Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "To Be Frank" channel.

Republicans AND Democrats are bribed by big pharma (big oil, Silicon valley, big finance). Certainly the industries, often by the same companies or individuals.
8
The patent on Ivermectin expires end of 2027 (in the U.S.), the patent owners have a monopoly, unlike the vaccines (there are at least 4 in the pipeline and likely to be released soon, it should help a little bit against price gouging). Other nation's politicians cannot be so openly bribed as in the U.S. so big pharma do not get so many favors (like extra long patents, double the prices compared to other first world nation) So in Australia, Europe, Japan ....it might expire sooner ( ? 10 years) - but I doubt is has expired in the rest of the world. The drug (the developers) won the nobel prize in 2015. 5 - 6 years is not long, I think no patent (pharma, machines) expires after that time. US Patent Number 8791153 Patent Expiration Date 2027-10-12
7
Logic is not the strong suit of Trump supporters / right wingers. Remind me WHO develops vaccines AND treatment drugs and owns the patents on them ? (with the vaccines there is at least no monopoly).
4
Logic is not the strong suit of Trump supporters / right wingers. Remind me WHO develops vaccines AND treatment drugs and owns the patents on them ? (with the vaccines there is at least no monopoly for ONE treatment drug. Several companies have vaccines in the pipeline).
2
the BEST way to deal with a pandemic is to have a vaccine. As it is effective preventation. (One penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - One would think that appeals to the "conservative" mindset) An effecitve and SAFE treatment drug would be a godsend, it can bridge the time until the vaccines are available, the high infection numbers would not result in so many deaths and the hospitals would be in a much better position. We could risk more = keeping all businesses open (despite the virus being highly contagious).
2
ONLY a vaccine might make it possible to eradict the virus - it is not sure if that will be possible. Depends on how the population participates, how developing countries are supported (if it survives in Africa or Asia it will reemerge in the wealthy nations as well). And of course how effective the protection by the vaccine is. Over 90 % would offer good chances. Some vaccines that are in the pipeline now are claimed to be that effective. Eradicating that version of the corona virus is on principle impossible with a treatment drug (there are plenty of other corona viri, those that infect only humans or only animals and usually they are harmless. Trouble starts when a corona virus of animals (mammals) mutates and now also can infect humans. The virus might be harmless for the animal - but often it triggers severe symptoms with the new type of hosts. It is worse if humans transmit it (easily) among each other. Else it means that people working with animals (or animal products) have some risk. MERS for instance has a mortality rate of 30 % with humans, but humans mainly get that corona virus when they deal with camels and dromedars - who got/get it from bats. Between humans it is not very contagious (so far !). With a first world medical system the chain of infection can be broken. It still exists, but if there is a flare up (in Arabic countries) it is promplty dealt with. So it is no threat for the health of a nation and cannot trigger an epidemic or even a pandemic. The patients are unfortunate ("survived MERS" does not mean full recovery for all the survivors), but no big worry for those that watch over the health of a nation. it also gets normally ugly if corona viri specialized in humans (harmless for humans) can all of a sudden infect mammals (for instance monkeys, especially primates).
2
The more time the virus has to mutate - either long time OR high case numbers (if a lot of people continue to be infected even though hardly anyone dies from it anymore) the more chances it has to mutate. If a lot of mutations are allowed to happen (treating the infections instead of preventing them) that could mean that all of a sudden the treatment drug is less effective or ineffective. Or the virus becomes more contagious. Or switches to other species and causes damage with lifestock. An important mutation emerged at the beginning of the pandemic, in Feburary a new mutation emerged it is MORE contagious and most people that got infected on the globe got the newer version. (they found out with some delay, they do DNA sequencing of the virus as found on the globe). A more contagious virus is bound to replace a less contagious version. Now with a lot of luck a newer version a) could be more harmless and b) will replace the former more dangerous version because it is more contagious. But that has not happened in this case (old an new version might be be comparable when it comes to symptoms and mortality rate). It could also play out the other way, more contagious and worse health effects.
2
Not to rain on the parade of Dr. Kory, one can only hope that is true: But in that case ONE company holds the patent (as it won the nobel prize in 2015, the patents must be still valid). As opposed to several companies having vaccines in the pipeline, and likely all of them are good enough.
2
Not to rain on the parade of Dr. Kory, one can only hope the drug turns out to be safe and effective: But in that case ONE company holds the patent (as it won the nobel prize in 2015, the patents must be still valid). As opposed to several companies having vaccines in the pipeline, and likely all of them are good enough. Xyz Same Xyz Same vor 1 Sekunde Logic is not the strong suit of Trump supporters / right wingers. Remind me WHO develops vaccines AND treatment drugs and owns the patents on them ? (with the vaccines there is at least no monopoly).
