Given after 7 days and already requiring O2?

I look forward to the ivermectin crowd vigorously defending this drug by debunking the study as being flawed since it was given so late

Seems reasonable that neither is a reasonable study? Waiting 7 days after symptoms to start doing anything about it seems like an awfully long time.

Maybe they are looking for a drug that will battle the most severe hospitalizations but seems like earlier preventative is what we should really be looking towards (that + vaccines).

Remdesivir is only given in the hospital, as far as I know. Most people don't go to the hospital until symptoms have been going on for several days. For most people, it is day 5 to 6 of symptoms or later when their oxygen really starts dropping.

The odds of somebody being admitted to the hospital, not being on oxygen, and being less than seven days of symptoms is pretty low. The vast majority of people getting it fit into the category of the ineffective group.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Given after 7 days and already requiring O2?

I look forward to the ivermectin crowd vigorously defending this drug by debunking the study as being flawed since it was given so late

---

The ivermectin crowd has known for a while that this drug has a high likelyhood of killing your kidneys.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Given after 7 days and already requiring O2?

I look forward to the ivermectin crowd vigorously defending this drug by debunking the study as being flawed since it was given so late .

---

I have not researched remdesevir in detail so I do not know if the treatment was originally approved for as an early stage or late stage drug. I just know that it is extremely expensive and had lackluster results, yet was immediately approved by FDA.

Ivermectin, on the other hand, is cheap, has had positive results in trial that need further research to be conclusive but has been mocked and ridiculed by the FDA.

So let's say we agree that ivermectin and remdesevir are both ineffective treatments. One is extremely expensive and gets immediate FDA approval. The other is cheap and gets mocked by FDA. I don't think you made the point you tried to make.

Skillet Shot said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Given after 7 days and already requiring O2?

I look forward to the ivermectin crowd vigorously defending this drug by debunking the study as being flawed since it was given so late .

---

I have not researched remdesevir in detail so I do not know if the treatment was originally approved for as an early stage or late stage drug. I just know that it is extremely expensive and had lackluster results, yet was immediately approved by FDA.

Ivermectin, on the other hand, is cheap, has had positive results in trial that need further research to be conclusive but has been mocked and ridiculed by the FDA.

So let's say we agree that ivermectin and remdesevir are both ineffective treatments. One is extremely expensive and gets immediate FDA approval. The other is cheap and gets mocked by FDA. I don't think you made the point you tried to make.

---

Pretty sure the FDA was mocking the idiots who took it upon themselves to use animal product in wrong doses and ended up calling poison control which quite honestly deserves mocking. It wasn't the drug, it was the people.

bay fan said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Given after 7 days and already requiring O2?

I look forward to the ivermectin crowd vigorously defending this drug by debunking the study as being flawed since it was given so late .

---

I have not researched remdesevir in detail so I do not know if the treatment was originally approved for as an early stage or late stage drug. I just know that it is extremely expensive and had lackluster results, yet was immediately approved by FDA.

Ivermectin, on the other hand, is cheap, has had positive results in trial that need further research to be conclusive but has been mocked and ridiculed by the FDA.

So let's say we agree that ivermectin and remdesevir are both ineffective treatments. One is extremely expensive and gets immediate FDA approval. The other is cheap and gets mocked by FDA. I don't think you made the point you tried to make.

---

Pretty sure the FDA was mocking the idiots who took it upon themselves to use animal product in wrong doses and ended up calling poison control which quite honestly deserves mocking. It wasn't the drug, it was the people.

---

Should the FDA be mocking anyone? Also, their cute little "tweet" was pretty vague if the goal was to only mock those getting sick from taking too much of the Tractor Supply paste. And the tweet spread like wildfire, as if by intention, mocking anyone on social media and elsewhere who think there is something to Ivermectin as a prophylactic or treatment...when there are many worldwide doctors who believe in it. It was a huge spiking of the football by countless people who claim to KNOW that Ivermectin is useless. Most of these people seemingly not realizing that it is an AMAZING medicine for countless humans across the globe.

The FDA has really showed their ass with a lot of this.