Science vs Christianity

SteveB

Well-known member
If you dont' think reasoning backwards from your conclusion is a problem, then your brain is too broken to argue with.
You still haven't demonstrated that your logic is sound.

Case in point.

Galileo explored his ideas, and developed the soundness of his hypothesis through experience.

Newton did likewise.
As have all the scientists up through to 70 years ago when an increasingly developed scientific foundation was developed through experimental investigation.

So, if my brain is too broken to reason with, then theirs were even more broken, and yet they are the ones who built the foundation upon which our modern understanding exists.
 
You still haven't demonstrated that your logic is sound.
You still haven't demonstrated you can count to 2.

Galileo explored his ideas, and developed the soundness of his hypothesis through experience.
Testing a hypothesis isn't reasoning backwards from a conclusion because a hypothesis isn't a conclusion.

It would be nice if you knew the meanings of words before you used them.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You still haven't demonstrated you can count to 2.
Actually I did.
You however clearly ignored it.
So, let's do it again.


Testing a hypothesis isn't reasoning backwards from a conclusion because a hypothesis isn't a conclusion.
And yet you clearly believe it is!
It would be nice if you knew the meanings of words before you used them.
I've been using a dictionary since elementary school. That's been at least 56 years now.

Perhaps you should try it sometime.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
I would ask about the risks and benefits of taking Remdesivir for Covid.

And you would expect an honest answer not dependent upon any financial or political incentive. The question becomes would you get it.

The risks and benefits for Remdisivir for Ebola aren't relevant, especially since the study did not say that Remdseivir caused a problem in and of itself, merely that it wasn't effective against Ebola.

The first part of that is accurate, the second part isn't. That wasn't the point of my offering the link. Nor was the offering intended to establish what I had concluded in the post. The link is provided only as a part of the conclusion. I said what I said and the study says what it says. Remdesivir does kill people, it does cause acute kidney failure. Dr. Fauci, who funded the study knew that. The study I linked to on Ebola, conducted in 2018-19, was a trial for the later Covid "pandemic." The study incriminates Fauci. He was looking for an expensive drug that kills. That was the point of the link. Your statement above is correct in that it isn't directly relevant in regards to Covid, but incorrect in that it either doesn't state that Remdesivir caused the death of 53% of the people in the study or wasn't effective against Ebola.

The study says: "Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled." What does a PCR tell you about a pathogen infection? Almost nothing. For example, the study says: "Patients of any age, including pregnant women, were eligible if they had a positive result on RT-PCR within 3 days before screening and if they had not received other investigational agents (except experimental vaccines) within the previous 30 days. Neonates who were 7 days of age or younger were eligible if the mother had documented EVD." PCR tests were given to determine the possible presence of the Ebola virus.

Okay, the test will read positive up to at least 12 weeks. Infection doesn't necessarily mean symptomatic. If the cycle threshold is high enough it will find just about anything you want and therefore, nothing, really. You can be infected and not have the disease. Unless you have symptoms you don't have it. You might have had it. You may have only been infected and not had it etc.

Why did you bring up that study about Remdesivir?

I've stated that above. My contention in this thread is that interpretation, corruption and ignorance is the only real similarity between theology and science to speak of. In one day sometime in the middle of May of 2020 more people from any country died of Covid than any other day up to that point in the "pandemic." Over 900 people in America. Why? Why was a respiratory virus causing acute kidney failure within 3-5 days of being treated as was widely being reported; something that had never been seen before? At that point the CDC had no approved treatment for hospitalized Covid patients and had adopted the treatment recommended by the NIH. It's important to note that there is a big difference between early stages of the viral infection and patients hospitalized with floral pneumonia the infection can graduate into.

The CDC website posted a link to a May 1st memo by Dr Fauci on the NIH website. He stated that the only approved treatment for hospitalized Covid-19 patients was an experimental drug called Remdesivir. The drug had not been approved by the FDA for anything, but was the only approved treatment for Covid-19, Dr Fauci said, due to it having been safe and effective in treatment of Ebola in Africa from 2018-19. He quoted a second study that came out in March of 2020 by Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir. The study says they gave Remdesivir to 53 Covid-19 patients and its safety and efficacy supports its use during the Covid-19 "pandemic."

