Ever read that super thin super small packing insert in your prescriptions closely?
I urge you to look at Section 12 on the insert for all of your prescriptions.
I have a skin issue that the dermatologist has diagnosed as eczema that has been causing me problems for about the last 18 months. On my most recent visit, she suggested we try a medication (named Vtama) that currently is in phase III clinical trials for eczema (data is looking good), It is currently FDA approved for Psoriasis. It comes in a cream form. She game me some samples that are in the tiniest tubes that I have ever seen. The packaging machine for these tubes must be an engineering marvel. A full 60 gram tube retails for a cool $1,327 dollars at Winn-Dixie according to GoodRx.
Of course there is a coupon on the manufacturer’s website that helps you secure a tube for $75 if you can read the fine print and find a pharmacist that can properly enter the codes required once your insurance company say “No Way Jose”.
All of this got me to thinking this stuff must be amazing to sell for that price and surely, they have full knowledge of the mechanism of action that brings about such wonderful results. That would be a really bad conclusion though.
You see, when you read the papyrus thin packaging insert inside the box holding a microscopic tube, and head right to Item 12 entitled Clinical Pharmacology you expect the truth and for those interested, YES, I can handle the TRUTH. In the case of Vtama, Section 12.1 Mechanism of Action has a bunch of gobbledygook before getting to the punchline: The specific mechanisms by which Vtama exerts its therapeutic action in psoriasis patients are unknown. So there you have it, we have data that shows it works some how, we just do know how. Now shell out the money.
We it is a new medication (approved in late 2022) so maybe a more established drug would have a better understood mechanism. So I tested my theory on a medication that I had ben using (provided no relief) previously called Eucrisa, brought to you be those nice folks at Pfizer. Eucrisa (an ointment), if it worked would be a relative bargain selling for a cool $737 at Winn-Dixie. So once again I head to Item 12 and after wading through the gobbledygook I was surprised to read: The specific mechanism(s) by which crisaborole exerts its therapeutic action for the treatment of atopic dermatitis is not well defined. Well, that not well defined mechanism, certainly didn’t work for me, Pfizer, but FDA approved it so I am sure it works for somebody. At least they submitted data that “proved” that it worked, mechanism be damned.
Okay, so I was 0-2 in identifying how exactly the medicines work. But surely before the FDA gave a EUS to Paxlovid, the knew how it worked right? Well maybe. Here is section 12.1 of the packaging insert which is buried away on the web.
12.1 Mechanism of Action
Nirmatrelvir is a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral drug [see Microbiology (12.4)].
Ritonavir is an HIV-1 protease inhibitor but is not active against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. Ritonavir inhibits the CYP3A-mediated metabolism of nirmatrelvir, resulting in increased plasma concentrations of nirmatrelvir.
Based on the “success” of Paxlovid (particularly the rebound effect), I am not so sure the first compound’s mechanism of action is well understood, but, you can still get that for free so at least you aren’t paying for something that doesn’t work.
Which brings me back to why I originally wrote this article. This exercise highlights the sheer lunacy of the anti HCQ and anti Ivermectin folks which included a large portion of the medical establishment that had been brainwashed (or greenwashed in some cases) by the health authorities I recall early on when there antidotal stories coming in about HCQ and IVM working on covid infected patients that the establishment’s first criticism being “we don’t know how it works” so it doesn’t work.
That is when I knew the fix was in. When more success stories came in, they started on the “we need the gold standard (RCT) to prove it works. Finally they performed their own “studies” that were designed to fail (start too late to have an impact, used too low dose or in the case of HCQ too high) to support their narrative that it doesn’t work or even worse it actually harms people. Their sole mission was to ensure that lots of money would be made for the healthcare industrial complex. And it worked.