FAUCI'S REMDESIVIR VS. PLACEBO. WHY NOT VS. HCQ?

Free Republic ^ | May 9, 2020 | Mean Old Hostage

[Hostage]

Ten Days ago, Anthony Fauci released 'INTERIM' results of his remdesivir clinical trial and touted its promising TREATMENT effect as "HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT". This sentence is 100% accurate as to what Anthony Fauci said and did but only an experienced clinical trial expert would see there are three gaping information toxins in the sentence that cast deep suspicion and they are in CAPS. I explain below.

The President barely mentioned remdiesvir in a subsequent task force meeting but he mentioned it. This was before the President discovered Fauci had diverted millions of US funds to the Wuhan Lab (possibly illegally). Lately the President has said the coronavirus task force would continue but it will be getting new people. Good move Mr. President.

The Administration also barred Fauci from testifying before the House of Representatives although he will appear before the US Senate. Again, good move Mr. President.

The President gave an incredibly revealing interview yesterday where among many subjects he said he's learned not to fire people presumably because the Deep State fallout isn't worth the time to get mired in. Let them have their Deep State 'Resistance', the Administration knows who they are and what they're up to.

So Fauci gets to keep his job. Maybe the Administration will assign him to a desk in a swampy basement somewhere.

Let's talk briefly about Fauci's remdesivir 'interim' release before discussing the important issue in the title of testing against Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Here is Fauci's April 29 NIH/NIAID press release:

NIH clinical trial shows Remdesivir accelerates recovery from advanced COVID-19
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-shows-remdesivir-accelerates-recovery-advanced-covid-19 This is a news release and blandly placed in it is the sentence:

"An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team"

Most won't know that an interim safety analysis is SOP for clinical trials. Many might wonder what's the big deal and ask so what?

Interim safety analysis is designed to make sure patients are not dying more from the trial treatment than expected. It's a decision point. IT IS NOT A SALES PROMOTION EVENT.

Let me drive the point home using an analogy that most everyone can understand.

Two poker players face off in a poker match. Not much is known about their track records. Their talent will be assessed by counting wins and losses over one hundred outcomes ignoring draws.

In the first five games with win/loss outcome, Player A takes three wins while Player B takes two wins.

The Poker Palace hosting the match announces to the local fake news that Player A is performing 50% better than Player B and is "HIGHLY EXPECTED" to win the match (note: the Palace is drawing a conclusion from five game outcomes in a match that will cover one hundred win/loss outcomes).

The fans standing behind Player A see their player has taken the first three of five wins and they remark their player is such a card shark. They giggle as their stock surges. Thank you NIH for the stock boost!

The Palace's statement is supposed to focus on how the players are prevented from cheating and what security measures were in place to prevent any bias in favor of one player over the other. Let's assume the playing field is fair, there is no cheating, no stacked decks, etc. The interim analysis tells us all is well.

Digressing briefly, the remdesivir trial will involve 1063 hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19. Why are only five game outcomes included in the above analogy? Because this was an interim safety check of patients who had been discharged. How many of the 1063 enrolled were discharged was not reported. Reading the news release carefully how different centers joined over time, it's safe to say there weren't many outcomes in this 'interim' safety check analysis. It's a given that there remain many patients still hospitalized at the time of the release. But we note these important numbers are not in the NIH 'News Release' which appears more a Fauci promotion of a drug his circle has a vested interest in.

Let's expound a little on that latter point before returning to the poker game analogy. Look at this statement in the NIH news release:

As part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s commitment to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments, the agency has been engaged in sustained and ongoing discussions with Gilead Sciences regarding making remdesivir available to patients as quickly as possible, as appropriate.

In effect, the Palace is pulling out all stops for Player A who is unknown with no track record of success.

To be fair, NIH does state the following:

This trial was an adaptive trial designed to incorporate additional investigative treatments.

Yeah, sure. Where's HCQ + Zn + Zpak? Note the statement says "This trial" and not 'other trials'.

Let's return to the Poker game. One may ask "Well Mr. Mean Old Hostage, why did you use only five game outcomes and not more"?

