<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:07 PM Steve Izma <<a href="mailto:sizma@golden.net">sizma@golden.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
They could not have made any profit off of it because ivermectin<br>
is off-patent and produced for pennies a shot in many different<br>
parts of the world. Their reason for this statement, given their<br>
need for profits, is to discredit a drug in wide use in order to<br>
make room for the replacement drug they were working on<br>
(monupiravir), for which patents and profits apply in spades.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You've admitted that "follow the money" is a "rule of thumb" but then you seem to lean on it quite heavily. It's more like Occam's razor, useful in certain situations only. If you are investigating fraud, you follow the money. If you're investigating a crime of passion you don't. Money is only one of many reasons people do things.<br><br>The idea that Big Pharma is evil and heartless and only interested in money is a common conspiracy theory. Yes, it's capitalism so money is why "big pharma' does what it does, but to be evil and heartless would mean literally caring only about their customer's wallets and not their health. Presumably you make money in your job or business, does that mean you can't be trusted because it's about the money? How do I decide that Big Pharma is evil because of the money but you aren't even though you do it for money as well?<br><br>People are social animals and have genetic and indoctrinated behaviours. Even sociopaths and psychopaths have many of those behaviours. The board members, CEOs, researchers, workers, salespeople all have those social behaviours. Profit is balanced between those two. And even if it wasn't they have regulatory restraints, legal risks and market risks to acting without care. Pointing to an example like thalidomide is cherry-picking. Yes, companies do sometimes make mistakes. Do you really think that company knew about those effects on pregnancy and still marketed it that way? I really doubt it. The industry will continue to make mistakes and because of thalidomide we are far less likely to make ones like it again. But use that mistake as a reason to denounce all that the pharmaceutical industry does would itself be a mistake. Comparing COVID-19 vaccines to thalidomide seems baseless. Will mRNA vaccines have problems. Sure they will, just like everything you put into your body has problems. Just like all vaccines have problems. Just like you can overdose easily on acetaminophen daily without knowing it until your liver is dead. And yet a lot of people aren't aware of that. Will mRNA cause big problems, probably not because we do a lot of testing on things like that to make sure. Are we testing for every potential problem? Absolutely not and we never will be. Stopping progress because we don't know what we don't know would leave us without so many advances that help us today. It's the wrong move to simply stop progress because we can't be sure. The bar is set quite high for drugs, higher than most industries.<br><br></div>Here's a "follow the money" moment for you. There are many nations with socialized health care, these are huge customers of drugs that care for people from womb to tomb. Healthier people means lower expenses, lower taxes, etc. These are the ones who fund studies in cheaper ways to do things. There is more money in socialized health care than in big pharma. In Canada, the pharma market is $30B and the socialized health care expenditures are over $300B, ten times the revenue of Big Pharma in Canada. If I follow the money, then socialized health care is the one dictating what's happening.<br><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>John Van Ostrand<br></div><div>At large on sabbatical<br></div><br></div></div></div>