Another drug with positive results?

[jimnyc]

A drug with positive results.

A drug that Trump thus far has NOT touted.

CNN and others reporting on it. Even though it's got small data, no studies completed and all the other crap folks complained about with the Hydroxy meds that Trump touted.

--

Gilead shares surge on promising COVID-19 drug report

New York (AFP) – Shares of US drugmaker Gilead Sciences rocketed higher Friday following a report recounting a promising performance for an antiviral medication being tested to treat the coronavirus.

The report in Stat News described a video discussion in which the head of clinical trials at the University of Chicago Medical School said almost all of the patients in a research group had been discharged after being treated with Gilead’s remdesivir.

The group of 125 patients, most with severe COVID-19 symptoms, suffered just two fatalities, Stat reported.

Gilead told the health news website that it would comment when more data is available.

The California-based company’s shares jumped 8.0 percent to $82.65 in late-morning trading after earlier surging as much as 12 percent.

On April 10, Gilead commented only cautiously following a positive writeup of another remdesivir study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers in the New England Journal study analyzed data from 53 patients, 25 of whom were discharged and seven of whom died.

Limitations in the study included “the small size of the cohort, the relatively short duration of follow-up… and the lack of a randomized control group,” the article said.

Still, the data “suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19,” the article said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/gilead-shares-surge-on-promising-covid-19-drug-report/

Also - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-remdesivir-trial/index.html

[Kathianne]

A drug with positive results.

A drug that Trump thus far has NOT touted.

CNN and others reporting on it. Even though it's got small data, no studies completed and all the other crap folks complained about with the Hydroxy meds that Trump touted.

--

Gilead shares surge on promising COVID-19 drug report

New York (AFP) – Shares of US drugmaker Gilead Sciences rocketed higher Friday following a report recounting a promising performance for an antiviral medication being tested to treat the coronavirus.

The report in Stat News described a video discussion in which the head of clinical trials at the University of Chicago Medical School said almost all of the patients in a research group had been discharged after being treated with Gilead’s remdesivir.

The group of 125 patients, most with severe COVID-19 symptoms, suffered just two fatalities, Stat reported.

Gilead told the health news website that it would comment when more data is available.

The California-based company’s shares jumped 8.0 percent to $82.65 in late-morning trading after earlier surging as much as 12 percent.

On April 10, Gilead commented only cautiously following a positive writeup of another remdesivir study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers in the New England Journal study analyzed data from 53 patients, 25 of whom were discharged and seven of whom died.

Limitations in the study included “the small size of the cohort, the relatively short duration of follow-up… and the lack of a randomized control group,” the article said.

Still, the data “suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19,” the article said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/gilead-shares-surge-on-promising-covid-19-drug-report/

Also - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-remdesivir-trial/index.html

I have better hopes on this one, though as you've said, if sick the anti-malarial would be accepted.

[jimnyc]

I have better hopes on this one, though as you've said, if sick the anti-malarial would be accepted.

I don't mean in a questioning argumentative manner... I would take EITHER in a heartbeat if I was getting worse and worse. But why do you feel more confidence in one or the other yet? I haven't jumped into this new medication yet. I only read 2 articles and nothing at all medical yet... just curious!

[Kathianne]

I don't mean in a questioning argumentative manner... I would take EITHER in a heartbeat if I was getting worse and worse. But why do you feel more confidence in one or the other yet? I haven't jumped into this new medication yet. I only read 2 articles and nothing at all medical yet... just curious!

The more I read about both the anti-malarial and the disease, the more long term effects seem to be there. Truth is, not hearing much about the lasting damage the disease is causing even in mild cases. Lung scarring and such. The anti-malarial in the use with the virus seems to be saving lives-which is #1, but also causing some cardiac issues.

Truth is, right now, all that matters is keeping people alive. What I haven't heard about is the anti-malarial as prophylaxis. That may actually be the best use of it?

[jimnyc]

The more I read about both the anti-malarial and the disease, the more long term effects seem to be there. Truth is, not hearing much about the lasting damage the disease is causing even in mild cases. Lung scarring and such. The anti-malarial in the use with the virus seems to be saving lives-which is #1, but also causing some cardiac issues.

Truth is, right now, all that matters is keeping people alive. What I haven't heard about is the anti-malarial as prophylaxis. That may actually be the best use of it?

Yep, I read the feedback of potential cardiac issues. A lot I read revolved around taking it incorrectly and/or wrong amounts and/or given to patients that shouldn't be taking it. I do believe some folks still need to qualify for known issues and side effects. Seems mostly with the elder or folks with other underlying issues.

But I need to read medical feedback on this other one. If they say it may not work for everyone but zero potential for harm, well then that one is my preference!!

I think the doctor one has is most important, one that knows you, knows all your issues, and can appropriately prescribe one or the other. And also, with the other having shortages, I wonder if this one has more?

[Kathianne]

Yep, I read the feedback of potential cardiac issues. A lot I read revolved around taking it incorrectly and/or wrong amounts and/or given to patients that shouldn't be taking it. I do believe some folks still need to qualify for known issues and side effects. Seems mostly with the elder or folks with other underlying issues.

