Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're on a computer..google NIH.GOV Remdesivir clinical trials. I don't need to google for you.
By any chance are you referring to this? This information from the clinical trials indicates survival rates for those taking remdesivir substantially exceeded those taking a placebo.
Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients who received placebo, according to a preliminary data analysis from a randomized, controlled trial involving 1063 patients, which began on February 21. The trial (known as the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, or ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first clinical trial launched in the United States to evaluate an experimental treatment for COVID-19.
An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.
Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).
By any chance are you referring to this? This information from the clinical trials indicates survival rates for those taking remdesivir substantially exceeded those taking a placebo.
No it did not indicate that. The signal was not statistically significant, (p>0.05). Results like this are said to be not "statistically significant" and are not considered further. Also 11 to 8% is not anyone's definition of "substantial".
Going on, this trial used a 'toxicebo', not a placebo.
Quote:
Placebo: The supplied placebo lyophilized formulation is identical in physical appearance to the active lyophilized formulation and contains the same inactive ingredients.
In other words, they used SBECD, which is a solubility enhancer and is used in all Remdesivir formulations, and is also the reason for Renal toxicity. So using this in the placebo will mask any increased death rates from renal failure.
If you look at the results from that chart, you see essentially no differences between the "placebo" [cough cough 'toxicebo'] and Remdesivir. The study was a failure, which is why no countries really used Remdesivir other than the USA. WHO recommended against it.
No it did not indicate that. The signal was not statistically significant, (p>0.05). Results like this are said to be not "statistically significant" and are not considered further. Also 11 to 8% is not anyone's definition of "substantial".
Going on, this trial used a 'toxicebo', not a placebo.
In other words, they used SBECD, which is a solubility enhancer and is used in all Remdesivir formulations, and is also the reason for Renal toxicity. So using this in the placebo will mask any increased death rates from renal failure.
If you look at the results from that chart, you see essentially no differences between the "placebo" [cough cough 'toxicebo'] and Remdesivir. The study was a failure, which is why no countries really used Remdesivir other than the USA. WHO recommended against it.
A reduction in deaths from 11% to 8% is a one third reduction. Nor, do I agree with your claims this is not "statistically significant".
Yes, it is significant.
I want you remember the post I was responding too. You are ignoring that. That poster actually claimed data from clinical trials showed *increased deaths* from those take remdesivir. Clearly, that did not happen. I wonder if the poster will now acknowledge that.
A reduction in deaths from 11% to 8% is a one third reduction. Nor, do I agree with your claims this is not "statistically significant".
Yes, it is significant.
It's not statistically significant. Look up what the p value needs to be statistically significant.
To put it in a way you can understand,
If I flip a coin twice, and got heads twice, and you flipped a coin twice and got tails then heads, our results differed by 50% but it was due to chance alone.
And that poster is probably referencing the trials in Ebola patients, though they can clarify:
Quote:
61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P=0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P=0.002).
Quote:
A total of 681 patients were enrolled from November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, at which time the data and safety monitoring board recommended that patients be assigned only to the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups for the remainder of the trial; the recommendation was based on the results of an interim analysis that showed superiority of these groups to ZMapp and remdesivir with respect to mortality. At 28 days, death had occurred in 61 of 174 patients (35.1%) in the MAb114 group, as compared with 84 of 169 (49.7%) in the ZMapp group (P=0.007), and in 52 of 155 (33.5%) in the REGN-EB3 group, as compared with 79 of 154 (51.3%) in the ZMapp subgroup (P=0.002)
They probably had the flu like all the other people who tested negative for covid when sick, but the narrative is that no one had the flu. I always thought that was strange.
Also, many of us never had fevers with covid.
The incidence of Influenza was dramatically reduced all over the world earlier in the Pandemic. But not gone. We had some patients coming in with both tests positive.
They probably had the flu like all the other people who tested negative for covid when sick, but the narrative is that no one had the flu. I always thought that was strange.
Also, many of us never had fevers with covid.
Different testing needs and strategies depend on the severity of the illness. If there is a mild controllable illness in the presence of an epidemic then flu-like illness without testing is common for outpatient clinics.
In hospital environments, the patients are a little sicker and more testing is undertaken. We were doing influenza PCR testing long before COVID. It was the first respiratory pathogen that was widely tested. Every year we would have one person solely dedicated to only influenza PCR during the winter time. You have to understand that testing was for two influenza viruses of Influenza A and influenza B. Two separate reports.
Things changed with COVID. Routine testing was implemented with COVID and PCR testing. COVID became integrated into respiratory panels. Along comes RSV and it too got incorporated. Now it is multiplex testing for the three pathogens with PCR testing.
So we would not simply test sick patients for COVID and nothing else and then assume it was something else.
Hospital admissions and testing reflects the general population for any given area. This winter I texted a friend at my hospital and asked what the most prevalent pathogen they were picking up and they said they were seeing all three in equal proportions.
All lot of the policies and procedures and recommendations follow national guidence from the CDC and public health officials. It adds cost with regard to testing but early detection and treatment can reduce some costs overall. We have a multiplex panel of 19 different respiratory pathogens but that would be costly to have one run on every patient. We follow the epidemiology and need at any given time with regard to any given pathogen and its prevalence.
They probably had the flu like all the other people who tested negative for covid when sick, but the narrative is that no one had the flu. I always thought that was strange.
Also, many of us never had fevers with covid.
Doctors were testing for flu. That is necessary because treatments for flu and covid are different. Flu tests were coming back negative.
With relaxation of covid mitigation measures, flu is back.
Now Anthony Fauci just published an article pointing out viruses that replicate in mucosal passages cannot be effectively controlled by vaccines that create systemic immunity.
Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses
David M. Morens - Jeffery K. Taubenberger - Anthony S. Fauci
Viruses that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, endemic coronaviruses, RSV, and many other “common cold” viruses, cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns. Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines
Now Anthony Fauci just published an article pointing out viruses that replicate in mucosal passages cannot be effectively controlled by vaccines that create systemic immunity.
Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses
David M. Morens - Jeffery K. Taubenberger - Anthony S. Fauci
This has been known for a long time. If the incubation of the virus is less than 3 days and/or it stays in the mucosal layer, no vaccine administered IM with the goal of creating IgG antibodies and even TCells will block infection or transmission. Maybe just ameliorate severe disease.
The idea that the reason these vaccines don't block transmission is due to mutations is a joke.
No one well versed in immunology expected the COVID vaccines to be infection blocking, some lied, some stayed quiet, but in the end this was well known before the pandemic.
I was too off-guard to talk--just held my hand up so she stayed back.
Was not ready, would probably never be ready for people like this.
She looked normal but obviously she was ready to go off on someone wearing a mask.
What if I had someone at-risk at home or as you say what if I or a spouse had the flu?
Cannot deal with irrationality and I see no reason to explain myself when I am not hurting anyone.
Your reaction is much nicer than mine would have been so kudos to you.
Random strangers aren't owed any explanation and would be told to eff off immediately if I encountered a nutjibber like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
