The war on Ivermectin

[madinsomniac]

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/a-look-back-at-the-war-on-miracle-drug-ivermectin/

This should not be thought an article about the Vaccine, but rather about The Pharmaceutical Companies as a whole. They need basically kneecapped.

Among the absolute needed regulations are

-Third party independent clinical trials that report results to the FDA directly ( the epa requires such stuff all the time with little problems)

-A ban on any public official owning any stock in any pharmaceutical company during their tenure or for 20 years afterward.

-very strict personal liability for CEOs and upper management for unethical conduct.

-eliminating their ability to run their own commercials. Which is almost universally banned in every other country…

- banning all forms of kickbacks

- potentially limiting profit margins for lifesaving drugs. For life necessities like utilities and even water or milk, many states already do such things…

-Forbidding them to make donations to political campaigns. To keep this constitutional, You’d probably have to ban all corporations from doing so , which i have absolutely no issue with…

-instantaneous loss of all patent rights in the Us for 20 years following any sort of unethical conduct to knowingly inflate profits through dysfunctional or dangerous drugs. (Pfizer would already be bankrupt and defunct in this scenario)

-

 

[Steeltime]

insomniac - you are 100% correct about the contemptible lies told about Ivermectin and the fact pharma drove those lies through paid flunkee bootlickers known as politicians, both to help their bottom lines. No doubt.

However, limiting profits is not going to be constitutional unless the government imposes a takeover. Also, limiting campaign contributions is also simply unconstitutional. It is not an issue as to the amount of donations, but simply that political speech cannot be constrained. It can't. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is pretty clear and despite criticisms leveled at the decision, is well-reasoned. If the government can limit political speech (which is what a limit on contributions to a political campaign is), it can limit any speech.

I would argue that the Ivermectin lies were in fact due in large part to measures limiting speech. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube limited or banned content that pointed out Ivermectin had been used by humans for almost 50 years, had a great record of safe use, and was clinically effective when used early on in conjunction with Erythromycin and zinc.

Laws limiting politicians from owning stocks are a great idea. These hacks become millionaires by using insider trading and their positions to benefit companies for which they own stock. Forcing 3rd parties to run clinical trials is also 100% a great idea. Right now the drug companies monitor themselves - yeah, great idea. "I reviewed what I did and look at that, I'm great!"

The personal liability angle is already in place for monetary judgments. If a plaintiff can prove a managing agent knowingly approved of a dangerous drug, the agent is liable for punitive damages. But turning that into criminal liability is not workable. It just isn't. If a corporate official is potentially exposed to jail for approving a drug with ANY risk, the official is going to say "no."

EVERY drug has side effects and EVERY drug causes harm to some. It is simply impossible to produce a drug that causes no harm to anybody. What corporate official is going to say, "Yeah, it could save two million people from an excruciating cancer death, but also will in fact harm at least 5,000 people - let's do it, despite the fact I will lose everything and go to jail!!"

 

[madinsomniac]

insomniac - you are 100% correct about the contemptible lies told about Ivermectin and the fact pharma drove those lies through paid flunkee bootlickers known as politicians, both to help their bottom lines. No doubt.

However, limiting profits is not going to be constitutional unless the government imposes a takeover. Also, limiting campaign contributions is also simply unconstitutional. It is not an issue as to the amount of donations, but simply that political speech cannot be constrained. It can't. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is pretty clear and despite criticisms leveled at the decision, is well-reasoned. If the government can limit political speech (which is what a limit on contributions to a political campaign is), it can limit any speech.

I would argue that the Ivermectin lies were in fact due in large part to measures limiting speech. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube limited or banned content that pointed out Ivermectin had been used by humans for almost 50 years, had a great record of safe use, and was clinically effective when used early on in conjunction with Erythromycin and zinc.

Laws limiting politicians from owning stocks are a great idea. These hacks become millionaires by using insider trading and their positions to benefit companies for which they own stock. Forcing 3rd parties to run clinical trials is also 100% a great idea. Right now the drug companies monitor themselves - yeah, great idea. "I reviewed what I did and look at that, I'm great!"

The personal liability angle is already in place for monetary judgments. If a plaintiff can prove a managing agent knowingly approved of a dangerous drug, the agent is liable for punitive damages. But turning that into criminal liability is not workable. It just isn't. If a corporate official is potentially exposed to jail for approving a drug with ANY risk, the official is going to say "no."

EVERY drug has side effects and EVERY drug causes harm to some. It is simply impossible to produce a drug that causes no harm to anybody. What corporate official is going to say, "Yeah, it could save two million people from an excruciating cancer death, but also will in fact harm at least 5,000 people - let's do it, despite the fact I will lose everything and go to jail!!"

