vaccines Accessible and Affordable Globally

This is the First MPP Agreement to Provide Access for a COVID-19 Medical Technology

KENILWORTH, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) and Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced the signing of a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) following appropriate regulatory approvals. Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics are jointly developing molnupiravir.

Under the terms of the agreement, MPP, through the license granted by Merck, will be permitted to further license non-exclusive sublicenses to manufacturers (“MPP License”) and diversify the manufacturing base for the supply of quality-assured or WHO-prequalified molnupiravir to countries covered by the MPP License, subject to local regulatory authorization. Merck, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics and Emory University will not receive royalties for sales of molnupiravir under this agreement for as long as COVID-19 remains classified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Well, whatdya know. Merck ain't the supergreedy bastards KShitforBrains has been accusing them of being

Oh wise one what is the difference between Royalties and Profits?  

Is Ridgeback getting "royalties" for licensing EIDD-2801 to Merck?

Of course the "Royalties" don't include the $1.5b promised by the US Government/Taxpayer upon approval.

Interesting how this Merck Press Release comes before approval!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I remember now.  You are the poster that was banging on about the disaster the Tokyo Olympics was going to be as a Covid superspreader.  Didn't happen did it?!

I made a few statements agreeing with epidemiologists that holding an Olympics during a pandemic wasn't a good idea.

You are completely correct as in the Olympics had zero impact.

The spike in cases was a 'coincidence'.

 

image.png.772d9c59baac0a52b3e4f1d6216f8cc0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You are completely correct. The Olympics had zero impact.

The spike in cases was a 'coincidence'.

 

image.png.772d9c59baac0a52b3e4f1d6216f8cc0.png

You omit some detail particularly that the Delta surge had started BEFORE the games.  As has been shown in many countries the infection curve follows a similar curve no matter what interventions are taking.

You also make the assumption that there were significant number of infections between the Olympic bubble and the rest of the locked out community.  There isn't any evidence or data to support that contention.  Unlikely when a significant number of those inside the Olympic bubble were vaccinated.  As we know vaccinated people don't spread the virus do they?

But we don't discuss facts like that here do we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You omit some detail particularly that the Delta surge had started BEFORE the games.  As has been shown in many countries the infection curve follows a similar curve no matter what interventions are taking.

But we don't discuss facts like that here do we?

You are clearly speaking for yourself regarding discussing facts. (Me, I love facts.)

The date the Olympic Games started was 23 July 2021.

Obviously, people arrived prior to the games.

The date that the delta variant arrived in Japan was 31 August 2021, after Japan's highest peak. (Japan's peak infection rate was 24,317 recorded cases in one day on 25 August 2021.)

On reflection, you really don't like facts, do you 'Kate short for Bob'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding to the original statement by 'Kate short for Bob' which I accurately quoted.

He clearly changed it to read something else.

We can say with absolute certainty, that not only does 'Kate short for Bob' not like facts, he actively makes false statements and spreads misinformation.

I'm unclear the extent of cognitive dissonance 'Kate short for Bob' possesses.  Perhaps an over-the-top response in the near future may give us all a clue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You are clearly speaking for yourself regarding discussing facts. (Me, I love facts.)

The date the Olympic Games started was 23 July 2021.

Obviously, people arrived prior to the games.

The date that the delta variant arrived in Japan was 31 August 2021, after Japan's highest peak. (Japan's peak infection rate was 24,317 recorded cases in one day on 25 August 2021.)

On reflection, you really don't like facts, do you 'Kate short for Bob'?

Where is the evidence that the Olympic Games caused the Delta surge?

Any research papers?  Or just your interpretation of a Worldometers/Ourworldindata graph?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

We can say with absolute certainty, that not only does 'Kate short for Bob' not like facts, he actively makes false statements and spreads misinformation

That's a lie.  But a typical tactical response with zero substamve to try and invalidate an alternative viewpoint.

Where is the research to prove your assertion that the Olympics caused the Delta case surge in Japan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one report that there was 550 infections amongst the 80,000 directly involved in the Olympics.  We also know that testing was continual and extensive so we can assume that there is a high degree of accuracy with regard to the actual number of cases.

Any cases detected were immediately isolated.

Now the irony here of course is the Olympic Covid management plan provides a lot of data that supports the opinions of most on this forum I.e. that NPI's such as regular testing, isolation of cases and high vaccination levels are effective in controlling Covid.

Further irony is that the wider Japanese population provides a good control sample vs the Olympic bubble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Oh wise one what is the difference between Royalties and Profits?  

