4 ms·

Look at the timeline, people: > In a trial in China over February–March 2020, remdesivir was not effective in reducing the time for improvement from COVID‑19 o

Look at the timeline, people: > In a trial in China over February–March 2020, remdesivir was not effective in reducing the time for improvement from COVID‑19 or deaths, and caused various adverse effects, requiring the investigators to terminate the trial. [1] > On 17 March 2020, Didier Raoult announced in an online video that a trial involving 24 patients from southeast France supported the claim that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were effective in treating for COVID-19.[0] > On 18 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the launch of a trial that would include one group treated with remdesivir. [1] > As of April 2020, remdesivir was viewed as the most promising treatment for COVID‑19... [1] --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#COVID-19 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir

hef19898 6y ago
I looked at the timeline. And now?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tboyd47 6y ago
  Well, don't you find it odd that Remdesivir was known to be a stinker in February, then got all this publicity and fanfare exactly one day after the hydroxychloroquine protocol was discovered, and now apparently it's back to being a stinker again?
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    Can you just explicitly state what you're implying? For those of us who aren't getting it.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      Have you tried to add the numerical values of Remdesivir letters? And multipled it by the sum of the numbers from those dates?? No? Me neither. He implies some conspiracy is at play, rather people desperately trying to draw conclusions or gain 5 min of fame.
      - tboyd47 6y ago
        Do you really equate analyzing timelines critically with practicing gematria?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Honestly, the way you're going about it, I would. To analyze the timeline properly, you'd have to actually get a large sample of events and look both for events that would support your thesis and those that would refute it. Especially for a topic like drug discovery in a rapidly-unfolding pandemic, where news sources might be reporting with various delays and the underlying studies might be reporting wildly variable results, it's important to not cherry-pick to do honest analysis. When you do gematria, you're asserting the importance of a pattern you've discovered without seeking how common the pattern actually is (which turns out to be pretty damn common in instances where the pattern doesn't have any implication). You're basically doing the same thing when you cherry-pick three events to support a conclusion in a context when there are many events you could choose from.
      - tzs 6y ago
        > Have you tried to add the numerical values of Remdesivir letters? 82 69 77 68 69 83 73 86 73 82 are the ASCII values of "remdesivir". For each of those, replace it by the sum of its digits, and keep doing that until each becomes a single digits: 1 6 5 5 6 2 1 5 1 1. Take those in pairs, 16 55 62 15 11, and do the same kind of reduction to single digits: 7 1 8 6 2, to get 71862 is Remdesivir symbolic number. What does that tell us about Remdesivir? Well, add 24 to it - the answer to the ultimate question of life, written backwards. The result is 71886. Write the number backwards, subtract 1960 - the year first contraceptive pills hit the market. The value is now 66857. Write the number backwards, subtract 1989 - the year of the Exxon Valdez spill. The value is now 73877. Subtract 13 - the symbol of bad luck. This gives you 73864. Flip the number backwards, then divide by 7 - the number of deadly sins and the symbol of magic. The outcome is 6691. This number, written backwards, spells 1966 - the year Anthon LaVey founded the Church of Satan. Clearly, we should avoid Remdesivir. But wait, I hear you say. Why did I use ASCII values? Maybe I should use 18 5 13 4 5 19 9 22 9 18, which are the positions of the letters in the alphabet. That would give 58649 as the Remdesivir symbol. OK, fine. But that still ties Remdesivir to Satan: Write the number backwards, add 2 - the symbol of duality. The number is now 94687. Add 4991 to it - the year Jeffrey Dahmer died in prison, written backwards. The result is 99678. Add 61 to it - the atomic number of sulfur, written backwards. The result is 99739. Write the number backwards, subtract 125 - the only number known that contains all its proper divisors as proper substrings. The value is now 93674. Divide by 14 - the number of pieces Osiris was torn into in Egyptian mythology. The result is 6691. This number, written backwards, spells 1966 - the year Anthon LaVey founded the Church of Satan. QED The above courtesy of one of the best sites on the net: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.cgi?said=Remdesivir https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.cgi?said=Remdesivi... You can hit refresh there and it will give different numerical connections of Remdesivir to evil.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tboyd47 6y ago