He then goes on to say that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were not approved and have been proven to cause heart attacks and death to Covid-19 patients. No link to that study was given. Hydroxychloroquine has been proven safe and effective for 70 years, approved by the FDA, Chloroquine for 50.

To summarize so far. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID, part of the NIH, funded a study in four regions of Africa for four drugs, allegedly for Ebola. The first Remdesivir by Gilead, the second drug called ZMapp, a triple monoclonal antibody by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the third was MAB114, a singular monoclonal antibody, put in the study by our defense department DARPA. The fourth drug, regeneron (REGN-EB3), another triple monoclonal antibody. As table 2 states Remdesivir was pulled because it had the highest death rate 53%. ZMAP was also pulled at 49%. MAB114 had 35% and REGN-EB3 had 33%. If the study was the basis for Fauci's recommendation of treatment as he stated in his memo, why wasn't REGN-EB3 chosen? The latter two were allowed to continue through the year long trial.

Also, you provided the study as a source directly after you said that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure, leaving the implication that that study claimed that Remdesivir causes kidney failure. Do you retract that implication about that study and Remdesivir and kidney failure?

See above.

The study did not say that they died from Remdesivir.

They? 53% of them did die from Remdesivir. That's why they pulled it.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
...
Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. Source: New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019
...

From your source:

A total of 29 serious adverse events were determined by trial investigators to be potentially related to the trial drugs (Table S7). However, after adjudication by an independent pharmacovigilance committee, four events in three patients, all of which resulted in death, were determined to be possibly related to a trial drug: one patient in the ZMapp group had worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms; one patient in the ZMapp group had periinfusional hypotension and hypoxia that responded to resuscitation after treatment interruption but that resulted in death within 24 hours; and one patient in the remdesivir group had hypotension that resulted in cessation of a loading dose of remdesivir and that was followed rapidly by cardiac arrest. However, even in these cases, the deaths could not readily be distinguished from underlying fulminant EVD itself.

What your source reports is that there was just one death during the trial that may have been due to remdesivir, but could have been due to the Ebola, with nothing about acute kidney failure.

In fact, the word "kidney" does not even appear in your source for your claim that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure". Why is that?
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
From your source:

A total of 29 serious adverse events were determined by trial investigators to be potentially related to the trial drugs (Table S7). However, after adjudication by an independent pharmacovigilance committee, four events in three patients, all of which resulted in death, were determined to be possibly related to a trial drug: one patient in the ZMapp group had worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms; one patient in the ZMapp group had periinfusional hypotension and hypoxia that responded to resuscitation after treatment interruption but that resulted in death within 24 hours; and one patient in the remdesivir group had hypotension that resulted in cessation of a loading dose of remdesivir and that was followed rapidly by cardiac arrest. However, even in these cases, the deaths could not readily be distinguished from underlying fulminant EVD itself.

What your source reports is that there was just one death during the trial that may have been due to remdesivir, but could have been due to the Ebola, with nothing about acute kidney failure.

In fact, the word "kidney" does not even appear in your source for your claim that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure". Why is that?

So, I'm assuming that you and @Gus Bovona interpret the study as presenting the mortality rate of each medication considered in the study independent of any possible iatrogenic cause? In other words, Remdesivir only prevented slightly less than half of the people in the study from dying of Ebola and that isn't good enough so they pulled it from a year long study after only 28 days? In the study does it discuss any of the symptoms having caused death other than the uncertain one you mentioned so that there could be a clear understanding of what the patient died from?
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
So, I'm assuming that you and @Gus Bovona interpret the study as presenting the mortality rate of each medication considered in the study independent of any possible iatrogenic cause?
You used that the article to support your position that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure". The article does no such thing.

