This is scary. But... I need more clarification. I KNOW Remdesivir is a killer. But I need specifics before I start making claims to family and friends based on this article.
It states that Remdesivir killed 53% of the Remdesivir Treatment Group. What does "Treatment Group" mean? Were these people already sick with something, and going to die which is why R was administered? Or, is this a control group and R was given to them causing 53% to die from R, itself? THAT is what I'm hoping (sadly) is the case. But it doesn't state that.
And, it killed 86% off those it was given to who began the trial with Ebola already in their blood. Well, were these people going to die, anyway? Again, same questions... what role, exactly, did R play in their death. Simple correlation is one thing, but to be able to state that it caused the death is more profound.
My brother was admitted to the hospital in 2021 and given Remdesivir for 3 days and after he refused the vent, was released.
He's doing well, no issues with his kidneys, but does have some lingering breathing issues (he also has asthma and an inhaler) that pop up from time to time.
He's not vaccinated.
Yes, thank you, we are all relieved that he's doing well.
One of the doctor's that were there when he was admitted, came in to his room (after he refused the ventilator) and said to him that "he dodged a bullet" by doing that.
Unbelievable what they were doing to people during that time and how they knew what it would do to them when they were put on the vent.
Thanks... From the article: "From November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, a total of 681 patients were enrolled and underwent randomization at Ebola treatment centers in Beni (335 patients), Butembo (243 patients), Katwa (46 patients), and Mangina (57 patients)."
That suggests that these were ebola-positive patients already at ebola treatment centers.
Remdesivir failed miserably. BUT, it is not stating that the Remdesivir killed them. I don't doubt that it expedited the death and increased the death rate, but it's not as explicitly stated as I would like to see, or how it's summarized in that Twitter clip.
I just don't want to be accused by someone smarter than me about this stuff that I fell for a talking point that was a misleading summary.
My understanding is that Remdesivir can cause the kidneys to shut down. Then fluid can collect in the lungs and a patient can't breath. We can't discount the financial incentive to prescribe Remdesivir and deploy the ventilators.
I don't doubt that. In fact, I am familiar with how R caused kidney failure among Covid patients, and the docs all thought it was covid (or they were told it was) yada yada.
Remdesivir is NOT GOOD. In fact, it is VERY BAD. I know!
My point is that this study and headline is misleading.
You're exactly right in your interpretation. The study results do not show that remdesivir killed them, but rather than remdesivir failed to stop ebola virus from killing them.
Even then i wouldnt say it failed miserably. It performed similarly across the board to zmapp, within 3%.
The study wasnt apples to apples either. The REGN group was 12% smaller, so the group sizes werent even the same, and 10% of the other groups were later found out to have malaria.
This was a trial of 4 drugs to treat ebola virus. Find patients with ebola, then give 1 of the 4 drugs, see what happens. We have to remember, however, that ebola is a deadly disease. Depending on the specific strain, mortality rates have varied from 25-90%. That's your baseline. 25-90% bleed out and die because of this virus.
Now, scroll down to Table 2 in that study. They present the mortality in the experimental groups, broken down by viral load: high and low, and an overall mortality. That's where this 53% is coming from. If you look at the MZapp group, you'll see a similar mortality rate. MZapp is a combination of 3 monoclonal antibodies, so it works totally differently than remdesivir. 51.3% mortality.
Now, if you go to the Safety subsection of the Results (or Table S7 of the Supplemental), it lists one serious adverse effect for remdesivir: a hypotension (loss of blood pressure) event. Ebola virus itself kills people by destroying the vascular system and causing people to bleed out. Doctors could not say that the remdesivir caused the hypotension and not the disease itself. We don't have much more data on safety and that's likely because the baseline disease is so nasty.
The dishonest lawyer is trying to claim that remdesivir was killing patients, but there's no evidence of that here. The statistic he uses shows only that remdesivir was not very effective in treating ebola virus. It was just as ineffective as a 3 monoclonal antibody cocktail, and there was no distinct safety signal in this study because of the nature of the ebola itself.
If you want to show remdesivir is unsafe for COVID, we need evidence from a trial where it's used in COVID.
My understanding is the Remdesivir Treatment Group were infected with ebola and recieved remdesivir. 53% of them died. If the person had a very high level of the virus and recieved remdesivir then 86% died.
This page says the mortality rate for ebola ranges from about 40-60%, so that 86% seems high. But maybe they were already that much sicker when they started the treatment?
I don't think the article is a smoking gun and wouldn't use it as an example of remdesivir's risks.
FDA refused to certify Remdesevir for Ebola because it killed. It always killed humans. The only use it has (a variation of it) is it cures feline FIPS.
I don't doubt that. In fact, I am familiar with how R caused kidney failure among Covid patients, and the docs all thought it was covid (or they were told it was) yada yada.
Remdesivir is NOT GOOD. In fact, it is VERY BAD. I know!
My point is that this study and headline is misleading.
This is scary. But... I need more clarification. I KNOW Remdesivir is a killer. But I need specifics before I start making claims to family and friends based on this article.