      Yeah, sorry for being obtuse. I'm saying that it should be no surprise that Remdesivir doesn't work because it didn't work in February, either. It makes you wonder why it was ever presented as a valid option. Perhaps the only reason why it got the publicity it did was to distract people from pursuing a treatment that the major pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on. These companies possess the means to influence the news media through their advertising spend, and the agencies through regulatory capture. The timeline also strongly suggests that this is what happened, as Remdesivir came into the spotlight exactly one day after the other protocol was announced. No conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories allege some kind of criminal activity and there is no crime being alleged. All it takes is one person to send a press release.
      - tom_mellior 6y ago
        > distract people from pursuing a treatment that the major pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on [...] No conspiracy theories You haven't come out and said it explicitly (despite being asked), so I'll say it explicitly and let you contradict me: You are a hydroxychloroquine truther. For some reason you believe it must be effective although there is no useful evidence for that either.
        tboyd47 6y ago
        I didn't know "hydroxychloroquine truther" was a thing. I do find the 142 positive studies to be compelling argument. The science does indeed seem to be in favor of the drug. But I'm not a doctor or researcher so my opinion is worthless. https://c19study.com https://c19study.com
        orwin 6y ago
        I can try to find you the French sources if you want, but Raoult did affirm around early june i think that the IFR for covid19 was 5 time inferior with HCQ and his protocol, with .7% IFR! The ARSGE later published a study that predicted .5% to .9% IFR in eastern France, and i think the CDC predicted .5% for the US.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Derek Lowe is mentioning remdisivir as one of the leading candidates for COVID-19 therapy here on March 6th, before the HCQ brouhaha starts: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/06/covid-19-small-molecule-therapies-reviewed https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/06/co... (he also mentions chloroquine as a protocol under investigation). For those unfamiliar: Derek Lowe is a drug discovery chemist who writes a well-known blog on drug discovery and other chemical topics (most notably the "Things I Won't Work With" series, which covers nasty chemicals like ClF₃ or C₂N₁₄), which has of course been dominated by COVID-19 in 2020.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      March < October. I assume we all learned a lot in the couple months.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        The claim being raised here is that remdesivir was a known-to-be-failed treatment that was only trotted out after the miracle hydroxychloroquine cure came out, with the implication being that it's an attempt to suppress HCQ. That remdesivir was publicly considered a leading candidate after its supposed proof-of-failure and before the HCQ treatment was publicized rather demolishes whatever implication of conspiracy is being considered.
        tboyd47 6y ago
        "Leading candidate" still doesn't mean it's not going to be a flop. If you look at what the press and medical experts were saying about Remdesivir throughout this period, it was lukewarm at best. But they were saying it so loudly and repetitively that it makes me wonder if the point wasn't to sell Remdesivir per se but just to drown out other news. Even if HCQ is useless, that doesn't preclude the notion that it was seen as a threat to Big Pharma's bottom line in mid-March. Of course it was. Like I said earlier, it's cheap and out-of-patent. I think all of us in this thread are circling around the same understanding when it comes to the facts of the matter. But where we differ is that I'm much more open to the idea that the authorities could have self-serving motives in play besides keeping us safe. The idea that policymakers and even scientists may be corrupt is not far-fetched. We have to try to keep an eye on them. Have a great day and thanks for the debate.
  - electriclove 6y ago
    FYI, HCQ was being used/tracked/published by many in the industry WELL before March 17th.
javagram 6y ago
Regarding your citation to the China trial, you can actually follow the link and read the primary source instead of the Wikipedia summary. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190303/ The interpretation section states “In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.” Later on it states “ No patients were enrolled after March 12, because of the control of the outbreak in Wuhan and on the basis of the termination criteria specified in the protocol, the data safety and monitoring board recommended that the study be terminated and data analysed on March 29.“ So that study which you are touting as proving remdesivir didn’t work was stated by its own authors to require a larger study. (China was so successful at suppressing the coronavirus using quarantine and isolation that they ran out of people to test on pretty early on during COVID as well, resulting in a low sample size for studies)