Is Ridgeback getting "royalties" for licensing EIDD-2801 to Merck?

Of course the "Royalties" don't include the $1.5b promised by the US Government/Taxpayer upon approval.

Interesting how this Merck Press Release comes before approval!

Which is it KShitforBrains?  Is Merck so fucking greedy they "made up" a new drug to replace ivermectin?
Or, maybe they find this drug effective enough that widespread use would be the right thing to do?

And yes, I've no issue with the US paying for vaccines - it's not like Merck et al would research without the possibility of a payout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Oh wise one what is the difference between Royalties and Profits?  

 

Royalties are Revenue.  Profits are Revenue less Costs.

No Royalties from the MPP license means no profit from the MPP license.  Duh.

Nobody is crying for Ridgeback who will likely add a few hundred million to his existing billion if Molnupiravir is successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
3 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

We can say with absolute certainty, that not only does 'Kate short for Bob' not like facts, he actively makes false statements and spreads misinformation

That's a lie. ...

No, it's true. You are ignorant of science and math, yet grandly make false pronouncements and continue to do so even when given correct info.

You also tried to pose as a non-anti-vaxxer but succeeded about as well at that as anything else. You can't even get simple accounting terms correct. I mean, "profit" should be a pretty easy one for anybody raised in a capitalist country.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raz'r said:

And yes, I've no issue with the US paying for vaccines - it's not like Merck et al would research without the possibility of a payout.

But they didn't do the research on developing the drug.  Emory University did and they didn't even synthesise the drug in the first place.

Ridgeback did a deal with Emory and Merck did a deal with Ridgeback.  Ridgeback who did nothing except try to get more taxpayer funding - they didn't even have a lab when they bought the rights to EIDD-2801/EIDD-1931.

The USA taxpayer funded the research.  I guess we will be seeing Emory, Ridgeback and Merck discounting the research funding from the $1.5b they have been promised?

So you guys are brilliant mathematicians - if a course of the drug costs $17 to make and Merck is selling it to the Government at $700 a course what is the profit....sorry Royalties? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

Ridgeback did a deal with Emory and Merck did a deal with Ridgeback 

There are so many mistakes in this post, it is difficult to know where to start.

Yes we all have to acknowledge that Holmans did a brilliant deal. It was not their first and it will not be their last. Their ability to identify promising drugs and therapies is uncanny and they ran circles around the large pharmaceutical companies.

However to say that their company, Ridgeback, did nothing except try to get more taxpayer funding....is grossly inaccurate.  the Holmans are huge ballsy risk takers.  This was a sizeable $100 million + bet. After acquiring the drug, they immediately commenced trials . The magic sauce they brought was a larger appetite for risk than Emory and a faster pace then Merck. As to the profit, we dont know because we do not know what their end costs were, nor do we know precisely what revenues they have accrued.. Costs of manufacture are small vs costs of trials and development.  The gossip is that the Holmans will make at least 5 times their original investment. I would have thought they will do more than that.

It never feels right to see someone profiting massively out of a pandemic....but it is the way capitalism works ....and it is better than the alternative. If something better comes along, and I hope it will, then they may be holding a worthless drug. the Holmans will have already made back more than their original investment so I wont shed any tears.     

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

There are so many mistakes in this post, it is difficult to know where to start.

Yes we all have to acknowledge that Holmans did a brilliant deal. It was not their first and it will not be their last. Their ability to identify promising drugs and therapies is uncanny and they ran circles around the large pharmaceutical companies.

However to say that their company, Ridgeback, did nothing except try to get more taxpayer funding....is grossly inaccurate.  the Holmans are huge ballsy risk takers.  This was a sizeable $100 million + bet. After acquiring the drug, they immediately commenced trials . The magic sauce they brought was a larger appetite for risk than Emory and a faster pace then Merck. As to the profit, we dont know because we do not know what their end costs were, nor do we know precisely what revenues they have accrued.. Costs of manufacture are small vs costs of trials and development.  The gossip is that the Holmans will make at least 5 times their original investment. I would have thought they will do more than that.

It never feels right to see someone profiting massively out of a pandemic....but it is the way capitalism works ....and it is better than the alternative. If something better comes along, and I hope it will, then they may be holding a worthless drug. the Holmans will have already made back more than their original investment so I wont shed any tears.     

It's very much the VC model. Place your bets, hope you get a couple winners amongst your losers. Funny how the guy that was bitching that ivermectin was being hidden due to being low cost, is whining now that they're licensing out molnupiravir for free.


