Covid and Didier Raoult (supporter of hydroxychloroquine): analyzes on the pandemic

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Hello,

I think you haven't followed the recent news too much ...

I don't know what you call it.
Me instead of Gilead I call it hitting the jackpot.
And not to have worked for nothing for 4 months doing everything in their power (most often dishonest) to slaughter hydroxychloroquine and azythromicine.
Admittedly, this is a masterful success which will most certainly be taught in all business schools from next year.
Beside Servier with his mediator looks like an altar boy and Sanofi's depakine is a kitten pee.

Coronavirus: United States buys global stock of remdesivir
Coronavirus: United States buys global stock of remdesivir

Coronavirus: remdesivir, the first treatment recommended by the European authorities
Coronavirus: remdesivir, the first treatment recommended by the European authorities

Coronavirus. Japan in turn approves remdesivir drug for Covid-19
Coronavirus. Japan in turn approves remdesivir drug for Covid-19

Australia's first COVID-19 treatment approved
Australia's first COVID-19 treatment approved
The TGA approval has granted remdesivir (“Veklury”, manufactured by Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd) provisional approval for use in adults and adolescent patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms who have been hospitalized.

We must return to earth there: it is a global success at least in the rich countries.

Well it's your choice to want to build a bad guy. The boss of Gilead would eat children for breakfast that it would prove nothing about the HCQ.

Gilead would have bought 90% of the scientists on the planet to speak badly of the HCQ but they are unable to buy themselves a super RCT for their foal. I ask again, because the links above are political choices and regulatory authorizations. Do clinicians widely use remsdesivir?

HCQ has been and remains very widely prescribed worldwide.

Oh, did you take some manipulation lessons from our stainless and inaudible troll?

We were there

Gilead's thing is ultimately used very little for Covid

And this is what all these links refer to.

Thanks to his masterful lobbying Gilead has managed to make profitable his thing (which had already flopped for Ebola) to the greatest powers of the world.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Me instead of Gilead I call it hitting the jackpot.
And not to have worked for nothing for 4 months doing everything in their power (most often dishonest) to slaughter hydroxychloroquine and azythromicine.

Anything that gives the HCQ an unfavorable opinion is Gilead's doing? Do you have any evidence?

Who benefits from the crime?

Beside Servier with his mediator is the altar boy

You speak of the pick: The Prescrire magazine was one of the first to denounce the scandal of the Pick. However, this review, until recently, declared: "In short, at the beginning of June 2020, we still do not know whether hydroxychloroquine has an efficacy in covid-19."

No relation to my comparison

We must return to earth there: it is a global success at least in the rich countries.

In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, we have passed the epidemic peak and we still have not used it. The same is true for Switzerland, which has also used the HCQ massively but which has come back for lack of results.

You are naive
The goal is not so much to use it but to SELL it
We are not in the land of science care bears where it is a question of treating patients.
We are in the midst of an economic war in the land of dough and corruption.
Gilead needed to cushion the financial loss generated by the redemsivir with the Ebola fiasco.
Not to mention the possible merger with Astra Zeneca for which it is essential to have the highest possible share price
But be careful what I'm saying here is not at all a criticism of them, quite the contrary.
They invested a lot and at that point they lost.
It's the game but they had the merit of investing.
Wanting to pass us the redemsivir for the Covid is less glorious (see criminal, that we will see over time, but we can trust the doctors paid by Gilead to only use it at the minimum of the minimum in the context of of the Covid, are not crazy either they know very well that this thing is a poison) in terms of health
But it is the game on the capitalistic level.
And on this level again masterful.
Gilead's strategy to pass its redemsivir (a priori rotten) to all the great powers of the planet is to be taught in schools: it's better than sniffer planes.
Do you think we manage to refurbish its global stock to Trump who defends chloroquine by singing peanut pirouette ... we have to get our hands dirty and they did it.
This is how the world turns

But maybe the deal (which I talked about a long time ago as being the best solution) purchase (the only thing that matters) redemsivir versus use hydroxychloroquine and azythromicin (and other "generics" that don't pay off. nothing) may work.
We may finally be at peace with the existing drug treatments.

Witness the loosening of the very recent regulatory embrace on prescriptions.

Hey, you have to tear the words out of your mouth

No. I can repeat it to you over and over if you want. I have no problem with that.

Well repeat it

[Obamot]

Okay it's your choice to want to build a villain. The boss of Gilead would eat children for breakfast)

Gilead allegedly bought 90% of the world's scientists to speak badly of the HCQ but they are unable to afford a super RCT for their foal. I ask again, because the links above are political choices and regulatory authorizations. Are clinicians using remsdesivir widely?

HCQ has been and remains very widely prescribed worldwide.

The proof that it was not necessary, all it took was the rigged Lancet study (then withdrawn) and the damage was done ...
And lobbying is a little more subtle than that ,,, First of all there are many lobbyists, in the European Parliament nearly 50 lobbyists for a parliamentarian ... On econology, how many are there? Two or three? Maybe we'll find out one day? In QI, I would say that there are obviously some who are without being paid

And then the press is in charge (as if you didn't know it ...)

The cost of the drug makes the difference, the shareholders want dividends ... Chloroquine + Az is a treatment that costs peanut (a few cents a tablet) Remdesivir is US $ 3'120 the treatment!