In other words, Remdesivir only prevented slightly less than half of the people in the study from dying of Ebola and that isn't good enough so they pulled it from a year long study after only 28 days?
So now you are not saying "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure"? Please clarify exactly what you claim is with regards to the study.

I see nothing wrong with pulling a drug from a study if it fails to show adequate efficacy; this seems a good idea to me.

In the study does it discuss any of the symptoms having caused death other than the uncertain one you mentioned so that there could be a clear understanding of what the patient died from?
The study says there was only one death that might possibly be attributed to Remdesivir , and that was not because of acute kidney failure. Hence, the article fails to support your claim that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure".

It is really just as simple as that. And if you are obliged to pretend articles say things they clearly do not, your whole argument suddenly looks like just so much hot air.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
And you would expect an honest answer not dependent upon any financial or political incentive. The question becomes would you get it.
Any evidence as to the frequency of dishonest or biased answers?

The first part of that is accurate, the second part isn't. That wasn't the point of my offering the link. Nor was the offering intended to establish what I had concluded in the post. The link is provided only as a part of the conclusion. I said what I said and the study says what it says. Remdesivir does kill people, it does cause acute kidney failure. Dr. Fauci, who funded the study knew that. The study I linked to on Ebola, conducted in 2018-19, was a trial for the later Covid "pandemic." The study incriminates Fauci. He was looking for an expensive drug that kills. That was the point of the link. Your statement above is correct in that it isn't directly relevant in regards to Covid, but incorrect in that it either doesn't state that Remdesivir caused the death of 53% of the people in the study or wasn't effective against Ebola.

The study says: "Patients of any age who had a positive result for Ebola virus RNA on reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction assay were enrolled." What does a PCR tell you about a pathogen infection? Almost nothing. For example, the study says: "Patients of any age, including pregnant women, were eligible if they had a positive result on RT-PCR within 3 days before screening and if they had not received other investigational agents (except experimental vaccines) within the previous 30 days. Neonates who were 7 days of age or younger were eligible if the mother had documented EVD." PCR tests were given to determine the possible presence of the Ebola virus.

Okay, the test will read positive up to at least 12 weeks. Infection doesn't necessarily mean symptomatic. If the cycle threshold is high enough it will find just about anything you want and therefore, nothing, really. You can be infected and not have the disease. Unless you have symptoms you don't have it. You might have had it. You may have only been infected and not had it etc.
I don't see anything in what you just wrote above, nor in the study, that says that it was the Remdesivir that was the agent that killed someone. See The Pixie's comment #265, too.

I've stated that above. My contention in this thread is that interpretation, corruption and ignorance is the only real similarity between theology and science to speak of. In one day sometime in the middle of May of 2020 more people from any country died of Covid than any other day up to that point in the "pandemic." Over 900 people in America. Why? Why was a respiratory virus causing acute kidney failure within 3-5 days of being treated as was widely being reported; something that had never been seen before? At that point the CDC had no approved treatment for hospitalized Covid patients and had adopted the treatment recommended by the NIH. It's important to note that there is a big difference between early stages of the viral infection and patients hospitalized with floral pneumonia the infection can graduate into.

The CDC website posted a link to a May 1st memo by Dr Fauci on the NIH website. He stated that the only approved treatment for hospitalized Covid-19 patients was an experimental drug called Remdesivir. The drug had not been approved by the FDA for anything, but was the only approved treatment for Covid-19, Dr Fauci said, due to it having been safe and effective in treatment of Ebola in Africa from 2018-19. He quoted a second study that came out in March of 2020 by Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir. The study says they gave Remdesivir to 53 Covid-19 patients and its safety and efficacy supports its use during the Covid-19 "pandemic."

He then goes on to say that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were not approved and have been proven to cause heart attacks and death to Covid-19 patients. No link to that study was given. Hydroxychloroquine has been proven safe and effective for 70 years, approved by the FDA, Chloroquine for 50.

