He falsified his research. So that all other drugs would would look no good and Gilead Sciences could give you... Remdesivir!
Mustn’t let Moderna beat the Soros, Gates, Chicom consortium. Moderna might not agree to tracing markers in their vaccines.
Faux ii needs to take a long vacation.
Is there anyone who still cares at all what this guy has to say about anything at all?
The only thing he's not optimistic about is the one thing that's been on the market for 50 years, is super cheap, has been dispensed to millions without major side effects and the few that occur do so only after prolonged use, and is readily available. That one needs to be studied for a few years before we can consider it.
It's almost like he has an agenda...
Why should he be criticizing Moderna?
Is he a singer?
Can he do Crazy For You like Moderna?
I don’t think so.
Hmm, he had no problem touting Remdesivir. No conflicts there. Right Dr. Fauci. Gilead?
He falsified his research. So that all other drugs would would look no good and Gilead Sciences could give you... Remdesivir!
If we are going to find vaccines and antivirals at Warp Speed (aka Trump Time) we need to speed up the trials and peer reviews. There is a new kind of adaptive or Bayesian trial being used. I’d call it more information theory based as opposed to Statistics 101.
Textbook: https://www.amazon.com/Bayesian-Adaptive-Methods-Clinical-Biostatistics/dp/1439825483/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Bayesian+Adaptive+Methods+for+Clinical+Trials&qid=1591044889&sr=8-1
(You can probably find the pdf somewhere such as scribd)
The FDA recognises its advantages and recommends it. It is being used at MD Anderson, etc. https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download
One “aha!” insight that comes out of this paradigm shift is that you realise you dont know how many samples you need to have a given confidence of a positive effect in advance. It depends on the strength of the correlation, which is what you are trying to measure, but will become apparent as the data rolls in.
Moderna reported eight out of the first eight subjects whose antibodies have been assayed and tested so far had not just some antibodies, but neutralizing antibodies. That makes a fair estimate of the probability of the desired effect 256:1. Certainly > 128:1 or 99%
People like Fauci don’t get it. They still think you need to see all the enrolled subjects to learn anything no matter what results roll in., What a dinosaur.
And another thing, Warp speed requires speeding up peer review. Dinosaurs don’t want anything to happen unless they have been seen to study it at length, criticise it, and maybe deign to bless it.
Some of you saw the Plandemic video. It may not all be true but the part about Fauci stalling the research of a competing team so his crony (Gallo?) published first and the right people got credit rang true to me.