[T]he drug is only useful for those who are likely to recover anyway, with or without remdesivir.William Haseltine in Forbes
In an article called "Remdesivir revealed," William Haseltine says the latest study results on the IV medicine for coronavirus treatment are not living up to the hype.
Watch the Full Measure no spin investigation on hydroxycholoroquine and remdesivir.
According to Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, the conclusions from the National Institutes of Health study published in The New England Journal of Medicine contain numerous "problems."
First, he says the study is not definitive and has "scant data."
Second, he says the results show remdesivir only helped patients who were moderately ill and likely to recover, anyway, with or without remdesivir.
Haseltine points out that a separate, large study of remdesivir was ended midstream before results could be obtained, and that Gilead has suspended smaller trials before they finished.
The data here and in another published study shows the drug has no measurable effect in patients with serious disease.Haseltine in Forbes
Read the full article by clicking the link below:
Heather K says
Physician friend has only used this on one "moderately" effected patient with no comorbidities. Within 24 hours the patient had full hepatic failure.
Meanwhile, here is an example of what is going on in hydroxychloroquine research:
Ralf Hülsmann says
The link mentioned here is outdated. The Chinese study with the "bad results" was canceled due to a lack of patients (the disease stopped in China), so it cannot be used.
Here is the original study from the news of the past few days:
My personal summary:
Significant reduction in the duration of the illness across all patients (Remdesivir 11 days compared to placebo 15 days)!
Overall, a high proportion of critically ill patients in the entire patient group (197 patients with non-invasive ventilation or high oxygen demand / 272 patients with invasive ventilation or ECMO). So 469 patients out of a total of 1036 patients. See Table 1 below.
Death rate remdesivir group 7.1% compared to placebo group 11.9% not significant. But i think good under the above conditions. Other studies have shown that over 50% of ventilated patients die.
Best effectiveness in the group of moderately ill patients (group C with oxygen treatment, but without ventilation, look to Figure 2.)
So let us give Remdesivir earlier before the Patient needs ventilation and the intensive care unit. Before the point of no return is reached. Then we will have fewer deaths. Seen in this way, it is a drug for a lot more patients.
Clearly you didn't read this or the Forbes article.
The actual doctor who wrote the Forbes article is critiquing and questioning the very study you are saying he isn't talking about. He even explains, which you conveniently say was canceled strangely, that the Lancet study actually aligns with the results in the new NEM study, while the NEM study makes arbitrary remarks, which he lays bare in his questioning, that brings into question the overall efficacy of the drug. Your personal remarks actually reinforce the argument against rems because it still doesn't change the fact that patients have to be in the hospital getting it intravenously, while it shows no real effect in anything(regardless of when it's given), and doesn't actually negate the fatality rate, or impact the viral load greatly, of this very same cohort of patients.
We're paying millions in tax dollars to these people for a drug that does nothing.
What's this really about that this game has to be played for folks like you here?! I have a feeling none of the answers will be good. You seem like an astroturfer in the comment section.
It's impossible to say what will or won't work in the political arena these drugs are being tested, so hopefully, I myself, hope to avoid contracting the disease. I find it hard to trust any one report these days. Good luck to us all.