To summarize so far. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID, part of the NIH, funded a study in four regions of Africa for four drugs, allegedly for Ebola. The first Remdesivir by Gilead, the second drug called ZMapp, a triple monoclonal antibody by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the third was MAB114, a singular monoclonal antibody, put in the study by our defense department DARPA. The fourth drug, regeneron (REGN-EB3), another triple monoclonal antibody. As table 2 states Remdesivir was pulled because it had the highest death rate 53%. ZMAP was also pulled at 49%. MAB114 had 35% and REGN-EB3 had 33%. If the study was the basis for Fauci's recommendation of treatment as he stated in his memo, why wasn't REGN-EB3 chosen? The latter two were allowed to continue through the year long trial.
Table 2 is measuring the effectiveness of the four drugs for treating Ebola, not the death rate caused by the drug itself.

See above.
I see nothing in the above that says that the study you referenced says that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. If it is there, please quote from the study itself, or quote another study. Up to now, all I've seen is your assertions that it does.

They? 53% of them did die from Remdesivir. That's why they pulled it.
Nowhere in the study does it say they died from Remdesivir, as opposed to dying from Ebola. If you can find that in the study, please quote it.

As some indirect evidence, the study is organized around finding the effectiveness of the four drugs, not determining whether the drugs are lethal or not. To wit, ". . . 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. . . ."
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
You used that the article to support your position that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure". The article does no such thing.

I did not and I explained that to Gus. But it does cause kidney failure. Have you investigated whether it does or are you going to take the article not mentioning it to mean that it doesn't? You're just debating. I need you to think. I used the article to support that Fauci used the drug that unquestionably does cause acute kidney failure to induce a fake pandemic. The article doesn't need to tell me that. Why did the people die in that study? Does it say why? Does it say they died from Ebola? Does it describe the symptoms? What does the study tell you regarding my suggestion that Fauci used Remdesivir as such?

So now you are not saying "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure"? Please clarify exactly what you claim is with regards to the study.

The 2018-19 African Ebola study Fauci presented as support for using Remdesivir for Covid was a rehearsal for Covid. He was looking for a drug that kills like AZT, which he used in the 1980s for AIDS. I'm afraid the study doesn't come out and say that so you're going to have to use your reasoning to determine whether or not it's true. Dallas Buyers Club. Fauci took a bunch of orphan children, whether they had AIDS or not, probably most of them didn't, and he killed them with AZT. The kids knew it was killing them so they would refuse it and Fauci would just force them. This is the person we're dealing with.

I see nothing wrong with pulling a drug from a study if it fails to show adequate efficacy; this seems a good idea to me.

Okay, that makes sense, but like I said. 53% for Remdesivir vs 35% and 33% for the drugs that made it to the end of the trial. So, what percent for a control group? How many people on Remdesivir were saved from Ebola? the problem with this sort of thing is that we can always say "well, think how many would have died if we did or didn't do this or that." It's like someone who gets something they pray for says it's God's gift but if they don't get it then it's God's wisdom is beyond ours, he knows I don't need it. Something like that. Remember the context of the discussion.

The study says there was only one death that might possibly be attributed to Remdesivir , and that was not because of acute kidney failure. Hence, the article fails to support your claim that "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure".

The basis for my claim that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure doesn't come from the study. Just look it up.

It is really just as simple as that. And if you are obliged to pretend articles say things they clearly do not, your whole argument suddenly looks like just so much hot air.

Ah, debate. Better off asking the cat.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I did not ...
Yes you did. Here, I will quote it again, from post #215:

...
Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. Source: New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019
...
You stated "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure" and you cited that article as your "source".


But it does cause kidney failure. Have you investigated whether it does or are you going to take the article not mentioning it to mean that it doesn't?
No I have not investigated it; I do not know if it does or not. Right now, that you say it does, given your creditability, I would guess it does not.

I am not going top bother reading the rest of your post, given you are engaging in this sort of falsehood.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Yes you did. Here, I will quote it again, from post #215:


You stated "Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure" and you cited that article as your "source".



No I have not investigated it; I do not know if it does or not. Right now, that you say it does, given your creditability, I would guess it does not.

