I my opinion plenty of trial clinicians will question the marginal results of Remdesvir. Also from what I have read it the media are not in any way hyping it (referring to quality print media , television media is a joke, always) ,here's a sample of Washington Post . "Fauci’s announcement coincided with more negative results for remdesivir published in the medical journal The Lancet; that trial, a Chinese study that was stopped early because it did not recruit enough patients, showed no benefit of remdesivir over placebo, and also no benefit in survival.
Some experts in clinical trials raised questions about the change in outcome measures.
“It raises a lot of flags, and it requires a lot of answers,” Walid F. Gellad, a professor of health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Medicine, said in an interview, “especially when people start saying it’s become the standard of care, and all we saw was a news release in a trial with an outcome that was changed two weeks ago. It really is striking.''
An expert in transparency in clinical trials at the University of Oxford, Henry Drysdale, said the Oval Office setting of Fauci’s announcement, combined with the limited data disclosed, raised important questions about the outcomes change that will need to be answered when the full results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Drysdale is part of a team of researchers who, in a landmark study published last year, found discrepancies in trial designs and reported outcomes in major academic journals.
"It’s extremely worrying that those very important outcomes were dropped from the primary outcome,'' Drysdale said in an interview. Asked to assess NIAID’s statement issued to reporters on Thursday, Drysdale said, “Whenever I see an explanation like this, when an outcome-switching has happened, that’s fine, but you were not open about this when you reported your quote-unquote exciting results."
I was surprised that Cytodyn is further along in manufacturing than Gilead .
One other point to consider is that Gilead will have to publish ,and there will be plenty of adverse expert opinion in the media when that happens.
Some experts in clinical trials raised questions about the change in outcome measures.
“It raises a lot of flags, and it requires a lot of answers,” Walid F. Gellad, a professor of health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Medicine, said in an interview, “especially when people start saying it’s become the standard of care, and all we saw was a news release in a trial with an outcome that was changed two weeks ago. It really is striking.''
An expert in transparency in clinical trials at the University of Oxford, Henry Drysdale, said the Oval Office setting of Fauci’s announcement, combined with the limited data disclosed, raised important questions about the outcomes change that will need to be answered when the full results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Drysdale is part of a team of researchers who, in a landmark study published last year, found discrepancies in trial designs and reported outcomes in major academic journals.
"It’s extremely worrying that those very important outcomes were dropped from the primary outcome,'' Drysdale said in an interview. Asked to assess NIAID’s statement issued to reporters on Thursday, Drysdale said, “Whenever I see an explanation like this, when an outcome-switching has happened, that’s fine, but you were not open about this when you reported your quote-unquote exciting results."
I was surprised that Cytodyn is further along in manufacturing than Gilead .
One other point to consider is that Gilead will have to publish ,and there will be plenty of adverse expert opinion in the media when that happens.
6
