This needs to stay near the top of Page 1.

XXXVII said:

---

Bump.

Remdesivir is responsible for killing many people "with COVID-19" and inflating the USA's COVID-19 death numbers. In Remdesivir drug trials, 53% of people given the drug died.

Guess who was pushing Remdesivir treatments? Fauci.

---

This is very eye opening. I haven't watched the whole thing, but did they ever mention mortality rate within the control group? From quick search online, ebola has 50% mortality rate.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

~3hr 30min in. Data in UK right now is showing that 83% of covid deaths are among "fully vaxxed"

---

I wonder if that is deaths after a specific date, because the first two waves were in spring/summer 2020 and then in late fall/winter of 2020-2021 when few had taken the shots, and even then it was near the end of the winter wave.

Also, it would be good to know details on those who took the shots and are labeled labeled as coronavirus deaths. Were they mostly elderly? Did they have one or more tier 1 comorbidities? Did they have cancer or another terminal condition? Or were they almost all under 50?

The numbers sound one way, but we need more data than just a one line number saying "X" died.

A ton of the info they are giving was talking about the vax may work for alpha but does not work for delta or further variants. How it is basically telling people to use flu vax from 4 years ago to fight this year's flu.

Also talking about leaky vaccines in the sense that the spike gets places it does not go as part of the actual virus. Why myocarditis is so pronounced and you are seeing the reproductive bleeding/miscarriages etc.

I would love to see the slides they are referencing. The camera is focused on the speaker. am trying to find the slides

I'm 24 minutes into this and rolling my eyes. This first guy talking about remdesivir either doesn't know what he's talking about or is purposely trying to mislead people.

53% of the patients given remdesivir died, but this is an Ebola study, and 50% of the control patients died. The difference is only slight and not statistically significant, so the worst you can say is that remdesivir did not help against Ebola, not that it killed people.

He goes on to state that the other two drugs that were continued in the study had mortality rates of about 35%. One of them is regeneron. Then he makes a comparison against covid-19, asking why you would treat covid-19 with a drug that has a higher mortality rate than covid-19 itself. This is a false comparison. The mortality rate of 33% in the Ebola means that regeneron decreased mortality by about 34% for that disease. It is reasonable to hypothesize that it would act similarly for another similar disease, reducing mortality. And from what I've heard, it has.

He is really interpreting the scientific study completely wrong. For background, I have a Ph.D in meat science and muscle biology, so I've read a lot of scientific papers and know how to interpret them. I've also taught graduate students how to interpret scientific studies. I will continue watching. Hope it gets better. I'm generally in the camp that covid-19 has been overblown and against vaccine mandates especially in children.

Wasn't that the point he was making? it had a mortality rate of 53% which would put it above the rate for the disease itself. The others actually helped against ebola thus the lower mortality rates. Maybe I heard it wrong but that is how I understood that part.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Also talking about leaky vaccines in the sense that the spike gets places it does not go as part of the actual virus. Why myocarditis is so pronounced and you are seeing the reproductive bleeding/miscarriages etc.

---

One theory I've heard about that is some could be caused by injection errors where the needle gets into a blood vessel instead of the muscle.

When you get a shot that is designed to go into the muscle, the person giving the shot should not pinch the skin, and should draw back the on the plunger slightly once the needle is inserted to make sure it does not draw out blood. If it does, remove it and try again with a new syringe in a different location.

Yes 53 percent is numerically higher, but it wasn't statistically significant. So you can't make assumptions that the death rate was worse with remdesivir. The difference is less than the margin of error.

MeatDr said:

---

I'm 24 minutes into this and rolling my eyes. This first guy talking about remdesivir either doesn't know what he's talking about or is purposely trying to mislead people.

53% of the patients given remdesivir died, but this is an Ebola study, and 50% of the control patients died. The difference is only slight and not statistically significant, so the worst you can say is that remdesivir did not help against Ebola, not that it killed people.

