wiki - dictionary - home

Hydroxychloroquine V Remdesivir (General)

by dulan drift, Wednesday, February 03, 2021, 11:15 (24 days ago)

There's something fishy going on here. Hydroxy was touted as a possible cure in the early stages - which would have been great coz it's cheap and already had regulatory approval.

But then Lancet (the same Science journal that published Daszak's scientists' petition saying China was "open and transparent"), published a paper stating that Hydroxy resulted in increased death.

The paper was 'peer reviewed'. The publication of this paper resulted in Hydroxy being withdrawn from use and further trials stopped.

In its place Remdesivir, developed by WIV/EcoHealth scientists (including Batwoman and Batman) was promoted as the drug of choice.

Following a lot of pressure from doctors, Lancet was forced to retract the Hydroxy study, which was a blatant fraud, but by then the damage was done. To this day, anyone who says 'Hang on, maybe Hydroxy is worth a look' get's the full conspiracy theorist name-calling treatment.

There was a good example of that in Australia today:

A politician, Craig Kelly, who dared suggest Hydroxy might actually be effective was howled down in parliament as "dangerous and irresponsible", a "dangerous fool", "persisting in disseminating misinformation concerning COVID-19" (Dr Karen Price), "a crackpot", "a dangerous menace and a threat to the nation’s COVID response" (Mark Butler), "hare-brained" (Dr. Michael Gannon), a spreader of "crazy conspiracy theories" and "a nong" (Tanya Plibersek).

Those hurling the insults included various presidents of Australia's peak health bodies as well as politicians. None of them addressed what the guy actually said - which seems to be typical of this kind of over-the-top cancel-culture reaction.

Here's the thing - Kelly's crime was to relay the findings of Australian immunologist, Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy of the University of Newcastle who reported that "evidence showed hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were safe and should be used."

As with the Origins question, the more the experts resort to hysterical name-calling, the more curious it makes me as to what they might be hiding.

Remdesivir - Daszak - Shi

by dulan drift, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 17:13 (23 days ago) @ dulan drift

Peter Daszak:

"We (EcoHealth-Daszak) worked with the scientists (WIV-Shi) behind the breakthrough drug Remdesivir to show that it was effective against known human coronaviruses and the viruses we suspected might be the next to emerge. We raised the red flag on these viruses and pointed out their potential to cause the next pandemic."

So, you discovered - through GoF experiments - a drug - that not only showed efficacy against the virus you were genetically altering - but also became the go-to therapeutic for Covid? Good job! What are the odds?! You hit upon the 1 in 1.7 mil (undiscovered viruses - which are perpetually evolving) jackpot right there in downtown Wuhan?! Right where the outbreak would coincidentally happen. That's pure genius. What incredible foresight!

Guessing a shit load of money went down with that there Remdesivir deal - coincidentally - trust you got your just desserts Dazza - for your heroic efforts?

Was it stock, a retainer deal, EcoHealth funding...?

Or just the goodness of your heart?

Remdesivir - side effects

by dulan drift, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 20:50 (23 days ago) @ dulan drift

Results from an ongoing phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

"Adverse events occurred at similar rates in both groups: 70% in the 5-day group and 74% in the 10-day group. The most common side effects included nausea (9%); worsening respiratory failure (8%); elevated alanine aminotransferase level, indicating liver damage (7%); and constipation (7%). Overall, 21% of patients in the 5-day group and 35% in the 10-day group had serious adverse events.

In the 5-day group, 4% of patients stopped treatment because of adverse events, versus 10% in the 10-day group. Adjusting for baseline clinical status revealed that only serious adverse events were different between the two groups, the most common of which in the 10-day group were acute respiratory failure (9% versus 5%) and respiratory failure (5% versus 2%).

After 14 days, 16 patients (8%) in the 5-day group and 21 patients (11%) in the 10-day group had died."

70% 'adverse events' sounds not too good.

Researchers identify drug 10 times better than Remdesivir

by dulan drift, Thursday, February 25, 2021, 09:17 (2 days ago) @ dulan drift

More evidence that the promotion of Remdesivir has more to do with money than efficacy:

"National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University researchers have identified four antiviral drug candidates that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, the team leader said on Tuesday.

One of the drug candidates — JMY206 — is more than 10 times stronger than remdesivir, the first antiviral drug fully certified for the treatment of COVID-19, said Yang Jinn-moon (楊進木), dean of the university’s College of Biological Science and Technology.

The other drugs identified are boceprevir, an oral, direct-acting hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor; telaprevir, a hepatitis C drug; and nelfinavir, an antiretroviral drug used to treat HIV-positive patients."

Seems there are a bunch of drugs equal to or better than Remdesivir - so why is it the only one given approval?

This is reminiscent of the 2001 anthrax terror attack where Cipro became the 'Drug of the Day' despite several other antibiotics being equally effective.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum