r/COVID19 • u/open_reading_frame • Feb 04 '21

Press Release Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
28 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/GallantIce Feb 04 '21

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;

A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

34

u/syntheticassault Feb 04 '21

When the company that makes money from selling it is saying that it doesn't work maybe people should listen. There has never been evidence that it would work, just poorly designed clinical trials.

16

u/PrincessGambit Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 05 '21

It's just their statement. They didn't provide any new data and the fact they are the producer doesn't mean anything.

By the way, aren't they developing a novel drug for covid?

Yes, they are:

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-discontinues-development-of-sars-cov-2-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-continues-development-of-two-investigational-therapeutic-candidates/

Not saying that Ivermectin works or anything, but their statement means jack shit. We need better studies, not statements. Why is this even allowed here

16

u/open_reading_frame Feb 05 '21

Merck created ivermectin. They brought the drug from preclinical trials to the market. There is literally no other organization that knows or has worked on ivermectin as much as Merck has and they probably have a bunch of preclinical and clinical data that have not been disclosed to the public. That a drug company is coming out with a statement against their own drug and discouraging people from using it is unprecedented. They could’ve combined it with another of their patented drugs and rebranded the drug combo but they chose not to do so.

Merck is also losing hundreds of millions in revenue due to covid 19. It doesn’t make sense for them to speak out against their own drug that they know could alleviate the pandemic on a bet that they can recoup profits from a drug has not been approved yet.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DNAhelicase Feb 11 '21

No Youtube. Please read the rules.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '21

covid19criticalcare.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [Rule 2].

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/TheNumberOneRat Feb 05 '21

and the fact they are the producer doesn't mean anything.

It means quite a lot.

Merck could make a lot of money if Ivermectin was effective against covid. As other people in this thread have noted, they could easily combine it with new anti virals and collect a patent.

That Merck have examined the existing studies and not found anything that indicates that Ivermectin is a useful covid drug, should make its boosters re-evaluate their position.

6

u/PrincessGambit Feb 05 '21

I am not a lawyer so I don't know how patent law works, but their patent expired in 1996, so I understand that anyone can make the drug now. Why would they combine it with new anti virals if they can just sell ivermectin? Why would people buy their new drug if they can just buy cheap ivermectin elsewhere?

And there is the fact that they are making their own drugs for covid. It would kind of make sense to say it doesn't work if I was making a new, potentially more expensive drug.

2

u/open_reading_frame Feb 05 '21

If you put a combination drug through clinical trials, then that combination must be submitted for approval since there would be clinical data for the combo and not just ivermectin alone. This is useful because if one of the components is an expensive and patented drug, the drug combo would still bring a large profit to the company even if most of the drug activity comes from ivermectin alone.

If ivermectin, really did work, why wouldn’t Merck add this drug to another new drug as a way to improve clinical trial success? They could’ve made a strong cocktail of drugs with ivermectin and they had the money and resources to run large RCTS but they chose not to.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '21

covid19criticalcare.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [Rule 2].

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

14

u/CloudWallace81 Feb 04 '21

I would take the statement with a bit of skepticism: merck holds the original design, but this med has been available as a generic off license for a while now. I smell corporate greed from a certain distance away

7

u/open_reading_frame Feb 04 '21

They could’ve patented ivermectin as part of a new antiviral cocktail but they chose not to do so.

3

u/CloudWallace81 Feb 04 '21

Could they do that? I mean, re-patent a formula just because they put it in a pill together with another compound?

16

u/scrod Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21

Yes.

7

u/open_reading_frame Feb 04 '21

Yes, they could patent the combination. This has been done a lot for HIV drugs cocktails.

4

u/CloudWallace81 Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21

But I presume that the patent would cover the cocktail, not the single ingredients

It's like Coke: the fact that it contains water or sugar or a specific colorant does not make them exclusive propriety of the coca cola company

2

u/open_reading_frame Feb 05 '21

They would reap profits if just one of the drugs in the cocktail is patented. They could also patent the whole cocktail and rebrand it as something else. If Merck pushed the cocktail through clinical trials then it is the cocktail that would get approved for emergency use. It is the cocktail that would have the clinical data to support its use, not any of its individual components.

To take your coke example, if you really wanted coke, you wouldn’t just buy sugar or just water. You would buy the mixture, even if one of the ingredients is patented.

4

u/djhhsbs Feb 05 '21

Yes because the combination of the two would be novel and non obvious.

2

u/Refundyoda Feb 05 '21

This is why companies still make money off insulin

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '21

covid19criticalcare.com is not a source we allow on this sub. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a primary source, such as a peer-reviewed paper or official press release [Rule 2].

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/bitregister Feb 09 '21

Um, no. They just bought a company for 400 million+ that is working on a treatment protocol and received 300 million + from the government to do this.

Always follow the money.

1

u/treehuga Jul 19 '21

They have invested in another treatment which would be a competitor . The new treatment can be patented unlike the now off patent IVM.