hef19898 6y ago

I looked at the timeline. And now?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tboyd47 6y ago
Well, don't you find it odd that Remdesivir was known to be a stinker in February, then got all this publicity and fanfare exactly one day after the hydroxychloroquine protocol was discovered, and now apparently it's back to being a stinker again?
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  Can you just explicitly state what you're implying? For those of us who aren't getting it.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    Have you tried to add the numerical values of Remdesivir letters? And multipled it by the sum of the numbers from those dates?? No? Me neither. He implies some conspiracy is at play, rather people desperately trying to draw conclusions or gain 5 min of fame.
    - tboyd47 6y ago
      Do you really equate analyzing timelines critically with practicing gematria?
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        Honestly, the way you're going about it, I would. To analyze the timeline properly, you'd have to actually get a large sample of events and look both for events that would support your thesis and those that would refute it. Especially for a topic like drug discovery in a rapidly-unfolding pandemic, where news sources might be reporting with various delays and the underlying studies might be reporting wildly variable results, it's important to not cherry-pick to do honest analysis. When you do gematria, you're asserting the importance of a pattern you've discovered without seeking how common the pattern actually is (which turns out to be pretty damn common in instances where the pattern doesn't have any implication). You're basically doing the same thing when you cherry-pick three events to support a conclusion in a context when there are many events you could choose from.
    - tzs 6y ago
      > Have you tried to add the numerical values of Remdesivir letters? 82 69 77 68 69 83 73 86 73 82 are the ASCII values of "remdesivir". For each of those, replace it by the sum of its digits, and keep doing that until each becomes a single digits: 1 6 5 5 6 2 1 5 1 1. Take those in pairs, 16 55 62 15 11, and do the same kind of reduction to single digits: 7 1 8 6 2, to get 71862 is Remdesivir symbolic number. What does that tell us about Remdesivir? Well, add 24 to it - the answer to the ultimate question of life, written backwards. The result is 71886. Write the number backwards, subtract 1960 - the year first contraceptive pills hit the market. The value is now 66857. Write the number backwards, subtract 1989 - the year of the Exxon Valdez spill. The value is now 73877. Subtract 13 - the symbol of bad luck. This gives you 73864. Flip the number backwards, then divide by 7 - the number of deadly sins and the symbol of magic. The outcome is 6691. This number, written backwards, spells 1966 - the year Anthon LaVey founded the Church of Satan. Clearly, we should avoid Remdesivir. But wait, I hear you say. Why did I use ASCII values? Maybe I should use 18 5 13 4 5 19 9 22 9 18, which are the positions of the letters in the alphabet. That would give 58649 as the Remdesivir symbol. OK, fine. But that still ties Remdesivir to Satan: Write the number backwards, add 2 - the symbol of duality. The number is now 94687. Add 4991 to it - the year Jeffrey Dahmer died in prison, written backwards. The result is 99678. Add 61 to it - the atomic number of sulfur, written backwards. The result is 99739. Write the number backwards, subtract 125 - the only number known that contains all its proper divisors as proper substrings. The value is now 93674. Divide by 14 - the number of pieces Osiris was torn into in Egyptian mythology. The result is 6691. This number, written backwards, spells 1966 - the year Anthon LaVey founded the Church of Satan. QED The above courtesy of one of the best sites on the net: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.cgi?said=Remdesivir https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.cgi?said=Remdesivi... You can hit refresh there and it will give different numerical connections of Remdesivir to evil.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    Yeah, sorry for being obtuse. I'm saying that it should be no surprise that Remdesivir doesn't work because it didn't work in February, either. It makes you wonder why it was ever presented as a valid option. Perhaps the only reason why it got the publicity it did was to distract people from pursuing a treatment that the major pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on. These companies possess the means to influence the news media through their advertising spend, and the agencies through regulatory capture. The timeline also strongly suggests that this is what happened, as Remdesivir came into the spotlight exactly one day after the other protocol was announced. No conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories allege some kind of criminal activity and there is no crime being alleged. All it takes is one person to send a press release.
