Wasn't the chance of the vaccine being approved under FDA Emergency Use Approval (EUA) compromised if there were viable -working- alternate treatments available? Hence Ivermectin, (maybe HCQ too ) ambushed and shot down by vested interests? https://www.fda.gov/media/155863/download
In the terms of the massive research funding budgets that Fauci controls, as Robert F Kennedy Jr described in some detail to Chris Martenson, Fauci arranges royalty patents to his favored insiders. And as you describe, the preeminent insiders Baric and Daszak were involved in this one. Maybe he owed Gilead a piece of the pie too. In this article, Remdesivir was offered on one hand while disgracefully taking away hydroxychloroquine with the other hand:
All I know is I have a loved one who died after being on Remdesivir for two five-day rounds. It’s truly heartbreaking. Please continue to reveal and spread the truth. Thank you.
I think I've solved the riddle. If you read the stipulations of the Emergency Use Authorization called for was that there be "no other cure available at the time". Therefore if for instance early treatment of Remdesivir, HCQ, or IVM was shown to be successful the three E.U.A vaccinations would have lost their approval status. $$$$$
I am on hydroxycloroquine, have been for 20+ years, for an autoimmune disease. I had Covid in December 2020, non vaxxed, immune compromised, and had a mild case. I totally contribute that to taking the hydroxycloroquine. I never had an issue getting it since I had been on it prior to all the controversy.
What's stunning to an observer in Asia is how globally these corrupt errors are enforced. It's one thing for Fauci to send forth Rockefeller Rick Bright to assassinate hydroxychloroquine with the FDA. It's another to find suddenly that doctors in Queensland are threatened with fines or 10 days jail if they dare prescribe it. Despite China and South Korea publishing early protocols including hydroxy, we soon find Singapore dissuaded from their early experiments with it.
Yet Singapore and Taiwan slavishly follow the FDA into sole use of kidney-destroying Remdesivir. Indeed, matching the NIH recommendations exactly, Remdesivir was the only treatment approved in Singapore until the US relented and EUA'd some monoclonal antibodies. They have also parroted the dismissive party line on ivermectin, but are quite ready to follow the US into Paxlovid and Molnupiravir when available. Cultural or technical deference to the US can't explain this; it surely has to be enforced by the global pharma suppliers.
More musing: According to the Scientists to Stop COVID-19 report, there were (possibly still are) severe supply/ production constraints for remdesivir. So - another factor could be - a preference to target the inpatient market (where you can usually get much higher reimbursement).
The more I read about this mystery - the more it hurts my brain. ALL the early trials of remdesivir for COVID appear to be run in hospital settings - by researchers situated in academic medical centers. Even the WHO Solidarity trial is run on hospitalized (e.g. "severe") patients. So - we have to consider that - the machinery that was available to run trials was hospital-based. It takes a completely different operational apparatus to run trials on patients in outpatient settings. Presumably you need to have a bunch of GPs/primary care docs already, somehow organized into a network. So, maybe the felt "urgency" -drove the hospital focus of the research? The decision makers may have felt it would take too long to arrange outpatient trials?? To get a sense of how sensible trials might have been organized and implemented - we might go back and look at the trials for the antivirals zanamivir and oseltamivir.
I'm just reading a paper by Harvey Risch (from American Journal of Epidemiology) on early treatment from May 2020. He suggests that even if remdesivir were found to have reasonable efficacy for outpatient/ early treatment - the 'real world' effectiveness could have been much lower. There is a relatively short 'window' for identifying people who can benefit from early treatment...people have to seek care, get confirmed diagnosis, and then, rapidly get the intervention to still be in the "early phase" where viral replication is driving the disease manifestation/ progression.
When your treatment is delivered via IV and has a not so good side effect profile, and costs big bucks, your approach to using the treatment has to be more discerning than if your treatment is a pill, with good/ well-established safety profile and is super cheap.
Only thing I can add is Donald Rumsfeld succeeded a doctor, Dr Riordan, to become Chairman of the Board before Bush called him to his cabinet. Similar cast of unqualified characters were on Theranos' board
Well, how far-thinking was/were [fill in here]? Everyone knows vaccines become untouchable once added to the childhood vaccination protocol. They know that for most/average parents, many vaccines are just about unquestioned but newer ones like Gardasil, which are "recommended" but not part of the routine childhood schedule, have more hesitancy which has certainly annoyed their manufacturers.