But I need to read medical feedback on this other one. If they say it may not work for everyone but zero potential for harm, well then that one is my preference!!

I think the doctor one has is most important, one that knows you, knows all your issues, and can appropriately prescribe one or the other. And also, with the other having shortages, I wonder if this one has more?
Since this is new...I doubt there would be more, but I'm no expert.

[jimnyc]

Since this is new...I doubt there would be more, but I'm no expert.

My bad in phrasing - I meant I was wondering about stock, and if there is "more" of it at hand if needed.

[Kathianne]

My bad in phrasing - I meant I was wondering about stock, and if there is "more" of it at hand if needed.
My understanding is on trial. I read a bit about it because U of Chicago is part of trial 3.

[Kathianne]

and more on anti-malarial:


https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2020/04/17/results-texas-nursing-home-using-hydroxychloroquine/

The Results Are In On The Texas Nursing Home Using Hydroxychloroquine
KAREN TOWNSENDPosted at 6:01 pm on April 17, 2020

Last week I wrote about a doctor who serves as the medical director of a nursing home in Texas City, Texas testing hydroxychloroquine on a group of elderly patients. The test results are in. It’s good news.

...


No matter how we look at this, down the road there can be some problems. Obviously with the way, in the circumstances, no placebos are given. It's all anecdotal.

That cannot be done with vaccines, so we use what we got. . .

[Kathianne]

A drug with positive results.

A drug that Trump thus far has NOT touted.

CNN and others reporting on it. Even though it's got small data, no studies completed and all the other crap folks complained about with the Hydroxy meds that Trump touted.

--

Gilead shares surge on promising COVID-19 drug report

New York (AFP) – Shares of US drugmaker Gilead Sciences rocketed higher Friday following a report recounting a promising performance for an antiviral medication being tested to treat the coronavirus.

The report in Stat News described a video discussion in which the head of clinical trials at the University of Chicago Medical School said almost all of the patients in a research group had been discharged after being treated with Gilead’s remdesivir.

The group of 125 patients, most with severe COVID-19 symptoms, suffered just two fatalities, Stat reported.

Gilead told the health news website that it would comment when more data is available.

The California-based company’s shares jumped 8.0 percent to $82.65 in late-morning trading after earlier surging as much as 12 percent.

On April 10, Gilead commented only cautiously following a positive writeup of another remdesivir study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers in the New England Journal study analyzed data from 53 patients, 25 of whom were discharged and seven of whom died.

Limitations in the study included “the small size of the cohort, the relatively short duration of follow-up… and the lack of a randomized control group,” the article said.

Still, the data “suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19,” the article said.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/gilead-shares-surge-on-promising-covid-19-drug-report/

Also - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-remdesivir-trial/index.html


:(

Disturbing. It's part and parcel of what seems to be going on with this twisted virus:

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/24/why-failure-remderivir-deeply-disturbing-14743


If Remdesivir Really Fails There May Be No Treatment For Coronavirus
By Josh Bloom — April 24, 2020


It's only one trial, and we don't even know if the report is correct, but a leaked draft report indicated that remdesivir was ineffective in its first controlled trial. Let's assume that this is true and we see the same from other trials. If so, this will not simply be another experimental drug failing. It will be deeply disturbing. Here's why.




I know how he feels. Photo: Wikipedia Commons
First, we do not know whether remdesivir has failed. Not by a long shot. The leaked draft document of a trial in China may or may not be real. There are hundreds of other ongoing trials with different endpoints that could tell a different story. But let's assume the worst – that remdesivir just doesn't work against coronavirus.


This would be deeply disturbing for reasons I will give below. The "failure" of remdesivir is far worse than the failure of the malaria drugs, HIV drugs, and all the other drugs that haven't failed yet. This is because it should have worked. Here's why.


Remdesivir operates by the same mechanism that works like a charm for HCV – inhibition of RNA assembly and is conceptually the same as how acyclovir works against herpes (DNA assembly). So there were no crazy assumptions about theoretical mechanisms that haven't been validated, let alone even tried before.


Drugs of a new class (those operating by novel mechanism) are more likely to fail because there is no precedent that such a drug has succeeded (or failed) in people. Since this is not the case with remdesivir one has to wonder why it "failed," given an established track record of drugs that work in the same way. If the drug ultimately fails it will be devastating – much more so than whatever happens (or happened) to HIV protease inhibitors, ivermectin, and all the other candidates that are in the queue. Here's why.


In vitro data showed that the drug inhibited viral replication in cultured lung cells (the EC50 values, a measure of potency, were in line with that of other drugs). This suggested that remdesivir would inhibit viral replication in the body at a "reasonable" dose.


The data package from preclinical trials was rather complete, especially given the extreme urgency and mad rush to find any drug that would get this monster under control: Cell-based activity at a reasonable concentration without cellular toxicity, safety data (1) from earlier trials against Ebola, precedent (a known mechanism of action), and (importantly) the drug was a nucleotide analog – arguably the most successful class of viral inhibitors. And the drug is given IV, which eliminates some of the problems that can cause pills to fail (e.g. bioavailability).