He goes on to state that the other two drugs that were continued in the study had mortality rates of about 35%. One of them is regeneron. Then he makes a comparison against covid-19, asking why you would treat covid-19 with a drug that has a higher mortality rate than covid-19 itself. This is a false comparison. The mortality rate of 33% in the Ebola means that regeneron decreased mortality by about 34% for that disease. It is reasonable to hypothesize that it would act similarly for another similar disease, reducing mortality. And from what I've heard, it has.

He is really interpreting the scientific study completely wrong. For background, I have a Ph.D in meat science and muscle biology, so I've read a lot of scientific papers and know how to interpret them. I've also taught graduate students how to interpret scientific studies. I will continue watching. Hope it gets better. I'm generally in the camp that covid-19 has been overblown and against vaccine mandates especially in children.

---

I'm no heavy scientist but I saw that too. Most of the rest of the data is really interesting. But that one had me confused as well. These patients had Ebola. They died because they were given Res? I doubt it. He didn't show any data that suggested that. But that's what he said. The rest of the speakers presented far that was really mind blowing and I didn't punch a bunch of holes in anything else. But that one did stand out to me.

They were talking about the spike being transported through the choke points by lipid material. Which would make sense that it is showing up in the brain causing "brain fog" and the liver as well as reproductive areas of females including breast milk.

Ok, sounds like it gets better. Good to know! Picking it back up now.

MeatDr said:

---

I'm 24 minutes into this and rolling my eyes. This first guy talking about remdesivir either doesn't know what he's talking about or is purposely trying to mislead people.

53% of the patients given remdesivir died, but this is an Ebola study, and 50% of the control patients died. The difference is only slight and not statistically significant, so the worst you can say is that remdesivir did not help against Ebola, not that it killed people.

He goes on to state that the other two drugs that were continued in the study had mortality rates of about 35%. One of them is regeneron. Then he makes a comparison against covid-19, asking why you would treat covid-19 with a drug that has a higher mortality rate than covid-19 itself. This is a false comparison. The mortality rate of 33% in the Ebola means that regeneron decreased mortality by about 34% for that disease. It is reasonable to hypothesize that it would act similarly for another similar disease, reducing mortality. And from what I've heard, it has.

He is really interpreting the scientific study completely wrong. For background, I have a Ph.D in meat science and muscle biology, so I've read a lot of scientific papers and know how to interpret them. I've also taught graduate students how to interpret scientific studies. I will continue watching. Hope it gets better. I'm generally in the camp that covid-19 has been overblown and against vaccine mandates especially in children.

---

I thought he later went on to say that France tested Remdesivir on 5 patients for COVID-19, and only one survived after that treatment.

jeremy said:

---

MeatDr said:

---

I'm 24 minutes into this and rolling my eyes. This first guy talking about remdesivir either doesn't know what he's talking about or is purposely trying to mislead people.

53% of the patients given remdesivir died, but this is an Ebola study, and 50% of the control patients died. The difference is only slight and not statistically significant, so the worst you can say is that remdesivir did not help against Ebola, not that it killed people.

He goes on to state that the other two drugs that were continued in the study had mortality rates of about 35%. One of them is regeneron. Then he makes a comparison against covid-19, asking why you would treat covid-19 with a drug that has a higher mortality rate than covid-19 itself. This is a false comparison. The mortality rate of 33% in the Ebola means that regeneron decreased mortality by about 34% for that disease. It is reasonable to hypothesize that it would act similarly for another similar disease, reducing mortality. And from what I've heard, it has.

He is really interpreting the scientific study completely wrong. For background, I have a Ph.D in meat science and muscle biology, so I've read a lot of scientific papers and know how to interpret them. I've also taught graduate students how to interpret scientific studies. I will continue watching. Hope it gets better. I'm generally in the camp that covid-19 has been overblown and against vaccine mandates especially in children.

---

I'm no heavy scientist but I saw that too. Most of the rest of the data is really interesting. But that one had me confused as well. These patients had Ebola. They died because they were given Res? I doubt it. He didn't show any data that suggested that. But that's what he said. The rest of the speakers presented far that was really mind blowing and I didn't punch a bunch of holes in anything else. But that one did stand out to me.