In other good news, a generic anti-depressant, fluvoxamine, lowers the risk of severe covid. Thought to do so by it's anti-inflammatory effects. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

 


In other good news, a generic anti-depressant, fluvoxamine, lowers the risk of severe covid. Thought to do so by it's anti-inflammatory effects. 

Somewhat old news that is being recycled.  The observed improvement was 30% off a very low base in a country (Brazil) where they dont have very good protocols for treating patients with Covid. It probably does reduce inflammation but we have quite a lot of drugs that also reduce inflammation.   The reason that Fluvoxamine has not been proclaimed the second coming of Christ by anti-vaxxers is that the same study committed the arch heresy of discovering that Ivermectin was ineffective.  Thus it was deeply flawed in their eyes.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Somewhat old news that is being recycled.  The observed improvement was 30% off a very low base in a country (Brazil) where they dont have very good protocols for treating patients with Covid. It probably does reduce inflammation but we have quite a lot of drugs that also reduce inflammation.   The reason that Fluvoxamine has not been proclaimed the second coming of Christ by anti-vaxxers is that the same study committed the arch heresy of discovering that Ivermectin was ineffective.  Thus it was deeply flawed in their eyes.   

At least if you’re taking it, you’re less likely to be depressed…

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 8:21 AM, EYESAILOR said:

Yes we all have to acknowledge that Holmans did a brilliant deal. It was not their first and it will not be their last. Their ability to identify promising drugs and therapies is uncanny and they ran circles around the large pharmaceutical companies.

What were there other deals?  Holman made his money by playing the Hedge Fund Market.  Often selling short i.e. identifying bad deals just as much as good deals.

Ridgeback are so far a one trick pony.  They didn't even have a functioning lab when the did the deal with Painter at Emory. 

On 10/29/2021 at 8:21 AM, EYESAILOR said:

However to say that their company, Ridgeback, did nothing except try to get more taxpayer funding....is grossly inaccurate.  the Holmans are huge ballsy risk takers.  This was a sizeable $100 million + bet.

Where is the evidence that they put up $100m?  It is on public record the taxpayer funding for Emory AND Ridgeback.  

On 10/29/2021 at 8:21 AM, EYESAILOR said:

The magic sauce they brought was a larger appetite for risk than Emory and a faster pace then Merck.

What did they actually do?  They didn't spend their own money nor did they do any significant work on developing EIDD-2801/EIDD-1931.  That had already been done by Emory.

On 10/29/2021 at 8:21 AM, EYESAILOR said:

As to the profit, we dont know because we do not know what their end costs were, nor do we know precisely what revenues they have accrued.

FFS are you deliberately being obtuse and misleading?  The Holmans and Ridgeback did nothing more than broker deals.  Holman the cunning hedge fund speculator that he is didn't even use his own money!

On 10/29/2021 at 8:21 AM, EYESAILOR said:

The gossip is that the Holmans will make at least 5 times their original investment. I would have thought they will do more than that.

"The gossip" - there you go again using "I have inside information" technique to give authority to your claims.  

If the Holmans do make 5x their original investment then it's criminal.  Especially given they've spent nothing except broker a deal and spruik an already developed drug developed by the taxpayer.

George Painter (Emory) does a deal with Holman (newly formed company- Ridgeback - Wendy Painter a key manager) who does a deal with Merck.

Painter has an interest in Ridgeback.

The financial windfall all rests on FDA approval which once achieved sees $1.5b of taxpayer loot handed over.   That's BEFORE any other deals are done elsewhere in the world.

Suddenly a drug that has been around for decades is a veritable Gold Mine!

Now everything I just posted has been published and is on public record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The gossip" - there you go again using "I have inside information" technique to give authority to your claims.  

CNBC.   Every American can watch it.  I consider it gossip, even if it was when Wayne was being interviewed.

I would most certainly not claim to have inside information which sends you to prison over here.

Wayne on the other hand?........I am not going to make myself liable for a defamation suit. Lets just rest with my previous statement that his ability to identify outcomes for drugs has been "uncanny".

 

He has done several drug deals either investing in a pre-clinical start up phase start up company or acquiring royalties. He frequently sold his best research ideas to hedge funds, first for a fee  and then for a carried interest.  It was a natural next step to build his own company to acquire drugs and push through the trials himself . I have no inside information.  This is all public knowledge.

