Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 3)

Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 6) Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 5) Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 4) Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 3) Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 2) Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 1) In 1957, the U.S. population was 177 million – about one-half of the current count.  Today, SARS-CoV-2 has killed over 97,000 Americans – heavily targeting senior citizens, many with co-morbidities. Meanwhile, the CDC estimates that this year's seasonal flu left 24,000-62,000 Americans dead. Recall that, back in early May, it was reported that Dr. Deborah Brix, the White House Coronavirus Task Force response administrator, stated in a meeting of that group, "There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust".  (Did anyone in the media ask what she meant by that?) The tendency to over-estimate SARS-CoV-2 numbers began with the Imperial College epidemiologist and advisor to the British Government, Neil Ferguson.  TIME noted that:

"On March 16, Ferguson and colleagues published a paper suggesting that even with some social distancing measures, the U.K. could see 250,000 coronavirus deaths and that the U.S. might have about 1 million deaths. In a worst-case scenario, Ferguson predicted those figures could more than double in both countries."

Ferguson resigned as an advisor to the British Government when it was revealed he'd received romantic, secret home visits from his paramour, thereby breaking social-distancing rules during the pandemic.

NEJM likely knocks out Remdesivir as a SARS-CoV-2 drug

The bad news for Gilead Sciences' proposed virus drug, Remdesivir, broke on May 23 in a Zerohedge.com article entitled "The Remdesivir Study Is Finally Out: Drug Only Helped Those On Oxygen, Finds Mortality Too High For Standalone Treatment". That announcement read in part: 

"According to a pivotal study published in the New England Journal of Medicine late on Friday, Remdesivir (May 23), which was authorized to treat Covid-19 in a group of 1063 adults and children (split into two groups, one receiving placebo instead of remdesivir) who need i.) supplemental oxygen, ii) a ventilator or iii) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), only significantly helped those on supplemental oxygen." "Meanwhile, and explaining the 6pm release on a Friday, the study also found no marked benefit from remdesivir for those who were healthier and didn't need oxygen or those who were sicker, requiring a ventilator or a heart-lung bypass machine." {snip} "Whereas there was a modest benefit only to patients who were receiving oxygen, the results were statistically insignificant vs placebo for patients not receiving oxygen, while in a surprising twist patient on high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilator/ECMO did modestly better in the placebo group than those taking remdesivir." {snip} "In conclusion, while the "preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy" the study goes on to warn that "given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient." (most highlighting in original article)

This critical judgment on the efficaciousness of Remdesivir came as no surprise. Beginning on April 23, the evidence mounted based on a study of the drug in China reviewed in multiple posts: bbc.com: "There had been widespread hope that remdesivir could treat Covid-19. But a Chinese trial showed that the drug had not been successful, according to draft documents accidentally published by the World Health Organization. The drug did not improve patients' condition or reduce the pathogen's presence in the bloodstream, it said." (April 23) statnews.com: "The antiviral medicine remdesivir from Gilead Sciences failed to speed the improvement of patients with Covid-19 or prevent them from dying, according to results from a long-awaited clinical trial conducted in China. Gilead, however, said the data suggest a 'potential benefit.' A summary of the study results was inadvertently posted to the website of the World Health Organization and seen by STAT on Thursday, but then removed. A draft manuscript was provided by the authors to WHO and inadvertently posted on the website and taken down as soon as the mistake was noticed." (April 23) biospace.com: "According to a report in the Financial Times, the data from the study showed remdesivir did not improve patients' condition or reduce the pathogen's presence in the bloodstream. There were also concerns about some potential side effects caused by the drug. The study suggests more patients died on remdesivir than those on placebo, 13.9% compared to 12.8%, respectively." (April 23)

web.md.com: "Disappointing results emerged from the first gold-standard clinical trial for remdesivir, which found that the drug did not help patients in China with severe COVID-19. Those findings were published April 29 in The Lancet medical journal." {snip} "'Unfortunately, our trial found that while safe and adequately tolerated, remdesivir did not provide significant benefits over placebo', says Professor Bin Cao from China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University in China, who led the research. 'This is not the outcome we hoped for, but we are mindful that we were only able to enroll 237 of the target 453 patients because the COVID-19 outbreak was brought under control in Wuhan. What's more, restrictions on bed availability resulted in most patients being enrolled later in the disease course, so we were unable to adequately assess whether earlier treatment with remdesivir might have provided clinical benefit.'" (April 29)

The NEJM may have dropped the final straw that broke the Remdesivir back.  Next in Part 4: The apparent demise of Remdesivir takes it out of competition with Hydroxychloroquine. But another drug company competitor is already in play. Plus, the topic of censorship from YouTube merits more space than what remains in this installment of "Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both?" It, too, is ahead.     [A personal note from the author:  This article may post on or near May 25, Memorial Day in the United States, when I will again remember a sophomore band member who sat next to me in a Chicago suburban high school band when I was a senior. He was a small, Hispanic kid with an easy smile and a quiet demeanor. I graduated and went to college, never to see him again. Two years later he graduated, joined the United States Marine Corps, and went to Vietnam. He came home in a flag-draped coffin. I salute him every Memorial Day--when no one is looking – and will do so, until I am no long able.]

Hydroxychloroquine | Full Measure

If you’ve watched the news lately, you might be under the impression that a medicine President Trump touted as a possible game changer against coronavirus— has been debunked and discredited. Two divergent views of the drug, hydroxychloroquine, have emerged: the negative one widely reported in the press and another side you’ve probably heard less about. Never has a discussion about choices of medicine been so laced with political overtones. Today, how politics, money and medicine intersect with coronavirus.