Posted on 05/08/2020 9:07:54 AM PDT by 1066AD
I didn’t know Gilead had a vaccine. Have you got a link?
Remdesivir, this must be the most expensive of the many drugs being touted.
Look if remdesivir is the real deal awesome. hCQ for moderate cases. Remdesivir for when it’s going to hell. Looks like we have two good treatments. Open sh*t up now
That’s right.
And the difference between us and the TDS cases is that we’re agnostic on therapies and cures.
If it works, great. Use everything in the arsenal. Remdesivir works? Cool! Let’s rock...
Because that’s a joke to the many many many billions they will make off of this.
Are his kidneys and liver still working?
Here’s the link at the bottom of the press release you posted:
https://shineonlinehealth.com/remdesivir-covid-19
Here’s a statement from that link:
“But with a vaccine still months away and anti-virals like Remdesivir early in the research phase, the age-old method of treating the sickest patients with the antibodies of a recovered patient, or convalescent, is popular again.”
Now replace the phrase “months away” with “years away” and I would endorse such statement as accurate.
But there’s another component not mentioned in the previous cheek kiss:
“Some of these patients may end up having convalescent plasma as a last resort if they fail the drug trial,” Dr. Roush says.”
“Convalescent plasma therapy depends on the supply of antibody-rich plasma, the liquid part of blood. Early on, there weren’t nearly enough immune blood donors to meet the demand.”
So there are two experimental therapies going on at this center.
If one were to replace everywhere in this PR piece the terms ‘remdesivir’ and ‘convalescent plasma therapy’ with ‘hydroxychloroquine combination therapy’ AND there were no other reports on such HCQ therapy or sparse reports with similar scant information, I would summarize HCQ combination results are ANECDOTAL. I would be fair.
But HCQ combination therapy has now thousands upon thousands of success stories, with data summarized in tables and subjected to statistical test procedures. Such evidence is beyond anecdotal.
Whereas remdesivir continues to be slipped into these murky ‘promising’ softball pieces as a sort of ‘keep-it-alive’ campaign.
But what really stinks is the Fauci involvement as the link above writes:
“Remdesivir recently made headlines after a government trial released preliminary, but “highly significant,” results showing a “clear-cut” benefit to patients, according to Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”
There were no such results and “highly significant” does not mean “statistically significant”. There is an enormous difference and scientists know well the difference. Fauci failing to use “statistically significant” to describe a touted remdesivir study means there’s is nothing a medical journal will publish. In other words, it’s as good as garbage but the polite term would be ‘hopeful’, yeah hopeful to those holding Gilead stock options.
I’m sorry but I know the field well and have disciplined those that take their science hats off and put on their sales hats.
The remdesivir data summaries are nowhere to be found.
The fact that Dr. Parvez Mantry is quoted to say the following without data tables reveals he doesn’t have the goods:
“We have seen a remarkable degree of improvement in the majority of patients using Remdesivir,” Dr. Mantry said.
“We were able to treat a lot of them successfully, and fortunately a lot of them have been discharged home back to their families,” said Dr. Mantry.
Show the data results dammit! And stop acting like used car salesmen!
They don’t have it, they had to get an assist from CBS to spread the ‘story’.
A very appropriate question to ask Mantry is why are you excluding HCQ combination therapy given its success and instead focusing on remdesivir and convalescent plasma therapy?
To Mantry, I would challenge him, why are you doing these two thereapies and not a third therapy that has shown very high success rates in thousands of hospitalized patients many of whom were dying yet recovered?
Challenging scientists is par for the course.
You get them into a conference where everyone checks their egos at the door.
You give them a remote caster or slide projector and when everyone is seated, you listen to the scientist report and there better not be any bullsh*t.
Then comes Q & A and it is deadly serious.
I see none of that in the remdesivir sphere. That’s why I get pissed at these ‘stories’ as a waste of time and that’s shared by all serious researchers who have been in the field. You simply do not waste the time of serious researchers unless you are looking for feedback and design assist.
What I see are Gilead employees with stock options dance with their Wall St. maestros whenever a puff piece hits the financial press causing the stock to surge. There are ample financial press stories to demonstrate this. You should be able to find examples within a minute of internet search.
The problem for the Gilead boys and girls is the success of HCQ combination therapy has peed in their cornflakes. But not to fear, the fake news is trotted out to run a campaign of hit pieces against HCQ.
