As reported above, one of the main concerns for development of Ivermectin related drugs was that the return on investment was inevitably low. If Vagelos refused Campbell’s research proposal, that would destroy Merck’s company philosophy – “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people, it is not for profits.” and the company’s morale (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). Alternatively, the decision to proceed with the Ivermectin drug could cause adverse health effects when used on humans, causing negative results with regards to the veterinary counterpart of Ivermectin. It should be noted that in earlier test results, Ivermectin had varied results with specific species of mammals. Dr. Brian Duke has stated that “There is always a worry that some race of sub-section of the human population might be adversely affected.” (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). There are also a series of questions that are raised when the drug is released in third world countries, like traces of the drug showing up in foods, the human version of Ivermectin being deflected into the black market, or could the drug hurt specific species of animals in unknown ways? These are just some of the main concerns for not releasing the ivermectin drug against releasing the Ivermectin drug to the public.
Merck, in 1978 was one of the largest producers for prescription drugs in the world, with origins in Germany and with three hundred years of history. Even with Merck’s background history, producing a new drug was very costly and many risks are involved when creating a new drug. On average, new drugs will take 12 years and approximately $200 million to deliver to the market, not to mention the labour cost of thousands of scientists (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). By introducing this new drug to the market, it will adversely affect Merck in terms of