And nothing's been rolled out as quickly as the COVID vaccines, yet children are now receiving them despite still under EUA. But not enough kids, right? If the COVID vaccines become part of that childhood protocol they'll be required for school.
It's hard to believe that there's such a cabal of evil geniuses who've gamed it all out from A to Z but at this point what insanity ISN'T credible?
(FYI I'm just an ordinary member of the populace with no medical/scientific credentials. I'm not vaxxed but my adult child chose to--was moot for him anyway since his employer later mandated it. My child was already following my recommendation to take 1000mg Vitamin C daily [I take much more] and Vitamin D plus a multi so I've just been praying for wellbeing).
Just to add another reference where a group of experts emphasize the importance of using and testing the use of remdesivir early on - I want to share this: a report issued in April 2020 by Scientists to Stop COVID-19 recommends widespread use of remdesivir and “as early in infection as possible” (p. 5). https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Scientists_to_Stop_COVID19_2020_04_23_FINAL.pdf The drafters/ signers of the report are a group of highly credentialed medical researchers from elite institutions.
There's some good stuff on Remdesivir on the Meryl Nass website regarding the assassination of hydroxychloroquine. The NIH treatment guidelines become bible, with any off-label deviation from them used to threaten doctors legally (and, as my other comment indicated, globally):
"You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which 16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs. Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead. Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, despite a Chinese Phase III study showing no benefit, which was mistakenly posted on the WHO website, then taken down? The guidelines authors deem their recommendations the new “standard of care.” Additional remdesivir studies have shown no clear mortality benefit."
Wasn't the chance of the vaccine being approved under FDA Emergency Use Approval (EUA) compromised if there were viable -working- alternate treatments available? Hence Ivermectin, (maybe HCQ too ) ambushed and shot down by vested interests? https://www.fda.gov/media/155863/download
In the terms of the massive research funding budgets that Fauci controls, as Robert F Kennedy Jr described in some detail to Chris Martenson, Fauci arranges royalty patents to his favored insiders. And as you describe, the preeminent insiders Baric and Daszak were involved in this one. Maybe he owed Gilead a piece of the pie too. In this article, Remdesivir was offered on one hand while disgracefully taking away hydroxychloroquine with the other hand:
https://drstevenhatfill.com/open-letter-to-america/
All I know is I have a loved one who died after being on Remdesivir for two five-day rounds. It’s truly heartbreaking. Please continue to reveal and spread the truth. Thank you.
I think I've solved the riddle. If you read the stipulations of the Emergency Use Authorization called for was that there be "no other cure available at the time". Therefore if for instance early treatment of Remdesivir, HCQ, or IVM was shown to be successful the three E.U.A vaccinations would have lost their approval status. $$$$$
I am on hydroxycloroquine, have been for 20+ years, for an autoimmune disease. I had Covid in December 2020, non vaxxed, immune compromised, and had a mild case. I totally contribute that to taking the hydroxycloroquine. I never had an issue getting it since I had been on it prior to all the controversy.
What's stunning to an observer in Asia is how globally these corrupt errors are enforced. It's one thing for Fauci to send forth Rockefeller Rick Bright to assassinate hydroxychloroquine with the FDA. It's another to find suddenly that doctors in Queensland are threatened with fines or 10 days jail if they dare prescribe it. Despite China and South Korea publishing early protocols including hydroxy, we soon find Singapore dissuaded from their early experiments with it.
Yet Singapore and Taiwan slavishly follow the FDA into sole use of kidney-destroying Remdesivir. Indeed, matching the NIH recommendations exactly, Remdesivir was the only treatment approved in Singapore until the US relented and EUA'd some monoclonal antibodies. They have also parroted the dismissive party line on ivermectin, but are quite ready to follow the US into Paxlovid and Molnupiravir when available. Cultural or technical deference to the US can't explain this; it surely has to be enforced by the global pharma suppliers.
Or it was never effective as the ebola trials showed. Actually probably counter effective.