But the strongest indicator of efficacy in humans was that it worked in monkey models, both prophylactically and therapeutically, something I wrote about in March. I have no explanation of why the monkey efficacy did not translate into human efficacy. None.


Here what troubles me most. I have just given you the profile of an experimental drug that should be an effective antiviral drug based on what we know about RNA and DNA polymerase inhibitors. Of course, it would have been nice if the drug was 100-times more potent in cell culture experiment. But keep in mind that this drug was "off the shelf" – not a molecule that had been fine-tuned for years for anti-SARS-2-CoV, yet it still looked good.


Why? I have no idea (I worked on HCV polymerase inhibitors for 5 years so I'm more than a little familiar with this topic). This tells me that it is probably going to be VERY hard to develop an antiviral drug for SARS-2-CoV. This is what troubles me the most. If remdesivir fails what in the world is going to succeed? The malaria drugs never had a chance from the get-go. The AIDS drugs were a stretch, but everything about remdesivir makes sense, except the outcome.


I suspect it will be a very long time (and I sure hope I'm wrong) before we see such a high-quality preclinical candidate and it could STILL meet the same fate unless someone comes up with an explanation of what went wrong. This is what will keep me awake tonight. The chances are (now) that we'll be waiting on a vaccine, which may or may not even be possible. If that draft we saw is indicative of the final data yesterday was a very bad day.

[Kathianne]

It's nasty:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/368527/


APRIL 27, 2020
UGH: Young and middle-aged people, barely sick with covid-19, are dying of strokes. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/) “Doctors sound alarm about patients in their 30s and 40s left debilitated or dead. Some didn’t even know they were infected.”

There was one report out of Wuhan, China, that showed that some hospitalized patients had experienced strokes, with many being seriously ill and elderly. But the linkage was considered more of “a clinical hunch by a lot of really smart people,” said Sherry H-Y Chou, a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center neurologist and critical care doctor.
Now for the first time, three large U.S. medical centers are preparing to publish data on the stroke phenomenon. There are only a few dozen cases per location, but they provide new insights into what the virus does to our bodies.
A stroke, which is a sudden interruption of the blood supply, is a complex problem with numerous causes and presentations. It can be caused by heart problems, clogged arteries due to cholesterol, even substance abuse. Mini-strokes often don’t cause permanent damage and can resolve on their own within 24 hours. But bigger ones can be catastrophic.
The numbers are small enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if they were linked to regular drug use.






https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/368498/


APRIL 27, 2020
SO “NO EVIDENCE OF IMMUNITY” ISN’T THE SAME AS “EVIDENCE OF NO IMMUNITY,” BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS DOESN’T BODE WELL FOR A VACCINE: Coronavirus: ‘No evidence’ recovered patients are immune to re-infection, warns WHO. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-immunity-passports-antibody-tests-world-health-organisation-a9484261.html) I mean, in principle I suppose you could have a vaccine that produces an immune response that’s superior to what the body produces naturally on infection, but how likely is that?
Or maybe it’s all overcautious, misleading bullshit: WHO Deletes Misleading Tweet That Spread Paranoia About COVID-19 Reinfection. (https://reason.com/2020/04/26/world-health-organization-tweet-coronavirus-covid-19-antibodies/) “That’s technically true: There’s no evidence of immunity. But that’s because COVID-19 is new and the matter hasn’t been conclusively studied yet.”

[Drummond]

It's nasty:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/368527/




https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/368498/

Doesn't every bit of this point to the one inescapable conclusion ? That lifting restrictions prematurely has enormous potential for disaster.

What if we're all stuck with Covid for years, its always being present, the chance of reinfection spikes and worse a permanent threat ?

What if it mutates ?

The virus seems to be geared to testing the body of the infected person to its own specific limits. If people pass that test, they recover. If weaknesses exist, Covid will exploit them.

Covid's very 'nature' seems exploitative.

On a macro level, premature liftings of restrictions provide more infection possibilities. This, too, Covid-19 can and will exploit.

[Kathianne]

Doesn't every bit of this point to the one inescapable conclusion ? That lifting restrictions prematurely has enormous potential for disaster.

What if we're all stuck with Covid for years, its always being present, the chance of reinfection spikes and worse a permanent threat ?

What if it mutates ?

The virus seems to be geared to testing the body of the infected person to its own specific limits. If people pass that test, they recover. If weaknesses exist, Covid will exploit them.

Covid's very 'nature' seems exploitative.

On a macro level, premature liftings of restrictions provide more infection possibilities. This, too, Covid-19 can and will exploit.
What will be will be.

[Black Diamond]

Doesn't every bit of this point to the one inescapable conclusion ? That lifting restrictions prematurely has enormous potential for disaster.

What if we're all stuck with Covid for years, its always being present, the chance of reinfection spikes and worse a permanent threat ?

What if it mutates ?

The virus seems to be geared to testing the body of the infected person to its own specific limits. If people pass that test, they recover. If weaknesses exist, Covid will exploit them.

Covid's very 'nature' seems exploitative.

On a macro level, premature liftings of restrictions provide more infection possibilities. This, too, Covid-19 can and will exploit.

Then the American press will forever talk about covid instead of what Kate Middleton had for breakfast.