---

I think it was a bit confusing the way he spoke about it and not being able to see the graphics provided. I watched it twice and I think the point was that Remdisivir was responsible for some deaths in the study group while at the same time being ineffective as a remedy for ebola while the other drugs appear to have been effective as a remedy to at least some degree.

I've gotten a whole 2 more minutes in, and I really just can't with this guy.

He's talking about an early Gilead study where 23% of Remdesivir patients had serious adverse events. The problem is that it's a crappy study that probably wouldn't have even been publishable in the New England Journal of Medicine if it weren't for the covid hysteria. There is no control group. So it's impossible to know whether the adverse events were caused by Remdesivir, Covid, or the fact that they were all ventilated before they even started treatment (all the patients that had the major adverse events, anyway). The study isn't even worth talking about, but he's handpicked statistics to fit his narrative.

Edit: Same comments can be made for the French study of 5 people.

MeatDr said:

---

I've gotten a whole 2 more minutes in, and I really just can't with this guy.

He's talking about an early Gilead study where 23% of Remdesivir patients had serious adverse events. The problem is that it's a crappy study that probably wouldn't have even been publishable in the New England Journal of Medicine if it weren't for the covid hysteria. There is no control group. So it's impossible to know whether the adverse events were caused by Remdesivir, Covid, or the fact that they were all ventilated before they even started treatment (all the patients that had the major adverse events, anyway). The study isn't even worth talking about, but he's handpicked statistics to fit his narrative.

---

What about the comparison to other treatments? The inconsistency in adverse effects between Remdesivir and other treatments seemed at least compelling. Also, on the flip-side, is there any good study that shows that Remdesivir is an effective treatment?

American Hardwood said:

---

MeatDr said:

---

I've gotten a whole 2 more minutes in, and I really just can't with this guy.

He's talking about an early Gilead study where 23% of Remdesivir patients had serious adverse events. The problem is that it's a crappy study that probably wouldn't have even been publishable in the New England Journal of Medicine if it weren't for the covid hysteria. There is no control group. So it's impossible to know whether the adverse events were caused by Remdesivir, Covid, or the fact that they were all ventilated before they even started treatment (all the patients that had the major adverse events, anyway). The study isn't even worth talking about, but he's handpicked statistics to fit his narrative.

---

What about the comparison to other treatments? The inconsistency in adverse effects between Remdesivir and other treatments seemed at least compelling. Also, on the flip-side, is there any good study that shows that Remdesivir is an effective treatment?

---

I honestly haven't looked at all this research until today as I'm fact checking this guy while I watch. So I'm not an expert by any means. Does he make comparisons against other treatments as far as adverse effects later on?

In my googling trying to find the articles he's referencing, I've come across others that mostly show that Remdesivir is NOT effective, but not showing adverse effects that are statistically different from untreated patients.

I am not a Remdesivir cheerleader by any means, and from what I'm seeing it doesn't work, but it definitely bothers me when the agenda is clear and facts are being distorted.

He did note that the numbers in the study were small in both cases but they were troubling. He made the caveat that was the reason he brought them up because they should cause concern. The overarching point that there is harm that is possibly coming from this drug needs to be investigated is still true.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

He did note that the numbers in the study were small in both cases but they were troubling. He made the caveat that was the reason he brought them up because they should cause concern. The overarching point that there is harm that is possibly coming from this drug needs to be investigated is still true.

---

I agree with this. Part of the problem may be that he only has the data that is available, flawed or not. But if you step back and take a bird's eye view, which is what I think he wants us to do, the discussion isn't just about the studies, it's the studies in context of the policies and the absurd, if not outright evil, nature of the policies in light of what the studies DO suggest.

I find this problem a lot when dealing with professionals of many types of industries. It is very easy to get in the weeds of the minutiae and lose the big picture. This isn't intended to be a criticism of any of those with expertise in this discussion, I think it is just part of human nature. For full disclosure, I have no expertise whatsoever in this field so I appreciate the contributions of everyone trying to have a rational discussion on this very important issue.