So it’s not about science. It’s about detestable politics with slimy characters like Fauci as headpiece to their scam routine. And why has Fauci sold out? He has patents and he’s kissing the a$$ of Billy Boy Gates.
Apologies for the colorful language but it’s what happens in real world science unless you have people like Fauci who fawn over liars like Hillary Clinton.
Fauci’s love afair with the Witch:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3842797/posts?page=52#52
Remdessivir is Gilead’s ‘Rosemary’s Baby’, they own it.
There are aholes in the world I am sorry to say and Gilead has more than their share and seems to promote it.
Study Reveals Most Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Survive with Standard Treatment
I am not opposed to Rem if it turns out to be a really great drug. That would be awesome. Many antivirals are. Acyclovir is great for Shingles. But from what I have read the benefits are only marginal. The problem is how quickly they squashed any perception of HCQ being even remotely viable. The media kept beating on the "cardiac problems" when this drug has been around for 50+ years and is used throughout the world. The media-Deep State complex wants to see a "defeat" for Trump and the "health experts", many of whom are invested in Gilead", want to see Gilead's stock rise.
That study is a small baseline study of 66 COVID-19 patients with awful COVID-19 fatality rates (16.7%).
Page 5 of:
https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1163LE
Prelim perspective:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3842971/posts?page=25#25
You’re welcome.
Question. If this COVID is so dangerous then why are there so many things that seem to cure it?
> “why are there so many things that seem to cure it?”
$$$
And your choice of words “seem to” is a good one.
But HCQ combination therapy is not part of the $$$ scramble. It’s dirt cheap and has been around since before most of were born.
There already was a large scale, double blind, study done to prove its effectiveness. It was all over the news last week.
Yes, I’m aware of that. My comment was addressing the disparate media treatment of remdesivir stories and stories written about Hydroxychloroquine.
“Question. If this COVID is so dangerous then why are there so many things that seem to cure it?”
China didn’t design it to be an outright killer.
They designed it to incapacitate by making people too sick to fight or go for a soft kill (destroy economy, etc).
That NIH remdesivir trial is still ongoing. Its press release was for ‘interim analysis results’ as the safety monitoring group assesses safety at various trial time points.
Interim analyses are not conclusive. It is HIGHLY UNUSUAL to publicize interim results for treatment because interim samples can be too small. Although the trial involves over a 1000 patients, the number of patients reaching recovery is unknown. Performing statistical tests on unknown small samples to tout success borders on scientific misconduct. Safety assessment uses a statistical test mode that is appropriate for interim checks.
The trial began Feb 21, the interim results obtained Apr 27. The 1000+ patients were not all ready to go on Feb 21, they streamed in over time, enrolled day by day. Not all COVID patients will agree and sign a consent form. This is true for any trial.
The Apr 27 results were not based on data collected on Apr 27. They were likely collected a week before.
Late phase clinical trials typically take a year to several years. This trial and others are supposedly running at ‘warp speed’ which has neem done before during the Clinton presidency with disastrous effects. 7 drugs fast tracked ended up killing large groups of people. Those drugs were pulled from the market.
Gilead’s remdesivir has not been thoroughly safety tested. It’s ‘warp speed’ trial approval should require intense monitoring for safety. I don’t like it.
Fauci was shrewd enough to not use the descriptor phrase ‘statistically significant’ treatment effect regarding the unknown interim numbers. That would discredit him.
But what he did do was show bias which is unacceptable in science. He described the interim results as “highly significant” which is meaningless.. It is meaningless because no reputable science journal would publish results with such ‘sales talk’. It’s almost as if Fauci was whistling to Gates, Tedros of the WHO and others who fancy themselves as honchos in the global health circle. In fact, I am convinced that whistling is what he was doing.
Amazing Polly does quality deep background research on various people in positions of power, in this case those that are set up to run global health however they got there or are controlled. She reveals the globalist health bureaucrats and their unelected masters whose only qualification is lots of money and ability to steer tax payer funds (in the non-Trump era). The Fauci-Tedros-Gates axis is unimpressive and actually dangerous. She gets people informed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5VYqJqrtI
Fauci’s NIH/NIAID remdesivir assessment is a clinical trial and not an observational study, prospective or retrospective.
Clinical trials can go one way and then the opposite way over the course of time.
Calling out “highly significant promising breakthrough success!” and other such nonsense for interim results is like forecasting the first game of a World Series where one team is up one run, say 3 runs to 2 runs and reporting the team currently ahead is 50% more successful and is ‘highly expected’ to win the series.
Ridiculous.