As Pedro says: “don't look too far”

[GuyGadebois]

(Translated)

Gilead's lobbying efforts

A May 2 NPR article describes recent Gilead lobbying efforts. They note that Gilead spent a record amount to lobby Congress and administration in the first quarter of 2020. The $ 2,45 million spent is a 32% increase from the first quarter of 2019. “The first quarter is also where Congress drafted and passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which contained many provisions affecting the pharmaceutical industry, including funding for the development of vaccines and treatments in response to the pandemic. ” Further, “Early drafts of the law included a provision stating that COVID-19 vaccines, drugs and tests should be affordable if developed with taxpayer funds. But the final bill included additional wording that undermines that requirement. "

The lobbying bump coincided with “the acceleration of clinical trials of remdesivir…” by Gilead. On May 1, the FDA approved the emergency use of remdesivir for "severe cases of COVID-19." According to NPR, "the data shows that remdisivir has a clear, significant positive effect in decreasing recovery time," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of a study supported by his institute. . He said the drug would become “the standard of care”. But on the same day, a Lancet article based on a Chinese study found little benefit over placebo in survival rates and "time to clinical improvement."

TrialSite News questioned this story as we reported that there are considerable sets of observational data indicating some level of effectiveness of remdesivir. Gilead claims that "its lobbying expenses increased sharply in the last quarter, as in 2019 the company joined the PhRMA or Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America business group." Ben Wakana of Patients for Affordable Medicines, "suspects Gilead of laying the groundwork to fend off attempts by Congress to control the prices of COVID-19 drugs." The National Public Radio article also highlights “price gouging” behavior.

Remdesivir studies split

India Express (IE) provided its review on remdesivir on May 4, noting that the drug was manufactured in 2014 to treat Ebola and was used to treat MERS and SERS (coronavirus); however, none of these applications have been particularly successful. IE notes the one-week emergency approval of remdesivir for critical Covid-19 patients and that the drug inhibits the enzyme RdRp, the same enzyme used by Covid-19 to help replication in patients.

The publication cites Dr Fauci as a cheerleader for remdesivir: “Data shows that remdesivir has a clear, significant and positive effect in decreasing recovery time. While a 31% improvement does not appear to be a 100% knockout, it is a very important proof of concept. What he does prove is that a drug can block this virus. "

IE goes on to report some problems in the research on remdesivir: “Then there was the study in The Lancet on April 29 on a clinical trial of 237 COVID-19 patients in 10 hospitals in China. “In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits,” he said. Another "study found an adverse drug reaction in 18 people and prematurely stopped treatment with remdesivir in them." He reported that there were adverse events in 66% of patients treated with remdesivir. "

Commenting on the Lancet article, a spokesperson for Gilead said: “The study did not identify any new safety issues with treatment with remdesivir. Cardiac events (cardiac arrest or acute coronary syndrome) and discontinuation of treatment due to respiratory failure were events associated with both remdesivir and placebo. The number of patients who completed the study was too low to allow statistically significant conclusions. Data from comprehensive trials are needed to determine the safety profile of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19. "

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... -research/
Everything's fine !

[Obamot]

The same goes for Switzerland, which has also massively used HCQ but has come back for lack of result.

Which? Source with randomized double-blind study?
PUBLISH YOUR SCROGNEUGNEU SOURCE !!! NOW THEN

... you will not be able, the results of the studies will only be published in 2 or 3 months ...

Still big n'importenawak posted with incredible aplomb and signed Pedro

[VetusLignum]

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/do ... JM.twitter

For the Spanish study, I don't see much to complain about.

Raoult's study concluded that there was a significant improvement in the reduction in viral load with HCQ alone, and a radical improvement with AZI in addition.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

This Spanish study, which does not test HCQ + AZI, does not find the same results.

I note that the dosage of HCQ is not quite the same in the two studies, but I don't think the explanation is there.

It should be noted in passing that the Spanish study did not find any serious side effects from HCQ.

I will wait for other reactions, and perhaps that of Raoult himself.

Only one thing that surprises me is the very great similarity in all points between the characteristics of the patients and the results on the 2 groups. The last time we saw something so clean was on the Lancet study. But today I see no reason to doubt the honesty of the authors of this new study.

Once again, it's a shame that they haven't tested AZI or zinc as a supplement.

The author of this study, Oriol Mitjà, has ties to Gilead.
For example, he was present at this seminar, alongside Mandeep R. Mehra, one of the co-authors of the Surgisphere study.
This does not prove anything in itself, but still, this author was operating in an anti-HCQ galaxy.
A galaxy in which many studies against HCQ have been produced, often constructed a priori for this purpose (for example, by giving HCQ to dying people, at the wrong doses, or by giving it early, but without AZI).

Then, regarding this study, the fact that there was no placebo is a problem.
The patients in this study are healthcare professionals, probably nurses; people who live in the same environment, know each other, and must have been surrounded by seriously ill patients with Covid-19.
Imagine: you are a nurse, positive for Covid-19, you agree to participate in this study because your hierarchy asks you to, and, no luck, you are not given HCQ. You know what the severe forms of the disease are; are you going to sit there and wait for your health to get worse? For my part, it is clear, I would seek to obtain drugs, in this case, HCQ and AZI. And, working in the health field, I would be careful not to report nausea-type side effects, so as not to arouse suspicion in the study authors. Note further that there were no deaths, and none broken down among the patients studied; these are good results.

[izentrop]

Dear not, but it fits well I think

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Who said?

In medicine it's a little more serious than that

We know that he's an electrician


And who wrote?

Conditional marketing authorization allows a medicine to obtain a marketing authorization with less complete data than what is normally expected, if the estimated benefit outweighs the risks known to date.

[Christophe]

Dear not, but it fits well I think

Except that a few weeks ago, the non-wearing of the mask that was the official speech ...

This cartoon is therefore on the wrong target ... let's hope that those of Charly Hebdo will be more couillées !!!

[GuyGadebois]

Dear not, but it fits well I think

It's good to shoot another bullet in the foot! Not even include a cartoon ... well done.