1
Also - if the treatment drug prevents immediate severe symptoms and overwhelming of hospitals, that does NOT mean there is no lasting, irreversible damage. We know that CoVid-19 patients with very mild symptoms had blood clots, scaring of tissue. Or bloodwork like heart attack patients (that may reverse itself within a few months, we can hope). Or they got blood clots - that was a very visible harm that followed a seemingly harmless case of CoVid-19. Now it may be that those that have no dramatic manifestation of long term damage after 1 month or 2 eventually return to full health and those indicators (found only with lab work, the patients do not feel that bad that they would suspect potential long term damage) vanish If the heart of a person that was healthy before has some (temporary) damage they will not notice much as long as the patient do not push the limits (sports for instance, or strain by another unrelated illness. They have fewer reserves though). it is known that the common flu can knock down even young and healthy patients, they return to work and normal life after 2 weeks, but in some cases it takes them a few months to fully recover. There are also cases where the flu can trigger long term permanent damage (pancreas has an autoimmune reaction, destroys itself and the person becomes a diabetic 1 patient. Or becoming deaf, problems with vision, heart damage, damage to other organs ...)
1
Dealing with a disease only AFTER it happened causes higher costs, too. People will still need medical treatment (doctors, the drug) and maybe the hospitals, be absent from work, so there are costs - the mass rollout of vaccination can be organized in a very cost-efficient manner. 2 shots with 1 month in between and we are good. If we are lucky forever. Once most of the population have immunity, there are no special measure and cooperation needed (so not getting tired of social distancing, hand washing, coughing culture, people being more or less into following overal hygiene rules. Handwashing by males in public toilet ! Also no need for healthy persons to take a drug as prevention. costly, possible long term side effects, pregnancy, etc. etc. ). The common (harmless) cold is caused by different viri, some of them belong to the group of corona viri. They are all harmless (for humans ! not necessarily for primates or other animals) and NEED NO TREATMENT drug at all. (antibiotics are ONLY useful if a (severe) bacterial infection follows the viral infection (bacteria get their chance because of weakened immune system and irritated mucous membranes). An effective and safe treatment drug is a good second-best in case there is not yet a vaccine available, or for persons that can't get vaccinated or if vaccination morale goes down and there are breakouts (see measles). HIV is another example, no PREVENTION - by vaccination * - is possible. Now there are drugs available (over time they tend to have a negative impact) but HIV doesn't have the same scary ring as it used to have. So the morale of preventions has gone down as well (wearing condomes). * prevention: condomes and immediately after potential contact a person can take drugs that will suppress the virus taking hold. But these drugs have side effects (fatigue). If a person is treated for HIV to my knowledge they are also not spreading it anymore. Pretty much like treated tuberculosis.
1
The patent on Ivermectin expires end of 2027 (in the U.S.), the patent owners have a monopoly, unlike the vaccines (there are at least 4 in the pipeline and likely to be released soon, it should help a little bit against price gouging). Other nation's politicians cannot be so openly bribed as in the U.S. so they do not get so many favors (like extra long patents) so there it might expire sooner - but I doubt is has expired in the rest of the world. The drug (the developers) won the nobel prize in 2015. 5 - 6 years is not long, I think no patent (pharma, machines) expires after that time. US Patent Number 8791153 Patent Expiration Date 2027-10-12
1
Peters had a (somewhat understandable) kneejerk reaction (on the negative side: he / his staffers had not done their homework). Also he refered to ALL the witnesses (maybe Dr. Kory was the only reasonable and competent person testifying, I have not watched it yet). - Peters expected the worst from Republicans and their witnesses (understandably). For once the Republicans provide something relevant, competent and potentially highly valuable information (if the durg turns out to be effective AND safe for mass use). I am pleasantly surprised they have come up with at least one expert witness that can be taken serious. The senator should have done his homework (as ranking member no less) and owes an apology (at least to Dr. Kory) BUT there is some context: After Republicans had a TERRIBLE, UNSCIENTIFIC, record pandering to the bias and ignorance of their base (and shamelessly exploiting that) since spring. Remember Trump (and his clueless economic advisor Navarro pushing for hydroxychloroquine ? Even after extensive clinical trials after Trump had pushed for the drug proved that the drug was hardly effective, if so only for the milder cases, and harmful in other cases. Trump very likely is invested in shares of the manufacturer (that would rhyme with his grifting, and he is broke).
1