[bizarroworld]

I think it’s ironic that the supposed downside of lowering Rx drug prices is that there will be less money for research.

Research for what?

For new harmful vaccines or ineffective drugs like paxlovid? ✔

For big pharma-blessed treatments, such as new chemotherapy and radiation options (but ix-nay on the enbendazole-fay)? For $$$ cash-cow treatments that will be hastened to market without adequate trialing? ✔

Or do they mean research such as the study by Los Angeles pediatrician Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who got $10M from the NIH to study the effects of puberty blockers, but when the data did not show any clear improvement in the mental health or well-being of the 95 young study participants over 2 years, she tried to delay releasing the data? (I’m not sure it was officially ever published.) Is that the “research” that there will be less money available for, with the lowering of drug prices? ✔

At this point, I’m willing to give up the problematic process that passes for “research” these days in exchange for lower drug prices.

[bizarroworld]

You said that Australia’s lab testing “confirmed that the following products contain less than the stated 12mg of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, ivermectin:

“Iversun-12, Covimectin-12, Iverheal-12, Iverhuman-12, Ivetab-12, Iverguard-12”

QUESTION: Did the lab testing indicate how much ivermectin was actually found in those products? For example, if the product was stated as containing 12 mg, did it actually only contain 10 mg? 6 mg? 3 mg? None at all?

It would be helpful to know so that those of us who purchased those brands can adjust the dosage accordingly. (This assumes that each tablet in a given brand’s blister pack contains roughly the same amount of ivermectin, even though it’s not the promised 12 mg.)