It's just like the HIV scam... PCR testing, the treatment killed more but the disease got the credit for the death
Am I wrong to be highly suspicious of the involvement of Baric, and more especially Daszac, in the development of Remdesivir?
Nurses call remdesivir “run death is near”
More musing: According to the Scientists to Stop COVID-19 report, there were (possibly still are) severe supply/ production constraints for remdesivir. So - another factor could be - a preference to target the inpatient market (where you can usually get much higher reimbursement).
The more I read about this mystery - the more it hurts my brain. ALL the early trials of remdesivir for COVID appear to be run in hospital settings - by researchers situated in academic medical centers. Even the WHO Solidarity trial is run on hospitalized (e.g. "severe") patients. So - we have to consider that - the machinery that was available to run trials was hospital-based. It takes a completely different operational apparatus to run trials on patients in outpatient settings. Presumably you need to have a bunch of GPs/primary care docs already, somehow organized into a network. So, maybe the felt "urgency" -drove the hospital focus of the research? The decision makers may have felt it would take too long to arrange outpatient trials?? To get a sense of how sensible trials might have been organized and implemented - we might go back and look at the trials for the antivirals zanamivir and oseltamivir.
I'm just reading a paper by Harvey Risch (from American Journal of Epidemiology) on early treatment from May 2020. He suggests that even if remdesivir were found to have reasonable efficacy for outpatient/ early treatment - the 'real world' effectiveness could have been much lower. There is a relatively short 'window' for identifying people who can benefit from early treatment...people have to seek care, get confirmed diagnosis, and then, rapidly get the intervention to still be in the "early phase" where viral replication is driving the disease manifestation/ progression.
When your treatment is delivered via IV and has a not so good side effect profile, and costs big bucks, your approach to using the treatment has to be more discerning than if your treatment is a pill, with good/ well-established safety profile and is super cheap.
So, maybe Gilead wasn't optimistic that remdesivir would be a very effective/appealing outpatient treatment, even if it has higher efficacy when the patient gets treatment early. Here is the Risch paper https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/34045694/kwaa093.pdf
Only thing I can add is Donald Rumsfeld succeeded a doctor, Dr Riordan, to become Chairman of the Board before Bush called him to his cabinet. Similar cast of unqualified characters were on Theranos' board
Well, how far-thinking was/were [fill in here]? Everyone knows vaccines become untouchable once added to the childhood vaccination protocol. They know that for most/average parents, many vaccines are just about unquestioned but newer ones like Gardasil, which are "recommended" but not part of the routine childhood schedule, have more hesitancy which has certainly annoyed their manufacturers.
And nothing's been rolled out as quickly as the COVID vaccines, yet children are now receiving them despite still under EUA. But not enough kids, right? If the COVID vaccines become part of that childhood protocol they'll be required for school.
It's hard to believe that there's such a cabal of evil geniuses who've gamed it all out from A to Z but at this point what insanity ISN'T credible?
(FYI I'm just an ordinary member of the populace with no medical/scientific credentials. I'm not vaxxed but my adult child chose to--was moot for him anyway since his employer later mandated it. My child was already following my recommendation to take 1000mg Vitamin C daily [I take much more] and Vitamin D plus a multi so I've just been praying for wellbeing).
Just to add another reference where a group of experts emphasize the importance of using and testing the use of remdesivir early on - I want to share this: a report issued in April 2020 by Scientists to Stop COVID-19 recommends widespread use of remdesivir and “as early in infection as possible” (p. 5). https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Scientists_to_Stop_COVID19_2020_04_23_FINAL.pdf The drafters/ signers of the report are a group of highly credentialed medical researchers from elite institutions.
There's some good stuff on Remdesivir on the Meryl Nass website regarding the assassination of hydroxychloroquine. The NIH treatment guidelines become bible, with any off-label deviation from them used to threaten doctors legally (and, as my other comment indicated, globally):
"You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which 16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs. Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead. Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, despite a Chinese Phase III study showing no benefit, which was mistakenly posted on the WHO website, then taken down? The guidelines authors deem their recommendations the new “standard of care.” Additional remdesivir studies have shown no clear mortality benefit."
https://merylnassmd.com/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative/