Replies

> “They were literally at deaths door prior to getting that drug.”

You know the NEJM is a very respectable journal and I give you credit for providing its link.

But it’s too bad you don’t know how to read a scientific report.

No, the patient wasn’t “literally at deaths door”. Here’s what NEJM reports which you obviously did not read:

“On admission, the patient reported persistent dry cough and a 2-day history of nausea and vomiting; he reported that he had no shortness of breath or chest pain. Vital signs were within normal ranges. On physical examination, the patient was found to have dry mucous membranes. The remainder of the examination was generally unremarkable. After admission, the patient received supportive care, including 2 liters of normal saline and ondansetron for nausea.”

And no, the novel drug administered was not conclusive as an effective treatment.

“Given the radiographic findings, the decision to administer oxygen supplementation, the patient’s ongoing fevers, the persistent positive 2019-nCoV RNA at multiple sites, and published reports of the development of severe pneumonia3,4 at a period consistent with the development of radiographic pneumonia in this patient, clinicians pursued compassionate use of an investigational antiviral therapy. Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug in development10,11) was initiated on the evening of day 7, and no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion.”

The most that was concluded regarding treatment with remdesivir for this one case is there were “no adverse events observed.”

Next time when you pull something off the internet, try reading it first and if you have trouble understanding or interpreting its content, feel free to provide the link to me and I will gladly provide feedback on its relevance and importance. Yes, I am a retired editor and authority from the Hutch for scientific journals including medical journals.