    - tom_mellior 6y ago
      > distract people from pursuing a treatment that the major pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on [...] No conspiracy theories You haven't come out and said it explicitly (despite being asked), so I'll say it explicitly and let you contradict me: You are a hydroxychloroquine truther. For some reason you believe it must be effective although there is no useful evidence for that either.
      - tboyd47 6y ago
        I didn't know "hydroxychloroquine truther" was a thing. I do find the 142 positive studies to be compelling argument. The science does indeed seem to be in favor of the drug. But I'm not a doctor or researcher so my opinion is worthless. https://c19study.com https://c19study.com
        orwin 6y ago
        I can try to find you the French sources if you want, but Raoult did affirm around early june i think that the IFR for covid19 was 5 time inferior with HCQ and his protocol, with .7% IFR! The ARSGE later published a study that predicted .5% to .9% IFR in eastern France, and i think the CDC predicted .5% for the US.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Derek Lowe is mentioning remdisivir as one of the leading candidates for COVID-19 therapy here on March 6th, before the HCQ brouhaha starts: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/06/covid-19-small-molecule-therapies-reviewed https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/06/co... (he also mentions chloroquine as a protocol under investigation). For those unfamiliar: Derek Lowe is a drug discovery chemist who writes a well-known blog on drug discovery and other chemical topics (most notably the "Things I Won't Work With" series, which covers nasty chemicals like ClF₃ or C₂N₁₄), which has of course been dominated by COVID-19 in 2020.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    March < October. I assume we all learned a lot in the couple months.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The claim being raised here is that remdesivir was a known-to-be-failed treatment that was only trotted out after the miracle hydroxychloroquine cure came out, with the implication being that it's an attempt to suppress HCQ. That remdesivir was publicly considered a leading candidate after its supposed proof-of-failure and before the HCQ treatment was publicized rather demolishes whatever implication of conspiracy is being considered.
      - tboyd47 6y ago
        "Leading candidate" still doesn't mean it's not going to be a flop. If you look at what the press and medical experts were saying about Remdesivir throughout this period, it was lukewarm at best. But they were saying it so loudly and repetitively that it makes me wonder if the point wasn't to sell Remdesivir per se but just to drown out other news. Even if HCQ is useless, that doesn't preclude the notion that it was seen as a threat to Big Pharma's bottom line in mid-March. Of course it was. Like I said earlier, it's cheap and out-of-patent. I think all of us in this thread are circling around the same understanding when it comes to the facts of the matter. But where we differ is that I'm much more open to the idea that the authorities could have self-serving motives in play besides keeping us safe. The idea that policymakers and even scientists may be corrupt is not far-fetched. We have to try to keep an eye on them. Have a great day and thanks for the debate.
- electriclove 6y ago
  FYI, HCQ was being used/tracked/published by many in the industry WELL before March 17th.

javagram 6y ago

Regarding your citation to the China trial, you can actually follow the link and read the primary source instead of the Wikipedia summary. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190303/ The interpretation section states “In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.” Later on it states “ No patients were enrolled after March 12, because of the control of the outbreak in Wuhan and on the basis of the termination criteria specified in the protocol, the data safety and monitoring board recommended that the study be terminated and data analysed on March 29.“ So that study which you are touting as proving remdesivir didn’t work was stated by its own authors to require a larger study. (China was so successful at suppressing the coronavirus using quarantine and isolation that they ran out of people to test on pretty early on during COVID as well, resulting in a low sample size for studies)