Cooking the books on Remdesivir?

changing metrics in mid study

The recent approval of remdesivir as the standard of care for Covid-19 does not mean what people think.

Initially, success was defined by reduction in deaths and morbidity, but in mid-study, that was changed to time of hospitalization. Getting people out of the hospital solves the government’s problem, but it does not solve mine.

FWIW, were I dictating my own treatment based on what I have read so far, it would be:

  • Convalescent plasma and hydroxychloroquine starting as soon as diagnosed. Monitoring of prothrombin time and anticoagulants if indicated.
  • At the first sign of cytokine storm, Interlukin-6 antagonists and doxycycline for prevention of bacterial infection
  • Oxygen with nitric oxide and positional rotation for breathing assistance
  • ventilation as a last resort, along with external oxygenation(heart lung machine) mostly because it’s better to die in a medically induced coma than gasping for your last breath.

3 thoughts on “Cooking the books on Remdesivir?

  1. Interesting.

    If you were to trace the decisions back to the source, whom do you suppose made the decision to “cook the books” on this trial?

    Also, is it time to check who in the government has been buying Gilead stock? Richard Burr, maybe?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. We’ve had several supposed “game changers”.

    HCQ, Zinc, a flu drug, Remsdesivir.

    None are panning out except for minor effects on some people in certain circumstances.

    I think the reality is that an effective vaccine is the only way to to get back to a better “new normal”.

    If this takes another 6 months to a year, we may have to rethink economics. Current thinking is that a healthy economy is based on growth, competition and consumers that have buying power.

    I think we are losing all three except for a temporary guaranteed income for some people for a few months. And that is just to sustain existing shelter and for food.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Reduction in recovery time has been one of many clinical trials primary objectives from the onset. It hasn’t been promoted as the “knockout” drug that WaPo suggests in the story but an effective therapy, at least as I know and I own gilead stock. Substantially increasing sample size and focusing on recovery metrics to gain a better understanding of any positive outcomes is a good thing.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s