This from YMB by No One Cares -- It's a must read IMHO.
Add this to the letter writing campaign...
I just finished reading your article entitled “What science has learned works and what doesn’t in COVID-19 treatments” and I must say how disappointed I am that the drug Leronlimab wasn’t mentioned. It has been shown in a recent Phase 3 clinical trial to reduce mortality at day 14 in critically ill COVID-19 patients 82 percent with a statistically significant p-value of 0.0233. Perhaps the timing of your article prevented its inclusion as these results were recently announced in late March but I strongly encourage you to explore this drug as a viable treatment option for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Our media landscape has done a disservice to millions of Americans by not publicizing the stellar results of this drug’s effects on this population of patients.
Here are a few other biases in favor of facts and science…
Leronlimab has been shown to reduce hospital stay by 5.5 days over the current standard of care (p=0.005). Critically ill COVID-19 patients who received Leronlimab were over five times more likely to be alive at day 14 than those who received standard of care only. In addition, it has an impeccable safety profile as there have been NO serious side effects in over 1,200 patients who were administered the drug across their HIV and COVID-19 clinical trials. None of the other treatments mentioned in your article have a similar safety record. You cover patient safety, correct? Why would you not cover this drug? Leronlimab can also be administered subcutaneously. The drug’s mechanism of action is unique in that it is not an anti-viral meaning that it works regardless of virus variant.
I also cannot help but take issue with including Remdesivir in your subtitle where you say “research is revealing medical interventions, such as Remdesivir, that help patients.” That is followed up in the article with the caveats “though the World Health Organization determined it did not prevent death or other bad outcomes.” and “As an antiviral, Remdesivir is likely to have its greatest effect in patients who are early in their disease course, before they are hospitalized. But the drug has to be given by infusion, rather than a shot or pill, making it impractical to deliver to patients who aren’t yet hospitalized.” Rather than supporting your initial statement, you leave the reader wondering if it works or at the very least, if it is a practical treatment option. Why give it such a prominent place in the subtitle when that statement is not supported by facts later in the article?
I really believe the true story to tell is one you may not have heard about. I hope you take my comments as they were intended, constructively, and really dig deep into Leronlimab. Perhaps an investigation into why Leronlimab has not been granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by our FDA and is now pursuing acceptance by the Philippine’s FDA (under pressure from their own doctors and government) to begin saving the lives of this fragile population of COVID-19 sufferers. It is a drug that has clinically proven to save lives and save money. That is the real treatment story to be told. I implore you to do your due diligence and tell it. Patients are counting on you and lives are at stake.
Add this to the letter writing campaign...
I just finished reading your article entitled “What science has learned works and what doesn’t in COVID-19 treatments” and I must say how disappointed I am that the drug Leronlimab wasn’t mentioned. It has been shown in a recent Phase 3 clinical trial to reduce mortality at day 14 in critically ill COVID-19 patients 82 percent with a statistically significant p-value of 0.0233. Perhaps the timing of your article prevented its inclusion as these results were recently announced in late March but I strongly encourage you to explore this drug as a viable treatment option for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Our media landscape has done a disservice to millions of Americans by not publicizing the stellar results of this drug’s effects on this population of patients.
Here are a few other biases in favor of facts and science…
Leronlimab has been shown to reduce hospital stay by 5.5 days over the current standard of care (p=0.005). Critically ill COVID-19 patients who received Leronlimab were over five times more likely to be alive at day 14 than those who received standard of care only. In addition, it has an impeccable safety profile as there have been NO serious side effects in over 1,200 patients who were administered the drug across their HIV and COVID-19 clinical trials. None of the other treatments mentioned in your article have a similar safety record. You cover patient safety, correct? Why would you not cover this drug? Leronlimab can also be administered subcutaneously. The drug’s mechanism of action is unique in that it is not an anti-viral meaning that it works regardless of virus variant.
I also cannot help but take issue with including Remdesivir in your subtitle where you say “research is revealing medical interventions, such as Remdesivir, that help patients.” That is followed up in the article with the caveats “though the World Health Organization determined it did not prevent death or other bad outcomes.” and “As an antiviral, Remdesivir is likely to have its greatest effect in patients who are early in their disease course, before they are hospitalized. But the drug has to be given by infusion, rather than a shot or pill, making it impractical to deliver to patients who aren’t yet hospitalized.” Rather than supporting your initial statement, you leave the reader wondering if it works or at the very least, if it is a practical treatment option. Why give it such a prominent place in the subtitle when that statement is not supported by facts later in the article?
I really believe the true story to tell is one you may not have heard about. I hope you take my comments as they were intended, constructively, and really dig deep into Leronlimab. Perhaps an investigation into why Leronlimab has not been granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by our FDA and is now pursuing acceptance by the Philippine’s FDA (under pressure from their own doctors and government) to begin saving the lives of this fragile population of COVID-19 sufferers. It is a drug that has clinically proven to save lives and save money. That is the real treatment story to be told. I implore you to do your due diligence and tell it. Patients are counting on you and lives are at stake.
7
1
