Published: February 7, 2021
On the recent anti-ivermectin statement by Merck.
A positive aspect of the recent anti-ivermectin statement by Merck is that dozens of ‘big pharma’ lobbyists, who immediately shared the statement on Twitter, are now getting exposed – among them many journalists, a US NIH representative, some industry-linked professors, and one of the most influential German government ‘covid science communicators’.
Keep in mind that Merck provided no evidence, whatsoever, for any of its claims; did not refute any of the existing evidence, studies and meta-studies; and falsely claimed ‘unproven safety’. The entire statement is a desperate appeal to ‘authority’, and anyone pushing it is simply exposing themselves as a lobbyist not interested in actual evidence-based medicine.
What Merck could have done, but didn’t do, since April 2020, is running and publishing its own ivermectin trial. What Merck also could have done, but didn’t do, is disclosing in its statement that it recently signed a $356 million deal to supply the US with a much more expensive, newly developed experimental anti-covid drug. But doing this may not have been in Merck’s interest, of course.
Update: The Ivermectin Debate (July 2021)