So, to ask the big picture question from the experts here, does the way the reaction and policy setting regarding covid and covid treatment seem at all rational and scientific? IMO there is something horribly wrong with the entire episode and I am just trying to understand it all. This has been my gut feeling since about the first month when masking was being pushed against all logic and NOTHING that has happened since has done to alleviate that gut feeling. In fact, it seems to be far far worse.

Is it really in the weeds when every single number he's giving to prove his broader point is misleading at best?

There are several more recent good studies available, it just looks to my quick glances that they show Remdesivir is ineffective rather than DEADLY, which doesn't cause as much stirring of emotions in his narrative. Isn't this same type of thing what we accuse the mainstream media of doing shaping stories to fit the narrative? Are you not upset by it because it's what you want to hear?

Do I think there is a valid point when we question why the heck Remdesivir is the number one prescribed drug for Covid in hospitalized patients when it doesn't even appear to really work? You bet. Is THAT probably killing people when hospitals are using only that and refusing to use drugs like ivermectin? Very well could be.

I'm actually with him a lot more when he starts talking about the money and ivermectin.

Have yall heard of this guy before? Bryan Ardis. He's a chiropractor. I hadn't heard of him before and just found that out after I determined that from a scientific perspective he's a quack. Him being a chiropractor confirms it. (No disrespect to good chiropractors, I love you guys and have seriously relied on you during my pregnancies, but there is no denying some chiropractors are nutty in their medical beliefs!)

MeatDr said:

---

Is it really in the weeds when every single number he's giving to prove his broader point is misleading at best?

There are several more recent good studies available, it just looks to my quick glances that they show Remdesivir is ineffective rather than DEADLY, which doesn't cause as much stirring of emotions in his narrative. Isn't this same type of thing what we accuse the mainstream media of doing shaping stories to fit the narrative? Are you not upset by it because it's what you want to hear?

Do I think there is a valid point when we question why the heck Remdesivir is the number one prescribed drug for Covid in hospitalized patients when it doesn't even appear to really work? You bet. Is THAT probably killing people when hospitals are using only that and refusing to use drugs like ivermectin? Very well could be.

I'm actually with him a lot more when he starts talking about the money and ivermectin.

Have yall heard of this guy before? Bryan Ardis. He's a chiropractor. I hadn't heard of him before and just found that out after I determined that from a scientific perspective he's a quack. Him being a chiropractor confirms it. (No disrespect to good chiropractors, I love you guys and have seriously relied on you during my pregnancies, but there is no denying some chiropractors are nutty in their medical beliefs!)

---

I don't want to be misled in either direction. Were the studies you found looking for Remdesivir effectiveness alone or did they include data on mortality between a control group and those treated with Remdesivir? Or compare mortality between Remdesivir treated patients and those treated with other remedies? Just curious.

I am no good at reading these studies directly and wouldn't be able to tell a good study from a bad one or be able to tell if a study's conclusion is being misapplied. I'm probably not alone in this which is what makes discerning the truth very difficult. That's why I tend to look at who is saying what and what they are promoting to do as a result. I look at all the people pushing very hard to implement policies that I know or at least intuit to be very wrong, and almost categorically I find them untrustworthy. So I am inclined to believe the chiropractor more so because he is taking the opposite position from those I do not trust. For instance, when Jim Kramer says "we must use the military to force 100% vaccination", I'm gonna look to anyone with the opposite position and say, "I'm gonna go with that guy."

PaulC_80 said:

---

About 1 1/2 hrs in. Worth a watch. Lots of good info.

We are also being lied to by our politicians, a lot. A lot of people need to be put in jail. Some probably need to be hung.

---

There is no probably to it.

Rapier108 said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Also talking about leaky vaccines in the sense that the spike gets places it does not go as part of the actual virus. Why myocarditis is so pronounced and you are seeing the reproductive bleeding/miscarriages etc.

---

One theory I've heard about that is some could be caused by injection errors where the needle gets into a blood vessel instead of the muscle.