It states that Remdesivir killed 53% of the Remdesivir Treatment Group. What does "Treatment Group" mean? Were these people already sick with something, and going to die which is why R was administered? Or, is this a control group and R was given to them causing 53% to die from R, itself? THAT is what I'm hoping (sadly) is the case. But it doesn't state that.
And, it killed 86% off those it was given to who began the trial with Ebola already in their blood. Well, were these people going to die, anyway? Again, same questions... what role, exactly, did R play in their death. Simple correlation is one thing, but to be able to state that it caused the death is more profound.
Just being an Anon. Thanks for posting.
My brother was admitted to the hospital in 2021 and given Remdesivir for 3 days and after he refused the vent, was released.
He's doing well, no issues with his kidneys, but does have some lingering breathing issues (he also has asthma and an inhaler) that pop up from time to time. He's not vaccinated.
I am so glad that your brother is okay!
Yes, thank you, we are all relieved that he's doing well.
One of the doctor's that were there when he was admitted, came in to his room (after he refused the ventilator) and said to him that "he dodged a bullet" by doing that.
Unbelievable what they were doing to people during that time and how they knew what it would do to them when they were put on the vent.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993 Links to Protocol and Appendix within artlcle.
Thanks... From the article: "From November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, a total of 681 patients were enrolled and underwent randomization at Ebola treatment centers in Beni (335 patients), Butembo (243 patients), Katwa (46 patients), and Mangina (57 patients)."
That suggests that these were ebola-positive patients already at ebola treatment centers.
Remdesivir failed miserably. BUT, it is not stating that the Remdesivir killed them. I don't doubt that it expedited the death and increased the death rate, but it's not as explicitly stated as I would like to see, or how it's summarized in that Twitter clip.
I just don't want to be accused by someone smarter than me about this stuff that I fell for a talking point that was a misleading summary.
Some links for you:
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2145
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/140c9TRQ5w/dr-ardis-interview--death-by-rem/c
My understanding is that Remdesivir can cause the kidneys to shut down. Then fluid can collect in the lungs and a patient can't breath. We can't discount the financial incentive to prescribe Remdesivir and deploy the ventilators.
I don't doubt that. In fact, I am familiar with how R caused kidney failure among Covid patients, and the docs all thought it was covid (or they were told it was) yada yada.
Remdesivir is NOT GOOD. In fact, it is VERY BAD. I know!
My point is that this study and headline is misleading.
You're exactly right in your interpretation. The study results do not show that remdesivir killed them, but rather than remdesivir failed to stop ebola virus from killing them.
Even then i wouldnt say it failed miserably. It performed similarly across the board to zmapp, within 3%.
The study wasnt apples to apples either. The REGN group was 12% smaller, so the group sizes werent even the same, and 10% of the other groups were later found out to have malaria.
It's a good thing to ask for details because the details matter. What this lawyer is doing is dishonest and it needs to be clarified.
He's referring to: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993
This was a trial of 4 drugs to treat ebola virus. Find patients with ebola, then give 1 of the 4 drugs, see what happens. We have to remember, however, that ebola is a deadly disease. Depending on the specific strain, mortality rates have varied from 25-90%. That's your baseline. 25-90% bleed out and die because of this virus.
Now, scroll down to Table 2 in that study. They present the mortality in the experimental groups, broken down by viral load: high and low, and an overall mortality. That's where this 53% is coming from. If you look at the MZapp group, you'll see a similar mortality rate. MZapp is a combination of 3 monoclonal antibodies, so it works totally differently than remdesivir. 51.3% mortality.
Now, if you go to the Safety subsection of the Results (or Table S7 of the Supplemental), it lists one serious adverse effect for remdesivir: a hypotension (loss of blood pressure) event. Ebola virus itself kills people by destroying the vascular system and causing people to bleed out. Doctors could not say that the remdesivir caused the hypotension and not the disease itself. We don't have much more data on safety and that's likely because the baseline disease is so nasty.
The dishonest lawyer is trying to claim that remdesivir was killing patients, but there's no evidence of that here. The statistic he uses shows only that remdesivir was not very effective in treating ebola virus. It was just as ineffective as a 3 monoclonal antibody cocktail, and there was no distinct safety signal in this study because of the nature of the ebola itself.
If you want to show remdesivir is unsafe for COVID, we need evidence from a trial where it's used in COVID.
My understanding is the Remdesivir Treatment Group were infected with ebola and recieved remdesivir. 53% of them died. If the person had a very high level of the virus and recieved remdesivir then 86% died.
This page says the mortality rate for ebola ranges from about 40-60%, so that 86% seems high. But maybe they were already that much sicker when they started the treatment?
I don't think the article is a smoking gun and wouldn't use it as an example of remdesivir's risks.
FDA refused to certify Remdesevir for Ebola because it killed. It always killed humans. The only use it has (a variation of it) is it cures feline FIPS.
I don't doubt that. In fact, I am familiar with how R caused kidney failure among Covid patients, and the docs all thought it was covid (or they were told it was) yada yada.
Remdesivir is NOT GOOD. In fact, it is VERY BAD. I know!
My point is that this study and headline is misleading.