Remdesivir has 'no meaningful impact' on COVID-19 survival, huge study finds

Discussion in 'Politics' started by FryDaddyJr, Oct 17, 2020.

  1. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    wow, more trump lies


    The antiviral drug remdesivir does not reduce deaths among COVID-19 patients, as compared with standard care, according to the results of a large, international trial.

    The Food and Drug Administration, in May, authorized remdesivir to be used in an emergency to treat COVID-19, after a large clinical trial suggested that the drug reduces the time it takes for COVID-19 patients to be discharged from the hospital, as compared with a placebo treatment, Live Science previously reported. As of August, the drug has been authorized for use in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19, not only those on supplemental oxygen, The New York Times reported. Thousands of U.S. patients have received the treatment, including the president.

    medRxiv and has not yet been peer-reviewed; it included more than 11,200 people from 30 countries, The Times reported.

    About 4,100 of those patients served as a comparison group and received no drug treatments, while the rest received one of four drugs, or a combination of several medications. These drugs included remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, an antiviral called lopinavir and an immune-stimulating molecule called Interferon-β1a. About 650 patients received the interferon and lopinavir, together.


    Ultimately, the study results suggest that no single drug or drug combination significantly reduced deaths among patients, as compared with the no-drug group. In addition, the drugs did not reduce the chances that treated patients would be placed on a ventilator, nor did the drugs reduce patients' time in the hospital.


    "The unpromising overall findings from the regimens tested suffice to refute early hopes" that the medications would reduce mortality among COVID-19 patients, the study authors wrote. Earlier trials already indicated that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir don't reduce mortality, but the data on remdesivir offers new insight on whether the drug really works, according to The Associated Press.




    "The big story is the finding that remdesivir produces no meaningful impact on survival," Martin Landray, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Oxford University, said in a statement, according to The Associated Press. However, Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious diseases expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times that the trial results might be somewhat skewed.




    The trial participants were treated at 405 different hospitals around the world, each with their own treatment protocols, so factors beyond remdesivir may have impacted patient survival, he noted. In addition, remdesivir may still offer benefit to patients if given early in the course of their illness, but that wasn't specifically addressed by the new study, Dr. Maricar Malinis, an infectious diseases physician at Yale University, told the Times.

    But even if remdesivir helps some patients, it's still expensive and hard to administer, Landray said in a statement, according to the AP. "This is a drug that has to be given by intravenous infusion for five to 10 days," he said, noting it costs about $2,550 per treatment course. (The treatment course costs $3,120 for U.S. patients with private insurance, The Times reported.)

    "COVID affects millions of people and their families around the world. We need scalable, affordable and equitable treatments," Landray said.

    Originally published on Live Science.
     
  2. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    “Remdesivir has 'no meaningful impact' on COVID-19 survival, huge study finds“


    Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious diseases expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times that the trial results might be somewhat skewed.
     
  3. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    So far, yes. They say this because the article is in pre-print and therefore has not been peer reviewed yet. This means it shouldn't be used yet to justify medical decisions.

    However, given this is an entirely WHO funded study with an assortment of high-caliber authors, it will almost certainly be accepted for publishing soon without substantial if any changes to the data.
     
  4. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    If you believe all of the "medical news" that the main stream press reports, you are a sap. They contradict themselves constantly. They are probably PO'd because Trump took it.

    If Trump supports it, the news media is against it. Science has nothing to do with the issue.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2020
  5. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member


    there are people who believe in science and those who don't.

    you don't.
     
  6. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism


    There are people who believe the manipulative mainstream media and those who don't.

    I don’t.
     
    JohnHamilton and SmalltownMN like this.
  7. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    I always wonder where people who don't trust the "mainstream media" get their info from. Is there some sort of underground zine that gets delivered via pony express or something? Is it blog posts? Where do you learn anything from?
     
  8. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    I was taught early in my career to look for deliberate evasion, omission and creation of loopholes, mostly in the writing of technical and legal documents.

    With that training, a healthy dose of cynicism, and sampling bipolar coverage of common subjects, it's pretty easy to spot twisting of the truth to serve an underlying agenda.

    It frustrates me like crazy that most don't see it, but there's little to nothing I can do about that.
     
  9. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Okay, so I'm with you on that, but here's where I'm not as sure you'll agree with me:

    I disagree with the motives most people apply to the term "mainstream media." I believe the omissions to be in the interest of the owner class rather than any political party. In the current iteration, the goal seems to be division in the mid/lower classes so we don't focus on the owners.
     
  10. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    That shows that you didn't learn anything about critical thinking during your college years; you learned to be a socialist robot.

    As my my father used to say about pro wrestling, "It isn't even a good fake." You could tell that nobody was hitting anybody with their "forearm smashes." You could tell when one one wrestler signaled another that "you're hurting me!" when he touched his opponent's thigh, and the opponent adjusted his hold. You could tell when the referee banged down "1-2-3!" for the winner in short order while he took his time thumping the mat for the loser.

    The TV news on the major networks plus MSNBC and CNN is the same way. I can't remember when they ran a positive story about Trump. A couple years ago it was 7%; now it's 0%. The 7% is from a Harvard survey, not I. They spend at least the first 15 minutes trashing Trump. After that they might cover some other local story with a "feel good" story at the end.

    One thing that is honest is that there are no ravingly positive stories about Biden because there are none. He's just a fragile, mentally impaired old man who was a third-rate Senator and a Vice President who used his office to enrich himself and his drug addict son.

    Why don't you start a string of posts about the good points of Joe Biden other than "He's not Trump." That will be the biggest challenge you will have faced for a long time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2020
  11. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    there's nothing good to say about lil donnie twump. not one thing
     
  12. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    So speaks the blind vegan.
     
  13. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    So where do you get your news from?
     
  14. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Trump. That fountain of lies, ignorance, and corruption. Where else?
     
  15. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    Evidently, you don’t always have your eyes open.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
  16. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  17. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Fox News, ABC News and the Tampa Bay Times, which a Democrat paper. The more moderate Tampa Herald went out of print.
     
  18. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Fox - MSM
    ABC - MSM
    Tampa Bay times - published by the Poynter institute and board members include billionaires like the creator of craigslist, might as well be MSM if it had a more national reach

    See, there's no escaping it. News simply can't be published without wealthy backers influence. So I still don't understand what non-msm looks like. It's actually really bad for America, and I promise I'm not trying to criticize you or your news choices here.
     
  19. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    It’s impossible to run any business without money. Therefore you have rich people financing it.

    What is you alternative? Do you think that a state run news media would be better? I don’t.

    Some of us think we have the state run media already in the form of the main stream media.
     
  20. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    See, I agree with you. But I think It's all basically state run in that the wealthy own the state. I don't have a good alternative, I wish I did.

    As I posted earlier in this thread, the wealthy have an interest in making us focus on each other so we don't have time to focus on their exploitation at home and abroad.
     

Share This Page