When you get a shot that is designed to go into the muscle, the person giving the shot should not pinch the skin, and should draw back the on the plunger slightly once the needle is inserted to make sure it does not draw out blood. If it does, remove it and try again with a new syringe in a different location.

---

Thank you for the information, much appreciated. Unfortunately we have a trip planned to the BVI and I expect I will have to be vaccinated. Hope the Novavax subprotein vaccine will be available soon, I doubt it will be but holding out hope.

MeatDr said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

MeatDr said:

---

I've gotten a whole 2 more minutes in, and I really just can't with this guy.

He's talking about an early Gilead study where 23% of Remdesivir patients had serious adverse events. The problem is that it's a crappy study that probably wouldn't have even been publishable in the New England Journal of Medicine if it weren't for the covid hysteria. There is no control group. So it's impossible to know whether the adverse events were caused by Remdesivir, Covid, or the fact that they were all ventilated before they even started treatment (all the patients that had the major adverse events, anyway). The study isn't even worth talking about, but he's handpicked statistics to fit his narrative.

---

What about the comparison to other treatments? The inconsistency in adverse effects between Remdesivir and other treatments seemed at least compelling. Also, on the flip-side, is there any good study that shows that Remdesivir is an effective treatment?

---

I honestly haven't looked at all this research until today as I'm fact checking this guy while I watch. So I'm not an expert by any means. Does he make comparisons against other treatments as far as adverse effects later on?

In my googling trying to find the articles he's referencing, I've come across others that mostly show that Remdesivir is NOT effective, but not showing adverse effects that are statistically different from untreated patients.

I am not a Remdesivir cheerleader by any means, and from what I'm seeing it doesn't work, but it definitely bothers me when the agenda is clear and facts are being distorted.

---

Thanks for the input, helps put all this in perspective.

I totally get you. The people we are supposed to trust are untrustworthy, and then where do you go? And I honestly default the same way you do. But since science is my area, alarm bells went off with this one.

I'm doing this with a 6 month old in my lap or strapped to me, and I'm on my phone, so I can't look at it as thoroughly as I'd like, but here is a paper published this August that reviewed all of the research available at that time. Here is the link for anyone interested: "Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 - PubMed" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34350582/

Authors conclusions:
"Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline. Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically."

TLDR:
So basically all the research comparing against control or placebo shows no mortality difference with Remdesivir treatment. Its not in their conclusions but actually did find a lower vent rate for patients treated before it got to that point. Everything else is a crapshoot including other adverse outcomes outside of ventilation.

MeatDr-when we're you in school? Nothing to do with your posts, just that I worked in Rosenthal 05-08. Wondering if we may have crossed paths IRL

XXXVII said:

---

MeatDr said:

---

I'm 24 minutes into this and rolling my eyes. This first guy talking about remdesivir either doesn't know what he's talking about or is purposely trying to mislead people.

53% of the patients given remdesivir died, but this is an Ebola study, and 50% of the control patients died. The difference is only slight and not statistically significant, so the worst you can say is that remdesivir did not help against Ebola, not that it killed people.

He goes on to state that the other two drugs that were continued in the study had mortality rates of about 35%. One of them is regeneron. Then he makes a comparison against covid-19, asking why you would treat covid-19 with a drug that has a higher mortality rate than covid-19 itself. This is a false comparison. The mortality rate of 33% in the Ebola means that regeneron decreased mortality by about 34% for that disease. It is reasonable to hypothesize that it would act similarly for another similar disease, reducing mortality. And from what I've heard, it has.

He is really interpreting the scientific study completely wrong. For background, I have a Ph.D in meat science and muscle biology, so I've read a lot of scientific papers and know how to interpret them. I've also taught graduate students how to interpret scientific studies. I will continue watching. Hope it gets better. I'm generally in the camp that covid-19 has been overblown and against vaccine mandates especially in children.

---

I thought he later went on to say that France tested Remdesivir on 5 patients for COVID-19, and only one survived after that treatment.

---

Yes France did a Small tripe and 4 of the 5 died…. Forget the Ebola study, look what's it doing to COVID patients