He put up a lot of money for Molnupiravir and paid for and co-paid for the phase 2 trials. If the government did not provide the grants, he would not have got reimbursed...and initially his funding request was declined. But he ahem....can be persuasive.  Make no mistake, he put up a considerable amount of "risk capital".  If the FDA decline to give an EUA, he will be out of pocket . He is a big risk taker and thrives on making bets that pay back big or go to zero. No different than the guys who take stakes in start ups in Silicon Valley, except less players and less competition. The other difference is that his bets have an "uncanny" win rate. 

5X is not unusual. For every successful drug there are at least 4 expensive failures. Anyone operating on less than a 5X is not going to be in business very long. If you happen to have that "uncanny" ability, then you can do very well.

As an amusing aside, he is an assistant adjunct professor at NYU med school. I will wager he is the wealthiest staff member at NYU  med school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

CNBC.   Every American can watch it.  I consider it gossip, even if it was when Wayne was being interviewed.

I would most certainly not claim to have inside information which sends you to prison over here.

Wayne on the other hand?........I am not going to make myself liable for a defamation suit. Lets just rest with my previous statement that his ability to identify outcomes for drugs has been "uncanny".

 

He has done several drug deals either investing in a pre-clinical start up phase start up company or acquiring royalties. He frequently sold his best research ideas to hedge funds, first for a fee  and then for a carried interest.  It was a natural next step to build his own company to acquire drugs and push through the trials himself . I have no inside information.  This is all public knowledge.

He put up a lot of money for Molnupiravir and paid for and co-paid for the phase 2 trials. If the government did not provide the grants, he would not have got reimbursed...and initially his funding request was declined. But he ahem....can be persuasive.  Make no mistake, he put up a considerable amount of "risk capital".  If the FDA decline to give an EUA, he will be out of pocket . He is a big risk taker and thrives on making bets that pay back big or go to zero. No different than the guys who take stakes in start ups in Silicon Valley, except less players and less competition. The other difference is that his bets have an "uncanny" win rate. 

5X is not unusual. For every successful drug there are at least 4 expensive failures. Anyone operating on less than a 5X is not going to be in business very long. If you happen to have that "uncanny" ability, then you can do very well.

As an amusing aside, he is an assistant adjunct professor at NYU med school. I will wager he is the wealthiest staff member at NYU  med school.

I saw 5X, didn't blink. I wouldn't have blinked at 10...

Like you said, VC like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 4:02 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

 

If the Holmans do make 5x their original investment then it's criminal.  Especially given they've spent nothing except broker a deal and spruik an already developed drug developed by the taxpayer.

The financial windfall all rests on FDA approval which once achieved sees $1.5b of taxpayer loot handed over.   That's BEFORE any other deals are done elsewhere in the world.

I expect the Holmans will do well.

But your understanding of the costs and risks associated with drug development are verging on infant like.

Of course they will make at least 5x their investment if it is a success.  It needs to, that is a base minimum in the real world.  In   the US, host to the most innovative and successful bio research and medical research in the world, we combine sponsored research and market driven investment in research and development. 

The risks are huge. For every 5,000 drugs that enter pre-clinical testing, only 5 make it to clinical trials.  Of those 5 that go into phase 1-3 trials, on average only 1 gets FDA approval.  If a drug is approved , the odds of it being commercially successful (earning back more than the cost of development and approval) are approximately 1 in 3. 

The Holmans acquired Molnupiravir, as an obscure pre-clinical therapy. It had not had a single trial in a single patient for Covid. It was an educated bet (and Im sure they had done a lot of research) but it was also a ballsy bet.  No one else had been bouncing up and down to fund Emory or buy the IP from them. So if the Holmans are not shooting for in excess of  5X their original acquisition cost and funding then either you are naive or the Holmans are stupid.   Honey, Wayne Holman is not dumb!

The return on an early stage pre-clinical needs to be 5000x.  The average return on an ultimately successful drug entering clinical needs to be 15x just to break even. Most successful drugs far exceed that. That elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is what keeps bringing money into our small start ups but investors need to have a healthy tolerance for companies and drugs that go to zero. I have seen many wonder drugs go to zero in my career. If Holman was a base ball player I would put him in at number three in my line up, the sinkers dont fool him and his OBA is uncanny. On the other hand  I might be worried that I would have a Pete Rose problem eventually :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

If Holman was a base ball player I would put him in at number three in my line up, the sinkers dont fool him and his OBA is uncanny. On the other hand  I might be worried that I would have a Pete Rose problem eventually :) 

The problem with compulsive gamblers is that they don't know how to quit when they're ahead. That's assuming they ever get ahead, which few do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First pill to treat Covid gets approval in UK

The first pill designed to treat symptomatic Covid has been approved by the UK medicines regulator.

The tablet - molnupiravir - will be given twice a day to vulnerable patients recently diagnosed with the disease.

In clinical trials the pill, originally developed to treat flu, cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about half.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment was a "gamechanger" for the most frail and immunosuppressed.

In a statement he said: "Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for Covid."

The rest is here ..

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59163899

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

First pill to treat Covid gets approval in UK

The first pill designed to treat symptomatic Covid has been approved by the UK medicines regulator.

The tablet - molnupiravir - will be given twice a day to vulnerable patients recently diagnosed with the disease.

In clinical trials the pill, originally developed to treat flu, cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about half.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment was a "gamechanger" for the most frail and immunosuppressed.

In a statement he said: "Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for Covid."

The rest is here ..

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59163899

Thankfully I don't qualify for this "trial" as I'm not over 60 AND have any comorbidities.

I'm sure @Terry Hollis you are eligible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Thankfully I don't qualify for this "trial" as I'm not over 60 AND have any comorbidities.

I'm sure @Terry Hollis you are eligible.

The "trial" for molnupiravir is in the UK so that leaves me out.

I don't have Covid-19 symptoms so that leaves me out.

Just as well I am fully vaccinated with Pfiver so it's just possible I won't need it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

The "trial" for molnupiravir is in the UK so that leaves me out.

I don't have Covid-19 symptoms so that leaves me out.

Just as well I am fully vaccinated with Pfiver so it's just possible I won't need it anyway.

Pharmac NZ have signed up ànd spent millions so you have a chance.

You don't have Covid symptoms yet but you may have in the future.

Being vaccinated with Pzifer doesn't guarantee anything it appears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Thankfully I don't qualify for this "trial" as I'm not over 60 AND have any comorbidities.

I'm sure @Terry Hollis you are eligible.

But guzzle the hydrozxy and pop the ivermectin? First in line baby!

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

But guzzle the hydrozxy and pop the ivermectin? First in line baby!

Nup.  Not in your vulnerable cohort.  Have you preorderd Molnupiravir?  At least Ivermectin has been test on billions of people not 380 individuals.  

Have you bought shares in Ridgeback?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Nup.  Not in your vulnerable cohort.  Have you preorderd Molnupiravir?  At least Ivermectin has been test on billions of people not 380 individuals.  

Have you bought shares in Ridgeback?

Looks like some new pills available 

Grab a couple bottles full, They fix everything 

AEE0FE31-5DCF-4E36-A000-9806ED2E9CBE.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Looks like some new pills available 

Grab a couple bottles full, They fix everything 

AEE0FE31-5DCF-4E36-A000-9806ED2E9CBE.png

The last woman I took down to get intubated would have been grateful for this med. 

She was making a face like a guppy on a table and I could see her rib muscles contracting trying to help her breath.  She was begging for help, crying and saying (one word at a time) that she couldn't breath and was scared.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Nup.  Not in your vulnerable cohort.  Have you preorderd Molnupiravir?  At least Ivermectin has been test on billions of people not 380 individuals.  

Have you bought shares in Ridgeback?

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has been used by most of the people on the planet, and it does as well with Covid as Ivermectin. Should we all just take acetaminophen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has been used by most of the people on the planet, and it does as well with Covid as Ivermectin. Should we all just take acetaminophen?

 Not if someone drinks a lot. Bad for liver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Pfizer's drug will have an easier time getting FDA approval than the Merck drug. It's been around awhile and it's cousins are very effective at reducing viral loads. 

 

Pfizer’s drug is part of a decades-old family of antiviral drugs known as protease inhibitors, which revolutionized the treatment of HIV and hepatitis C. The drugs block a key enzyme which viruses need to multiply in the human body.

The drug was first identified during the SARS outbreak originating in Asia during 2003. Last year, company researchers decided to revive the medication and study it for COVID-19, given the similarities between the two coronaviruses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Nup.  Not in your vulnerable cohort.  Have you preorderd Molnupiravir?  At least Ivermectin has been test on billions of people not 380 individuals.  

Have you bought shares in Ridgeback?

Does the manufacturer of Ivermectin or any health authority anywhere recommend it as a covid treatment?  What dose should be taken to be effective for covid? 

You won't answer...stop wasting our time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Does the manufacturer of Ivermectin or any health authority anywhere recommend it as a covid treatment?  What dose should be taken to be effective for covid? 

