Merck Makes Huge Money Off Of Molnupiravir Despite Being Unable To Prove Its Effectiveness

At this point, after already writing two articles on Molnupiravir — Merck’s new drug to treat COVID-19 — you would think everything that needs to be said would have been said. However, if the absurdly of our current era has taught us anything, it’s that some stories — no matter how bad they start — keep getting worse the more you look into them.

On 10/7/2021, the same day I published my article debunking his article on Merck’s new drug, Matt Taibbi published an article titled “The Cult Of The Vaccine,” which set to argue that everyone opposed to Molnupiravir is actually just dogmatically in favor of the COVID-19 vaccine:

Well, yeah. Vaccines can stop the illness from spreading from person to person through killing the virus before it has a chance to incubate, oral medication cannot. This means relying too much on oral medication could easily result in the virus mutating into something that’s resistant to the current oral treatment. (You might know this as exactly what is currently happening with bacteria treated with antibiotics as well as with certain viruses like HIV.)

However, I want to go back to Taibbi’s first article real quick. Specifically, I want to talk about the part where he says Merck’s drug must be good, because it’s causing big pharmaceutical companies — nobody tell him Merck is a big pharmaceutical company — to lose money:

Here’s a fact about Merck that might make Taibbi question his support, as reported by Children's Health Defense on 10/7/2021:

Oh, this is something Taibbi himself acknowledges, I should note:

So a five-day course of this drug would result a profit of $694.26 for Merck. If this drug was then given to 1.7 million people, that would be a profit of $1,180,242,000. Basically, Taibbi is arguing that the media is going all out to stop the enrichment of a slightly different pharmaceutic giant than the one who would be rich otherwise.

That’s the thing that’s most notable about this situation: According to the anti-vaccine crowd, the vaccine is untested and only exists to enrich massive pharmaceutical companies — so we all have to take an untested drug created by one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in existence. Except there’s one notable difference, vaccines are based on long established science while this oral antiviral is not.

In response to my first article on the Merck drug, a Medium user named Joe Fisk wrote:

The first vaccine ever was created in 1798, meanwhile, there has never been an oral antiviral that has cured a virus throughout all of human history. The fact is, no matter what you think of the COVID-19 vaccine, the science behind it did not literally come out of nowhere — the science behind the Merck drug did.

Recently, two drug makers in India tried to test Molnupiravir, and it was so ineffective they had to end their trails early:

This raises another question: The study Merck used to justify use of Molnupiravir as a COVID-19 treatment also had to end early. At the time, the FDA said it was because the drug was so effective it just had to be on the market then and now. Yet, the very first attempt to replicate Merck’s study had to end early — but for the exact opposite reason. Was there a different reason as to why the Merck drug had to end testing early that we’re not being told?



Political Commentator; Follow My Twitter: @EphromJosine1

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store