Ok, let's say Player A takes six wins out of ten. Is it fair and appropriate to say Player A is a card shark and to broadcast Player A is 'Highly Successful'?

Let's say we do our security check at the point of 20 wins. Say we see Player B has closed the gap and takes ten wins? Or say Player A takes thirteen wins out of twenty? Still this is operating in the 'luck of the draw' territory and that's why we go all the way to one hundred wins before drawing a 'statistically significant' conclusion (if one exists). We don't state "Highly Significant" results based on a small number of wins where the number is hidden from us. We will be testing for a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT result over an adequately powered match.

Let's say at the end of the match, Player A has taken 62 wins to Player B's 38 wins and we find a statistically significant test result.

Shall we tout Player A as a card shark over Player B who is in essence a nothing-burger?

Most would say Player A is not talented enough to entrust one's life savings and investments. Let's instead find another player that gives more confidence.

Enter Player C who has an unofficial track record of taking more than 90 wins in a hundred win match.

Why didn't Fauci seat Player C at the table?

Imagine for a moment you are one of the advanced COVID-19 hospitalized patients. A hospital administrator comes up to you and offers benefits to your stay if you enroll in a clinical trial.

You ask "what's this trial about"? You are told it's about a new experimental treatment versus placebo. You ask "what's a placebo"? You are told it's kind of a fake thing. You say you feel like you're dying and would consent to the new drug but you are told "no can do" because a wheel is spun to see if you go in the drug or placebo groups (randomized). You are also told you won't know which group you are in, you will be blind from knowing. And further, your doctor won't know which group you are assigned because the doctor is also kept blind from knowing (double blind).

You say you are confused and uncertain. If it was me I would step down from my elite professional PhD experience of high and mighty snobbery and snarkiness and I would shout "EFF THAT SH*T!". I'm dying, I want the best chance at living!

Then someone named HCQ sneaks into your ward and tells you there's a treatment that has cured thousands even when they were sure they were within hours of death. We can imagine hospital security is called to eject this HCQ person from the hospital. A Fauci drone steps in and assures you this HCQ person is only peddling snake oil and any results of said oil are unofficial and anecdotal.

The answer to the question in the title of this thread is:

BECAUSE REMDESIVIR MIGHT LOSE THE POKER MATCH.

[Hostage]

Today, I am going to defy Governor Inslee's lockdown and drive to the most amazing, beautiful, pristine 'Olympic Rain Shadow' coastline and scout out some incredibly gorgeous coastal acreage.

In the meantime, I will leave all those who are curious about Monsieur Fauci with this:

Fauci’s love affair with the Witch:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3842797/posts?page=52#52

[Revel]

Look at who is conducting and controlling these Trails. They are all rigged.

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

It is not just the medication that is rigged it is the ENTIRE virus numbers, fatality numbers, the whole damn thing is a HOAX!!

[Paladin2]

Remdesivir’s performance underwhelms despite Fauxcy’s enthusiastic recommendations.

It may well be better on late application than HCQ/Zn.

No reason not to not both as appropriate.

[ghostkatz]

Remdesivir is under a PATENT = $$$$$$$/dose HCQ is NOT under patent = Pennies/dose.

And THEY really rather You die !

[epluribus_2]

2 or more billion rea$ons.

[SecAmndmt]

Fauci is promoting unethical medicine when he alleges that we need more trials. The ICU experts (conventional, not “quacks”) at the US Senate hearing said that this protocol:

1. Corticosteroids
2. IV vitamin C
3. Heparin

...gets just about everyone off the oxygen, on their feet and discharged.

I can only conclude that Fauci wants more dead bodies.

[Paladin2]

Remdesivir’s performance underwhelms despite Fauxcy’s enthusiastic recommendations.

It may well be better on late application than HCQ/Zn.

No reason not to use both as appropriate.