You won't answer...stop wasting our time.

380 individuals tested with Molnupiravir even less with the recommended dose.  The UK approval is nothing more than an ongoing trial.

Given the apparent effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing serious illness in the cohort to be prescribed Molnupiravir then it will be dispensed very little anyway.   

Or is it just for the unvaccinated or those where the vaccine hasn't worked?

Yet Ridgeback/Merck appeared to have scored hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug that conceivably will sit on the shelf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2021 at 10:48 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

380 individuals tested with Molnupiravir even less with the recommended dose.  The UK approval is nothing more than an ongoing trial.

Given the apparent effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing serious illness in the cohort to be prescribed Molnupiravir then it will be dispensed very little anyway.   

Or is it just for the unvaccinated or those where the vaccine hasn't worked?

Yet Ridgeback/Merck appeared to have scored hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug that conceivably will sit on the shelf.

You didn't answer my questions as usual.  If you continue to promote Ivermectin you have to justify your support.  Apparently you can't.  Just wasting our time with BS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

You didn't answer my questions as usual.  If you continue to promote Ivermectin you have to justify your support.  Apparently you can't.  Just wasting our time with BS. 

I've never promoted Ivermectin.

But you may want to read this article on Molnupiravir.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/11/04/uk-approval-of-molnupiravir-may-create-new-and-more-dangerous-covid-19-variants/?sh=3fd1ff4166a9

For those who called me a liar stating that Molnupiravir was mutagenic:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/11/02/harming-those-who-receive-it-the-dangers-of-molnupiravir-part-2/

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I've never promoted Ivermectin.

 

 

On 11/4/2021 at 9:09 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

... At least Ivermectin has been test on billions of people not 380 individuals.  

...

QED.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

 

QED.

That's a fact that Ivermectin has been safely prescribed to billions of people.  However I've never promoted it as a Covid-19 cure. 

This Topic is about Molnupiravir and your continual mention of Ivermectin is a diversionary tactic.  I guess to gloss of the weaknesses of Molnupiravir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's a fact that Ivermectin has been safely prescribed to billions of people.  However I've never promoted it as a Covid-19 cure. 

This Topic is about Molnupiravir and your continual mention of Ivermectin is a diversionary tactic.  I guess to gloss of the weaknesses of Molnupiravir.

Then why did you (not me) bring up Ivermectin in your criticism of Molnupiravir?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

at no point does anyone in that article STATE that molnpiravir cause's mutation

it is / was an opinion piece and a warning that it should be checked out as a possibility

 

it is such stretching that has caused the tin foil hatters to become more numerous

and the vaccine ' hesitant ' to become more fixed within their wackocracy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

at no point does anyone in that article STATE that molnpiravir cause's mutation

it is / was an opinion piece and a warning that it should be checked out as a possibility

 

it is such stretching that has caused the tin foil hatters to become more numerous

and the vaccine ' hesitant ' to become more fixed within their wackocracy

 

By its very mode of action Molnupiravir is mutagenic.  It interferes with the viruses replication by disrupting the RNA translation.

The "opinion" piece refers to other research that points to Molnupiravir's active being mutagenic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

by that definition .. everything that causes the slightest damage is a mutagenic

the temperature of the air

the acidity of the contact point

but mostly the bodies own defenses

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

by that definition .. everything that causes the slightest damage is a mutagenic

the temperature of the air

the acidity of the contact point

but mostly the bodies own defenses

You haven't read the article or the research behind it have you?

That said you won't have to worry about it as you are probably triple vaccinated and therefore protected so you won't be prescribed it.

I'm picking most of it will end up as expensive unused pills sitting on shelves.   A few individuals will get mega rich in the process but who cares.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I didn't raise Ivermectin in this Molnupiravir debate.  @Steam Flyer and @EYESAILOR did.

 All I did was point out the irrational hypocrisy of those that did.  

As usual, you play loose with the truth when you make your statements. The first time I mention the word Ivermectin in this thread was in direct response to a post on Ivermectin by Slug. The only time I refer to the general category of anti parasitic drugs is in response to a post on anti parasitic indications of Molnupiravir. 
 

You, on the other hand, have introduced the topic of Ivermectin, not in response, but because you consider Ivermectin a suitable benchmark to compare Molnupiravir to.
 

Then when someone calls you out on that, you accuse them of diversionary tactics!  
 

My friend, if it is hypocrisy you seek, look in the mirror  

</