It seems you are against ivermectin in the last paragraph…
Answering your question on why Merck gives away ivermectin to Africa,
Merck gets a tax deduction for giving ivermectin to Africa. While they do not get taxable cash from the sale of ivermectin, Merck does get a refund of $$ which would otherwise go to governments.
Say an ivermectin pill costs 1 cent to make, and they give it away at 11 cents per pill. Merck then gets 10 cents in tax credits, which “after tax” , assum a 30% tax rate, in a simplified way equals a 3 cent profit per pill given to Africa for free. …
Sorry to be thick here but are you saying the drug is worthless here, based on the line, 'Combats appearance of microfilariae of the nematodes but no evidence of overall improvement in outcomes, nor benefits to treating millions prophylactically.'? Or are commenting how Merck 180'ed on the drug and smeared it after touting it as a savior for so long? Whether it worked on the virus causing river blindness or not it is used to fight parasites? Is that legitimate? I mean parasites exist. Is its potential use for Code then nonsense despite proponents saying it has many potential mechanisms of action and at the very least can help with inflammation?
Wow!!. Very well written substack. I for one will not take!
Thanks Jo. I'll add this to my list of IVM resources.
Well done!
Thank you!
I'll stick with whole food, exercise and sunshine!
Best of health!
Your article is confusing to me.
It seems you are against ivermectin in the last paragraph…
Answering your question on why Merck gives away ivermectin to Africa,
Merck gets a tax deduction for giving ivermectin to Africa. While they do not get taxable cash from the sale of ivermectin, Merck does get a refund of $$ which would otherwise go to governments.
Say an ivermectin pill costs 1 cent to make, and they give it away at 11 cents per pill. Merck then gets 10 cents in tax credits, which “after tax” , assum a 30% tax rate, in a simplified way equals a 3 cent profit per pill given to Africa for free. …
Sorry to be thick here but are you saying the drug is worthless here, based on the line, 'Combats appearance of microfilariae of the nematodes but no evidence of overall improvement in outcomes, nor benefits to treating millions prophylactically.'? Or are commenting how Merck 180'ed on the drug and smeared it after touting it as a savior for so long? Whether it worked on the virus causing river blindness or not it is used to fight parasites? Is that legitimate? I mean parasites exist. Is its potential use for Code then nonsense despite proponents saying it has many potential mechanisms of action and at the very least can help with inflammation?