[WellyP]

REMDESIVIR $800 - 1000 a dose vs Dr. Zelenko’s hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc cocktail that has worked for $20.00! Faucci doesn’t want to find out because there’s NO MONEY IN IT, developing a vaccine wouldn’t be profitable. REMDESIVIR... CHINESE HOLD THE PATTERN BUT Gilead Sciences’ (NASDAQ: GILD) experimental antiviral drug remdesivir appears to have been unsuccessful in treating COVID-19 in a late-stage study conducted by the Chinese government. The World Health Organization (WHO) inadvertently posted a summary of results from the study on its website on Thursday before quickly removing the information. That summary stated that “remdesivir was not associated with clinical or virological benefits.”

Premature conclusions? https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/gileads-remdesivir-reportedly-flopped-in-chinese-covid-19-study-2020-04-23

[G Larry]

Because they insist on testing HCQ alone and then pretend its ineffective...

Nobody gets rich off of HCQ so they refuse to officially test the HCQ, Zpack, Zinc protocol.

Fauci and all of the "top docs" have a vested interest in more lucrative alternatives.

[null and void]

Fauci can't get kickbacks from an off-patent cheap generic...

Bring Out Your Dead

Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.

The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.

The false positive rate was 100%.

At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.

*sigh* Such is life, and death...

If a quarantine saves just one child's or one old fart’s life, it's worth it.

[bgill]

Follow the $$$$$.

That old fart has enough money.

[FormerFRLurker]

When you said Fauci had a love affair with Killary I thought you meant it literally. I have to clean the barf off my screen now.

[dadfly]

i can add one real data point to this discussion. a group at stanford hospital participated in the trial of remdesivir and had a positive report on it in a placebo controlled study.

i trust the result at stanford because they have the basic research and testing infrastructure to verify a drug’s effectiveness.

they also concluded that it wasn’t, however, a “panacea.” it is also an iv only drug and so can’t be given at home.

having read the basic invitro research on both HCQ and remdesivir and i would definitely opt to try HCQ first, even with hypertension, as imo HCQ looks to be less direct in it’s interference with normal cell function, as well as being a proven viral treatment.

if i wasn’t responding to HCQ-plus treatment, i’d then try remsidivir, through, based on the stanford study, not the chinese or fauci.

btw, good poker analogy.

[yoe]

the following YouTube video was sent to me by several Arizona Legislators (05/06/2020). Since receiving this video briefing, the same has been released for immediate and wide-spread distribution. This is a MUST SEE briefing, and I would recommend soon before it is taken down (Video has already has been taken down in several places). Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ex-employee and noted bio-researcher, was jailed and professionally ruined for what you are about to learn. Fauci has much to answer for, and steadily physicians and sophisticated researchers are coming forward to reveal the conspiracy we just experienced with this COVID-19 attack. WAKE-UP America, we are being led into a medical paradigm that is being used to collapse the U.S. economy and constitutional form of government."

Scroll down...if window is black, click on it.

(Follow the $$$$$)

[5by5]

Remdesivir “ works” but not very well. Its NNT or number needed to treat, a measure of absolute risk reduction, is 28. That means you must treat 28 people to prevent one death.

It interferes with viral replication in the cells (like HCQ), so it might work better if administered early, but it’s an IV drug so it’s useless unless the patient is in a hospital.

Upshot, it’s helpful but hardly a game changer. And for the price of one course of treatment you could treat all the patients and healthcare providers in an entire hospital with HCQ+Zn+Az.

[joshua c]

Big Pharma Fauci

[spacejunkie2001]

exactly, the whole thing is a big joke. Now it makes me sick to hear people talking about opening slowly with all these precautions. It’s a total meaningless game, to see if we’ll blindly follow along. Which we are.

[a fool in paradise]

It must suck to have a possibly fatal disease that gives you only a couple of weeks and to be given placebo.

It happened to someone with Ebola in America too.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The IV administration might not be a very high hurdle to get over. Plenty of IV drugs are administered outside of hospitals. Unless remdesivir is particularly dangerous and needs a hospital for emergency backup, it could be administered by nurses at clinics (even pop-up clinics in parking lots).

The price of drugs used to treat rare diseases tends to be higher than that for those used to treat common diseases (other things being equal) — it’s a matter of amortizing the R&D costs over more patients. Governments and insurance companies should do some tough negotiations over price, before submitting orders for millions of doses. The prices should be reduced in proportion to the amount that demand increases.