calbear93 said:
Cal88 said:
calbear93 said:
Big C said:
calbear93 said:
Big C said:
There ARE some reputable people -- I'm not talking about Trump -- throughout the world who claim it is effective against COVID-19. One of the arguments as to why it is having the kibosh put on it here is that it is cheap and plentiful and therefore Big Pharma won't be making big moolah on it.
Note that I'm not saying that there is a preponderance of evidence that it works, just that there is a decent chance. It'll be interesting, a few years down the road, to see how all this turns out. (Plus, I'll be able to go out for beers again and not have to wear a stupid mask every time I leave the house.)
Really? You cannot give any weight to any conspiracy theory that some in the government are gravely getting us into a recession, huge deficit, material weakening of the dollar and all those death without anyone doing an expose because they want to help pharma like Pfizer that until TCJA was going to become an Irish company, can you? I mean, that would be like spending the rest their lives in prison and they and their family living in eternal ignominy. What would be the motivation? Some campaign funding?
If Big Pharma is putting the kibosh on it -- I'm not saying they are, just that there's a chance -- it would be more subtle than that. Big money often does influence the practice of medicine in this country.
The if-you-like-HCLQ-you-must-like-Trump factor also could play in. And, of course, it might just be that it doesn't work (the most likely scenario). If I had COVID, though, and there was nothing else to take, I might take it under a doctor's supervision.
That would violate Anti-Kickback and False Claims Act if Big Pharma influenced doctors in such an obvious way (especially doctors who bill Medicare), and those contributions could be apparent in disclosure required by the Sunshine Act. I understand that there are still some subtle influences on peddling their medicine, but I doubt it would get to the level of suppressing a potential cure for COVID-19.
There is nothing subtle about the PR and advertising budget of big pharma, which IIRC amounts to $30 billion per year in the US alone.
You are talking about two different things.
Pharma advertising its product is different from using monetary or other value transfer to influence medical providers who also bill Medicare. The first is legal as long as not false and as long the intended use is cleared through pre-marketing notification with the FDA. The second is a criminal violation. So, the implication that big Pharma is using their money to cause medical providers to provide false medical study to suppress a legitimate treatment or cure for COVID-19 is hard to believe.
Here is the precise annual breakdown of Big Pharma's advertizing and PR/influence peddling budget:
Quote:
Of the nearly $30 billion that health companies now spend on medical marketing each year, around 68 percent (or about $20 billion) goes to persuading doctors and other medical professionals not consumers of the benefits of prescription drugs. That's according to an in-depth analysis published in JAMA this week. Jan 11, 2019
Big Pharma shells out $20B each year to schmooze docs, $6B on drug ads
Persuading doctors and direct-to-consumer ads land 1-2 punch for knockout sales.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-spends-30b-on-marketing-most-of-it-goes-to-doctors/If you don't think that the
$20 billion spent annually by big firms like Gilead in seminars, junkets and other PR activities to push drugs like Remdisivir, or gain a very strong influence over the medical establishment, you might be a bit naive.
Consider that back in early Spring on the day Dr. Raoult first announced his success using HCQ, Gilead 's valuation lost nearly $10 billion. The stakes are very high here... Gilead's treatment costs over $3,000 per patient, while HCQ is roughly 1,000 times cheaper.
Big Pharma is
the leading advertiser on TV programs and the MSM, which has repercussions over the content it provides. The MSM and television is still a force that shapes the worldviews of its main target group of affluent Boomers. That segment, especially those in Blue cities, tends to have very high trust in their institutions and will most often reject out of hand basic evidence going against their narrative, it's a basic case of cognitive dissonance.
Stepping back a bit, a good start on the argument about HCQ should focus on its side effects, because if you still believe that this is a dangerous drug, then there is no point whatsoever in going any further. How you perceive the risks of HCQ is an excellent bellwether of your level of credulity and blind trust in the MSM and medical establishment.
