Monday, December 21, 2020

Sutton’s Law In Action

     As I age, I have more and more days when I feel I have nothing left to say that I haven’t said before, possibly many times. Today is such a day – and damn me, it’s not yet 4:30 in the morning. This is not the way I prefer to start the day.

     That might seem an odd introduction to an article of importance. Nevertheless it is an accurate picture of my mindset at this time. The reasons are not far to seek. They fall under this label, which is appallingly relevant to the national discourse and our current political and social crises.

     I have an immense admiration for Ann Barnhardt. She exhibits a degree of courage that American women should emulate, and should teach their daughters to emulate. She says things few others are willing to say – and she lives according to her expressed convictions.

     However, every now and then, Ann sidles up against the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. It often meshes with her passionate nature. Her most recent piece, which focuses on the commonly used drug Ivermectin and its possible efficacy against the Wuhan Virus, is relevant. Please read it all, as it contains information of potentially huge significance to Americans concerned about the WuFlu and what it could do to them.

     Now, I’m not a medical man. My knowledge of medical and pharmacological matters is so tiny as to be nonexistent. So I can say nothing of substance about Ivermectin or any other treatment currently being used, proposed, discussed, or dismissed with regard to the COVID-19 virus. I simply lack the expertise to say anything about any of them, and I refuse to allow superstitious reasoning to intrude on a subject of this importance.

     So: Stipulate that Ivermectin is an effective treatment and / or preventative for the Chinese Crud. Allow further that it’s cheap and safe, and has been widely used in the Third World for some time. Allow still further that a cheap, safe, common drug for combatting the WuFlu would not make as much money for the pharmaceutical companies as a brand new, patent protected, hideously expensive drug that only they could provide. Profit normally varies directly with price, even in industries as heavily regulated as pharmaceuticals.

     Does any of that imply that the pharmacorps are actively trying to suppress news about the effectiveness of Ivermectin? Or Hydroxychloroquine? Or whatever other drugs – remember, please, that I’m not a medical authority – that have been discussed as remedies or preventatives against COVID-19?

     I can’t see it. What it does imply is that the pharmacorps would see the more expensive drugs as better for their balance sheets. It would follow naturally that they would promote those drugs. They might even seek to have governments confer legal or regulatory advantages upon their new drugs. Sutton’s Law applies here as in innumerable comparable circumstances. But an a priori conspiracy is not necessary to explain their current behavior.

     Ann doesn’t quite say that there’s a conspiracy to suppress knowledge and availability of Ivermectin. She does anticipate such action – and let’s be quite frank: it is possible, especially given the potential utility of a brand-new drug available only from one or two sources as a tool of social and political control. Should it come to pass, it would be, just as Ann says, a monstrous crime against Mankind generally. But it’s not guaranteed to happen. It might never happen. Ann’s observations properly constitute an exhortation to be watchful, not a reason to break out the torches and pitchforks...though it can be said with much justice that we had ample reasons to muster those items long before this.

     A posteriori coordination that results from common motives is an easier explanation to substantiate than an express, a priori conspiracy. Awareness of such common motives provides a reason to be vigilant, but it falls short of a justification to indict. For further thoughts on the subject, I recommend this essay from April 2016, and perhaps a review of these other pieces on the general subject of conspiracy.


Linda Fox said...

What's interesting is that - finally - TPTB in Washington are beginning to admit that, oh year, HCL IS an effective drug in preventing/treating WuFlu.

Why are they doing that?

Could it be that the vaccine will neither be all that effective, or able to be produced in sufficient quantities to get those lazy Americans back to work? Could the economy be - finally - a concern to the Left/Harris-Biden administration?

The wonderful thing about our time is that conspiracy theorists have so much to work with.

Reg T said...

Two points: One, Ivermectin is what I used to give my draft horses to kill worms and other parasites. I don't recall the mechanism by which it killed them, but it certainly is possible it could somehow work on a virus.

Two, Dr. Fauci wears a mask that says, "NIH Research Keeps Us Safe". Which is incredible, because NIH published a paper March of 2020 (yeah, this year) stating the Hydroxychloroquine was effective against the CCP/Wuhan virus in vitro ( However - all of the researchers in the article are Chinese, and the research was done at the Wuhan facility.

So, all of Fausti - excuse me, Fauci's - claims that hydroxychloroquine was not viable against the virus, that there was no reason to think it would work, were lies. He knowingly lied about the potential of HCQ to treat the virus. And there are other studies as well, some done by the NIH itself back in 2006 and 2009 that indicated both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine could be effective.

Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

It may have cured a lung cancer a few years ago as well. Have a friend with pancreatic cancer using it based on this story in hopes it has the same effect.