I am not going top bother reading the rest of your post, given you are engaging in this sort of falsehood.

These are my sources.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8990823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907730/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33340409/
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2587
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8353611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8177613/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34787281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8968134/
https://theprint.in/health/cipla-to...ir-recipe-to-reduce-effect-on-kidneys/571951/
http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=134341&sid=1
https://advances.massgeneral.org/research-and-innovation/article.aspx?id=1224
https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_remdesivir_rdv/drugs-condition.htm

Remdesivir was chosen to kill people, exaggerate the pandemic, and make a hefty profit. SOURCE

I knew it caused acute kidney failure before I knew about the study. When I provide a link in a post it isn't necessarily a source of everything I say. I sometimes offer links that disagree with me. On my website and on forums with atheist twits like this. I keep forgetting they can't think for themselves. The link, like I've said repeatedly, was given for consideration of Remdesivir mortality rate of 53.1% and having been removed from the trial after 28 days but still chosen by Fauci for Covid. The study doesn't say it causes acute kidney failure because it doesn't say what killed them.

An atheist twit couldn't see that and wouldn't look it up because they are lazy intellectual cowards and liars.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
These are my sources.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8990823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907730/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33340409/
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2587
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8353611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8177613/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34787281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8968134/
https://theprint.in/health/cipla-to...ir-recipe-to-reduce-effect-on-kidneys/571951/
http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=134341&sid=1
https://advances.massgeneral.org/research-and-innovation/article.aspx?id=1224
https://www.rxlist.com/consumer_remdesivir_rdv/drugs-condition.htm

Remdesivir was chosen to kill people, exaggerate the pandemic, and make a hefty profit. SOURCE

I knew it caused acute kidney failure before I knew about the study. When I provide a link in a post it isn't necessarily a source of everything I say. I sometimes offer links that disagree with me. On my website and on forums with atheist twits like this. I keep forgetting they can't think for themselves. The link, like I've said repeatedly, was given for consideration of Remdesivir mortality rate of 53.1% and having been removed from the trial after 28 days but still chosen by Fauci for Covid. The study doesn't say it causes acute kidney failure because it doesn't say what killed them.

An atheist twit couldn't see that and wouldn't look it up because they are lazy intellectual cowards and liars.

From your first link:
Renal function should be carefully monitored in COVID-19 patients being treated with remdesivir.
From the CDC:
Before starting patients on remdesivir, the FDA recommends performing estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [kidney function], liver function, and prothrombin time tests as clinically appropriate and repeating these tests during treatment as clinically indicated.
So your first link agrees with the CDC & FDA.

Furthermore, your first link says,
Although causality was not confirmed, the association between remdesivir and AKI should not be ignored, especially in older, male COVID-19 inpatients.
So your first link says that we cannot say that remdesivir causes kidney failure (but the correlation means that doctors should be careful, which is why testing kidney function before going on and during remdsivir treatment is indicated).

If, as you claim, remdseivir was chosen to kill people, why would the CDC then warn doctors that
Accumulation of SBECD in patients with renal impairment may result in liver and renal toxicities.
and state their other warnings about using remdesivir?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Science today alters its views to preserve its financial backing. Scientific conclusions are based, not on the evidence or observations, but upon who is funding the scientific studies.
Of course, I'm humoring the OP by using THEIR nomenclature. No one who says things like "Science says; science requires, science alters, etc., etc. etc." is referring to science at all, but to their religious belief in scientism.

Today scientism has taken on the mantle of a totalitarian regime. The edicts of the high priests of scientism cannot be questioned without the immediate loss of status, employment, or one's very life.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
From your first link:

From the CDC:

So your first link agrees with the CDC & FDA.

Furthermore, your first link says,

So your first link says that we cannot say that remdesivir causes kidney failure (but the correlation means that doctors should be careful, which is why testing kidney function before going on and during remdsivir treatment is indicated).

If, as you claim, remdseivir was chosen to kill people, why would the CDC then warn doctors that

and state their other warnings about using remdesivir?

Here's the thing. You and @The Pixie answer yes or no to the following and I'm willing to continue this discussion with the two of you. Otherwise I'm not. The question is simply this, in bold: Do you agree with the use of Remdesivir (Veklury) for hospitalized Covid-19 patients? My answer is no.

Why?

Because it is ineffective and it is harmful. Dangerous.

Quote: "With Covid, Remdesivir statistics from 2,058 deaths on CMS data (Medicare) revealed a death rate of 26%, and 46% of those died within 14 days of treatment. The mortality rate from Covid is around 1%, depending on the country.” (Source: Rise Align Ignite Reclaim)

Me: 30% of the 750,00 Americans treated with Remdesivir means about 250,000 deaths by Remdesivir. Did your science do that? Typical. Maybe there's an afterlife, huh?

Quote: "1. Added bonus for a Covid 19 diagnosis 2. Another bonus for a Covid 19 admission to the hospital 3. A 20% “boost” bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for the use of REMDESIVIR instead of medications like Ivermectin 4. Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a Covid-19 patient is mechanically ventilated 5. More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as Covid even if patient did not die directly of Covid. 6. A Covid diagnosis also provides extra payment s to coroners." (Source: Associations of American Physicians and Surgeons)

Quote: "WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.” - World Health Organization
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Here's the thing. You and @The Pixie answer yes or no to the following and I'm willing to continue this discussion with the two of you. Otherwise I'm not. The question is simply this, in bold: Do you agree with the use of Remdesivir (Veklury) for hospitalized Covid-19 patients? My answer is no.
It's not really a yes or no question, as any drug has to be considered in terms of risks and benefits for a specific patient. Perhaps you mean, should the FDA have approved remdesivir for Covid patients at all?

Why?

Because it is ineffective and it is harmful. Dangerous.
Again, most drugs have side effects, which can be dangerous, so it's always a risk/benefit calculation.

What is your source for remdesivir being ineffective (ignore whether it is harmful or dangerous for this question)? See directly below, though.

Quote: "With Covid, Remdesivir statistics from 2,058 deaths on CMS data (Medicare) revealed a death rate of 26%, and 46% of those died within 14 days of treatment. The mortality rate from Covid is around 1%, depending on the country.” (Source: Rise Align Ignite Reclaim)
Me: 30% of the 750,00 Americans treated with Remdesivir means about 250,000 deaths by Remdesivir. Did your science do that? Typical. Maybe there's an afterlife, huh?
RAIR is not a scientific source. Do you have a scientific study to support the above stats? Not sure if you're relying on the first study you referenced, but if you are, that's not what the study said, as I've pointed out before.

Quote: "1. Added bonus for a Covid 19 diagnosis 2. Another bonus for a Covid 19 admission to the hospital 3. A 20% “boost” bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for the use of REMDESIVIR instead of medications like Ivermectin 4. Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a Covid-19 patient is mechanically ventilated 5. More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as Covid even if patient did not die directly of Covid. 6. A Covid diagnosis also provides extra payment s to coroners." (Source: Associations of American Physicians and Surgeons)

Quote: "WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.” - World Health Organization
Your quote from WHO directly above comes from 2020. They updated their recommendation this year, two years after they said what you quoted directly above.

If you click on the pamphlet from WHO about remdesivir for Covid, you'll see they warn against using it for patients with kidney problems. Tell me what is not scientifically indicated in that pamplhet (the second link directly above), and what scientific study argues against it
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Of course, I'm humoring the OP by using THEIR nomenclature. No one who says things like "Science says; science requires, science alters, etc., etc. etc." is referring to science at all, but to their religious belief in scientism.

Today scientism has taken on the mantle of a totalitarian regime. The edicts of the high priests of scientism cannot be questioned without the immediate loss of status, employment, or one's very life.
What is scientism in your view?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You're giving off flat earther vibes
You're projecting. The Flat earth perspective is incoherent. For starters, they openly admit a north pole, but you can't have one without the other. Polarity requires two poles. Regardless, you're pointless Ad Hominem is noted.
 
Top