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.