And Fauci’s people know it. The release by Fauci’s NIH/NIAID mentions an independent safety monitoring team. Fauci is not a straight shooter. As lead honcho/organizer/referee of sorts for Gilead’s remdesivir, with all the conflicts of interest documented, his independent monitoring team is likely about as objective as Roger Stone’s Florida jury.
Now contrast that with results of HCQ combination therapy.
First, if I or anyone with serious experience saw one trial of HCQ therapy produce interim results that Fauci’s trial of remdesivir just produced (and by the way they are not reporting the interim data summaries), I would tell the HCQ doctors to cease and desist the cheerleading because with my experience an interim result is a snapshot in time that means nothing to treatment effect.* It is only done for purposes of safety which is why the independent group doing the interim check is called the data safety monitoring group. They report if a treatment is doing harm and the lead investigator will close down the trial if unsafe results are found or may continue a while longer if the numbers are small or other conditions explain the negative results.
* Unless 90+ % patients are assessed to immediately resolve and survive.
So need to be fair. HCQ must be treated the same way as any other drug including remdesivir.
But there are a few things going for HCQ combo Tx (Tx = treatment).
First it is safe. The safety profile of HCQ and its cousins have been known since 1955. It is as safe as aspirin. Look at the safety profile of aspirin on WebMD and you will see severe side effects of aspirin are seizures, shortness of breath, etc. Pretty scary except such side effects are rare and so are the severe side effects of HCQ.
Second, the success rate of HCQ is so high that it is in a category of cure.
There have been some garbage propaganda fake studies purported to involve HCQ but they are scama. In one report, 11 patients were afflicted with severe comorbidities (other illnesses like severe heart disease) and ended up not responding to HCQ, they died of heart disease and would have regardless. Their condition was so bad they would not have responded to anything. The VA study was the same.
There has been an organized effort to discredit HCQ through garbage reports. It has angered me. It is pure scientific misconduct.
When a treatment success is so high as to be a cure, an MD in charge of the trial has the authority to call off the trial and switch all patients over to the successful Tx.
Zelenko of NY is getting ready to start an FDA approved randomized clinical trial any day now. So far his observational results are so promising and his explanation of the mechanism of action is so clear, that the clinical trial will serve only to formalize and make permanent the known benefits of HCQ + Zn + Zpak in treating COVID-19.
Zelenko will likely not be using placebo because it would be malpractice. There could be a gaggle of patients who refuse HCQ therapy and will go with standard of care for respiratory problems using for example oxygen ventilation. If they deteriorate, they may opt in to the HCQ therapy but will not be counted.
Zelenko’s randomization will likely involve groups at different stages, groups that are symptomatic and asymptomatic, groups testing positive that are treated but asymptomatic vs untreated and asymptomatic, and so on.
The success in his HCQ observational study makes it hard to design a treatment group vs. a placebo group.
I wondered about Fauci’s NIAID remdesivir trial, why he didn’t randomize patients to a remdesivir group vs. a HCQ group. This to me is a red flag. he could do it as HCQ has long since expired its patent and is generic.
Was Gilead afraid remdesivir would be eclipsed by HCQ? I think that’s the case.
Hospitalized patients testing positive for COVID-19 are likely to die depending on their stage. To enroll them in a remdesivir clinical trial and be given a placebo in light of HCQ reported success is insensitive, biased, malpractice.
Fauci’s trial should have been randomized remdesivir vs. HCQ. It could be double blinded by arranging a placebo IV with a pill treatment regimen vs. a treatment IV vs. a placebo pill regimen.
But Fauci did not do that because frankly I think he’s a hack, a groupie, a flying monkey for the Gates eugenicist crowd who think the problems of this world are due to overpopulation, for example Climate Change, who think we are expendable and our existence is what is disturbing to the health of Gaia, Molech, and so on.
Zelenko cannot do a randomized trial of HCQ vs. remdesivir because Gilead will not allow him to test remdesivir against HCQ.
But Fauci could have done it,
If I had Fauci at the conference table you better believe I would grill him and not let him evade. And I’d be very professional about it while evoking the truth of what he’s about. But I’m sure he’d walk out because he’s ‘Fauci’ whatever the hell that means. I’d like to know who let this guy rise through the ranks in the NIH. I am told he hasn’t seen a patient in 30 years. But he’s been with the Gates crowd going on 20 years. Something’s wrong with this boy.
Fauci’s love afair with the Witch:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3842797/posts?page=52#52
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.