Because time is of the essence, I am putting up work materials that are incomplete and unfinalized. Hopefully, someone will find this information helpful. The first submission is a working deck on Remdesivir and Veklury and I am interested in if its missing anything or if it can be made more accurate.
My hypothesis was that for a number of reasons the system, both inside and outside of government, “created room” for Remdesvir’s expedited approval. Some of the rationale for creating this special track for remdesivir with NIAID studies fraught with conflicts may have been justified due to exigencies, but most seems suspect.
We now have good reason to believe that remdesivir is dangerous and not efficacious. Frankly, the studies supporting its use have red flags you would look for if you were looking to make research fraud cases. But because so many public health experts inside government seemed to have been creating room for remdesivir, and it was evident early on that Remdesivir was not suitable for early use and it could only be administered through IV in hospital, the current FDA protocol that avoids early intervention has the appearance of not being driven by the best science.
There is always a reluctance and a bias against off-patent drugs, but in this case, where the off-patent drugs, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, were known to be safe and very efficacious, this created an existential threat to not only to Gilead and Remdesivir, but to the vaccine development programs as well. Was hydroxychloroquine used early so effective that it would have robbed the urgency from vaccine development?
I find it hard to believe that elected officials were briefed on all these issues in an accurate context.
This had tragic consequences because you can see the no early intervention imprint in the FDA treatment protocol. Standard care requires that patients with Covid19