See, i don’t think it would be unconstitutional to limit profits… its already done in a slew of other industries… in regulated power states, for instance, power companies have to submit their costs to a state agency, who then sets what they can charge to remain profitable.
In PA, the price of milk is regulated… the state owns 0% of dairy farms or bottling centers.
Its deemed a life necessity and thus they can circumvent typical restrictions on what theyy are allowed to do

 

[Steeltime]

Yeah, I guess the government can lie and impose regulations on nearly everything under the commerce clause. Government edicts on prices are a fiasco of epic proportions unfortunately. You know how all the government defense department officials are former defense contractors, and all the media "experts" on armed conflict are past or current defense contractors? Multiply that by 10 to get how the drug industry would play out if government set prices. Every government employee involved in setting prices would get hired to lobby for the drug companies with the government on what the price should be. The industry would then replicate what is going on with our war hardware, private contractors, and the government.*

Also, the problem with such price controls is that the cost of developing new drugs is high - very high. A large percentage of the trial drugs don't work or are not safe and become a complete loss. The United States develops about as many drugs as the rest of the world combined. New drugs are patented and make the company a bunch of money for 7 years. That profit drives the company to develop new drugs.

The simple fact is that pharma has taken advantage of the demand to pump up drug costs to an astonishing degree. The industry is controlled by a limited number of massive companies (Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, the Chinese conglomerates) so market forces just doesn't work. New drug companies are simply unable to enter the market and compete to push prices down.

* You ever hear of a new weapon system coming in below projected cost?

 

[Confluence]

Yeah, I guess the government can lie and impose regulations on nearly everything under the commerce clause. Government edicts on prices are a fiasco of epic proportions unfortunately. You know how all the government defense department officials are former defense contractors, and all the media "experts" on armed conflict are past or current defense contractors? Multiply that by 10 to get how the drug industry would play out if government set prices. Every government employee involved in setting prices would get hired to lobby for the drug companies with the government on what the price should be. The industry would then replicate what is going on with our war hardware, private contractors, and the government.*

Also, the problem with such price controls is that the cost of developing new drugs is high - very high. A large percentage of the trial drugs don't work or are not safe and become a complete loss. The United States develops about as many drugs as the rest of the world combined. New drugs are patented and make the company a bunch of money for 7 years. That profit drives the company to develop new drugs.

The simple fact is that pharma has taken advantage of the demand to pump up drug costs to an astonishing degree. The industry is controlled by a limited number of massive companies (Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, the Chinese conglomerates) so market forces just doesn't work. New drug companies are simply unable to enter the market and compete to push prices down.

* You ever hear of a new weapon system coming in below projected cost?

Steeltime,

IF the beneficiaries of much of the government largesse, as you point out, cannot be expected to get limited benefits, then why only criticize the government for that largesse? I am a very libertarian, free market person, but the market is not free; far from it. Why do the beneficiaries get to define how society contributes to them, rather than the opposite?

The process corruption is what enables the companies to keep the feedback loop powered, which robs more and more power/money from the average citizen. You know that government limits screw up free market economies, and the opposite, like we see in the pharmaceutical/regulatory complex or the Military/Industrial complex.....is also true. Countries won't limit oligopolies because the need for global power over-rides the local need for competition......which ***** the small guy almost every time.

Why not view the larger pharma companies as utilities? Sure, less drug development, but who the hell, other than the drug sellers, has really benefited from the past years of new drugs? Viagra was not even developed for its big use, which means that drug companies do not really understand what they are doing.

Relatedly, have you seen Poisoned on Netflix yet?

 

[Steeltime]

Why not view the larger pharma companies as utilities? Sure, less drug development, but who the hell, other than the drug sellers, has really benefited from the past years of new drugs? Viagra was not even developed for its big use, which means that drug companies do not really understand what they are doing.

Depends on the drug, of course. Some anti-cancer therapies/drugs developed over the past 30 years are saving lives, prolonging lives and making lives better.

Viagra was developed as an anti-hypertensive medication. Its unforeseen side effect has helped a lot of males, mainly liberals unable to produce blood flow to their privates, so there's that.

The answer to, "Why not treat pharma like a utility company?" is the same for any other business - "Why not treat food production as a utility?" or "Why not treat computer manufacturers like a utility?" And the answer is inexorably correct: Because once government runs the show, the product turns to **** and costs more in the long run than if the manufacturers were left alone.

Relatedly, have you seen Poisoned on Netflix yet?

Not yet. It is listed as one of the most popular programs on the channel, but haven't seen it yet. Watching Hatfields & McCoys right now.

 

[Confluence]

Depends on the drug, of course. Some anti-cancer therapies/drugs developed over the past 30 years are saving lives, prolonging lives and making lives better.

Viagra was developed as an anti-hypertensive medication. Its unforeseen side effect has helped a lot of males, mainly liberals unable to produce blood flow to their privates, so there's that.

The answer to, "Why not treat pharma like a utility company?" is the same for any other business - "Why not treat food production as a utility?" or "Why not treat computer manufacturers like a utility?" And the answer is inexorably correct: Because once government runs the show, the product turns to **** and costs more in the long run than if the manufacturers were left alone.



Not yet. It is listed as one of the most popular programs on the channel, but haven't seen it yet. Watching Hatfields & McCoys right now.

At least the Hatfields and the McCoys had honor

 

[Steeltime]

At least the Hatfields and the McCoys had honor

Midway through episode 2. Did not know how bloody the feud was.