Covid may be getting the blame for deaths caused by the drug "Remdesivir"

Discussion in 'Viral/Biological' started by Scott, Dec 1, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is absolute hogwash. OK, so I looked at your video. One point at a time - I WANT A RESPONSE!
    Major points from that video:
    1. "Remdesivir increased deaths in Ebola trial and was subsequently withdrawn."
    THIS is the cited trial.
    A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics | NEJM
    [​IMG]

    A statistically insignificant amount - BUT the trial was aiming to find the better option. Statistically REGN-EB3 was superior to all.
    BUT, and very significant, the protocol for administration for one group was not the same as the other. Given the rapid onset of fatality this delay in administration was deemed to be significant:

    "Given that 97% of deaths in this trial occurred within 10 days after enrollment, the efficacy of MAb114 and REGN-EB3 as compared with that of ZMapp and remdesivir might be partly attributable to the fact that the full treatment courses of MAb114 and REGN-EB3 were administered in a single dose, whereas ZMapp and remdesivir were administered in multiple infusions."

    Then we have the base lines for each control group:

    "Although most characteristics at baseline were balanced across the four groups, values for serum creatinine and aminotransferases were higher in the ZMapp and remdesivir groups than in the MAb114 and REGN-EB3 groups; patients in the latter groups had better outcomes, despite similar durations of illness before enrollment. This suggests that enrolled patients might, on average, have been somewhat sicker in the ZMapp and the remdesivir groups, which could potentially account for some of the differences in outcomes. A high percentage of missing baseline data complicates this analysis."

    Right there is ALL the scientific analysis needed to totally dismiss point number 1. Do you agree? If not, why not!
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2023
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're ignoring those medical professionals' saying that they were watching people being killed by remdesivir. That chart you posted doesn't make this issue go away.

    That site you posted is a mainstream* site. Mainstream sites are famous for lying. What it says about remdesivir is very different from what those professionals in the video said.

    Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%).

    CONCLUSIONS
    Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705. opens in new tab.)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Doesn't what those professionals in the video said make you wonder? You're not impressing any of the viewers who've taken the time to watch that segment of the video in post #20.


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2023
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm citing the chart USED BY YOUR VIDEO!

    THAT SITE I POSTED IS THE SOURCE FOR THE DATA IN YOUR DAMN VIDEO!

    It makes me wonder whether you can read properly. I dealt with the first claim encountered in your video and bizarrely you can't even understand something THAT simple!
    [​IMG]
    Wow, did you ever shoot down your own video. You see that's the thing when you don't even know what you are posting. YOUR video used what YOU labelled as mainstream! Now what, have you got the honesty to apologize and withdraw your claim?

    And now even more baffling failure. The thread that says Remedesivir is actually the thing killing people(meh!) according to you, it is now the thing that works and stops people from dying! So you contradict your own claims and discredit your own video.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2023
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I meant that to be a comparison to what the professionals in the video say which shows it to be a lie. Start watching the video at the 33:30 time mark. A doctor says that very study I quoted from is a bogus study. I guess I didn't make it clear enough.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let me get this straight!

    1. Your video uses a "bogus study" to say something bad about Remedesivir, which it turns out is false anyway because the clown in your video cannot read the report properly(proven above!). So your video doesn't prove the premise of this thread but actually proves how useless the video is.
    2. The reason it's a "bogus study" is because your useless video says so, even though YOU are relying on the video to make the claim that Remedesivir is killing people!
    3. To make your "point" you put up information that a) completely contradicts your video! and b) completely contradicts this whole thread - YOUR thread!

    Now THAT is why you do scientific analysis on the batshit you put up! It's why you add commentary and opinion based on what these batshit videos actually say! You claimed you can't do it, when all it needs is for you to open up the document and read the damn report!

    This thread is done.

    /THREAD
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are several videos on page #1 in which medical professionals say that remdesivir is killing people. There doesn't seem to be anything negative about remdesivir in this site.
    https://www.nejm.org/search?q=remdesivir

    Are we supposed to just ignore what those medical professionals say and believe what official sites say? I think it's very likely that what those medical professionals in the videos say reflects reality and those official sites are lying. You haven't said anything that proves the professionals in those videos are wrong.

    The viewers can look at everything and come to their own conclusions.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't work out what he's doing here. Either he's playing some sort of odd game or really cannot see the blindingly obvious. The former is just absurd the latter is almost impossible.

    How can anyone not see this:
    1. He posts a video supposedly proving that Remdedivir kills people.
    2. The first claim about how it fairs in a drugs trial is the basis for the claim in that video!
    3. I prove 100% that the claim is completely useless. Of course he totally ignores this, even though he should have damn well done this in the first place!

    Then we get the games or whatever!

    Bafflingly:
    1. He suggests that the drugs trial is bogus because it is "mainstream". He offers no proof for this foot-shooting claim.
    2. THE STUDY IS FROM HIS OWN DAMN VIDEO - erroneously used to make the claim!
    3. How absurd is that!? He makes no admission about it and he completely ignores this blunder.

    Even more baffling:
    1. This thread is supposedly about Remdedivir killing people.
    2. He discredits his own video (in his mind) by saying it used a bogus trial, which failed to prove the claim anyway!
    3. Now what else does he use to properly discredit it? He posts a study showing that Remdedivir actually works really well!

    Now he's back to more posted batshit to prove the thread(that he has already disproven!) which also has the same pathetic flaws in, that the video (just posted) has. I detailed all of this in my post above which he completely ignored!

    Is it any wonder that nobody can be bothered responding to this horseshit, when we get evasion, confusion and foot-shooting contradictions!? When someone admits they are a layman and that they don't even do rudimentary analysis, how do you figure they can defend their position at all costs?
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Little seagull posts, failing to debate responses.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deja vu. I'm seriously wondering how anyone can demand people watch some idiotic hoax propoganda, 1hr 12mins long , whilst they offer not a scrap of commentary. It's basic manners (for a long video) to make a few bullet points with citations or explanations.

    I'm sure you've evaluated everything said in terms of accuracy, number of cases etc. Then verified whether it's something that can even be remotely generalized.

    Start with Nurses names, hospitals and general statements. Explain how she determined causation!
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yup I know several nurses that workd in ICU same story! In fact 2 of them cant even talk about it they feel so guilty in what they were forced to do in the name of 'their job'.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Extremely unreliable hearsay.
    So, explain how she determined causation!
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this a joke? I ask, because you put up a stupid video with a notorious conspiracy nut giving a whole barrage of unsupported and debunked batshit claims.

    And look, she labels herself as a doctor! So, you can say this is an ad-hominem, I say it's a factual dismissal of her opinion! She has ZERO relevant qualifications. Why would you automatically believe this known liar?
    Naomi Wolf - Wikipedia
    "Wolf ultimately returned to Oxford, completing her Doctor of Philosophy degree in English literature in 2015. Her thesis, supervised by Stefano Evangelista of Trinity College, formed the basis of her 2019 book Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love.[21][22] The thesis (which the journal Times Higher Education called "error-strewn") was subject to significant corrections of its scholarship, prompting several articles in the UK higher education press.[23]"
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2024
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,324
    Likes Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the craziest and illogical conclusions possible!

     
  18. AARguy

    AARguy Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    14,265
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought Remdesivir dropped out of the race....
     

Share This Page