The FDA and the WHO

[We Never Know]

How do you know which one to believe and accept when they have opposing data?

The FDA approves remdesivir for covid treatment
Remdesivir | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines


The WHO recommends against using it.
WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials.
The therapies — artesunate, imatinib and infliximab — will be tested on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in 52 countries under the Solidarity PLUS programme.

Four drugs were evaluated under the initial Solidarity Trial last year, which showed that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir and interferon had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials

 

[Windwalker]

The recommendation against it was from past November. The approval is now this month. In the first recommendation against it, there is an update to it if you read the article.

"Updated 20 November 2020
* A conditional recommendation is issued when the evidence around the benefits and risks of an intervention are less certain. In this case, there is a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir. This means that there isn’t enough evidence to support its use.
​

Now, many months later, half a year later, with more data and more trials, you now have this:

The safety and efficacy of combination therapy of remdesivir with corticosteroids have not been rigorously studied in clinical trials; however, there are theoretical reasons that combination therapy may be beneficial in some patients with severe COVID-19
​

This is what happens as time and studies continue to march forward. You cannot look at older information and then say that proves a contradiction of views. That's like saying once science believed the earth was the center of the solar system, but now it believes the earth is. And then erroneously concluding in your mind that we can't trust science. That's not how reality works.

The real question is, why are you looking for reasons to not trust it? What is that about? Millions have already been vaccinated, myself included. My health is better than ever. And now I don't need to worry as much I'll be cut down by Covid-19 needlessly. If you can get protected against it, I can't imagine why anyone would choose to risk that over getting Covid-19. That seems completely irrational to me.

 

[We Never Know]

The recommendation against it was from past November. The approval is now this month. In the first recommendation against it, there is an update to it if you read the article.

"Updated 20 November 2020
* A conditional recommendation is issued when the evidence around the benefits and risks of an intervention are less certain. In this case, there is a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir. This means that there isn’t enough evidence to support its use.
​

Now, many months later, half a year later, with more data and more trials, you now have this:

The safety and efficacy of combination therapy of remdesivir with corticosteroids have not been rigorously studied in clinical trials; however, there are theoretical reasons that combination therapy may be beneficial in some patients with severe COVID-19
​

This is what happens as time and studies continue to march forward. You cannot look at older information and then say that proves a contradiction of views. That's like saying once science believed the earth was the center of the solar system, but now it believes the earth is. And then erroneously concluding in your mind that we can't trust science. That's not how reality works.

The real question is, why are you looking for reasons to not trust it? What is that about?

This is from August 11, 2021

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials.
The therapies — artesunate, imatinib and infliximab — will be tested on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in 52 countries under the Solidarity PLUS programme.

Four drugs were evaluated under the initial Solidarity Trial last year, which showed that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir and interferon had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials

 

[We Never Know]

The recommendation against it was from past November. The approval is now this month. In the first recommendation against it, there is an update to it if you read the article.

"Updated 20 November 2020
* A conditional recommendation is issued when the evidence around the benefits and risks of an intervention are less certain. In this case, there is a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir. This means that there isn’t enough evidence to support its use.
​

Now, many months later, half a year later, with more data and more trials, you now have this:

The safety and efficacy of combination therapy of remdesivir with corticosteroids have not been rigorously studied in clinical trials; however, there are theoretical reasons that combination therapy may be beneficial in some patients with severe COVID-19
​

This is what happens as time and studies continue to march forward. You cannot look at older information and then say that proves a contradiction of views. That's like saying once science believed the earth was the center of the solar system, but now it believes the earth is. And then erroneously concluding in your mind that we can't trust science. That's not how reality works.

The real question is, why are you looking for reasons to not trust it? What is that about? Millions have already been vaccinated, myself included. My health is better than ever. And now I don't need to worry as much I'll be cut down by Covid-19 needlessly. If you can get protected against it, I can't imagine why anyone would choose to risk that over getting Covid-19. That seems completely irrational to me.

Not looking to not trust anything. Just looking for the best and correct information

 

[SomeRandom]

This is from August 11, 2021

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials.
The therapies — artesunate, imatinib and infliximab — will be tested on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in 52 countries under the Solidarity PLUS programme.

Four drugs were evaluated under the initial Solidarity Trial last year, which showed that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir and interferon had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

WHO announces three new drugs for latest COVID-19 'Solidarity' trials

The pandemic and solutions for it are ongoing. Of course information will update as required. To expect anything less is short sighted. Though in saying that, given their individual reputations worldwide, the WHO seem to have the better one. Given the relatively lax standards the FDA has compared to other countries. But that’s more to do with food safety than anything else (the FDA have approved certain food additives and “enhancements” that are been banned elsewhere due to health concerns. Like certain ingredients have been linked to cancer among other safety concerns, so other western countries have banned them. That sort of thing.)
https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/american-foods-banned-other-countries

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not looking to not trust anything. Just looking for the best and correct information

That's done by staying current and not comparing something nearly a year old to something recent. That is likely to not be consistent, especially as we've learned so much over the past nine months.

 

[We Never Know]

The pandemic and solutions for it are ongoing. Of course information will update as required. To expect anything less is short sighted. Though in saying that, given their individual reputations worldwide, the WHO seem to have the better one. Given the relatively lax standards the FDA has compared to other countries. But that’s more to do with food safety than anything else (the FDA have approved certain food additives and “enhancements” that are been banned elsewhere due to health concerns. Like certain ingredients have been linked to cancer among other safety concerns, so other western countries have banned them. That sort of thing.)
https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/american-foods-banned-other-countries

I agree. What gets me is the drugs mentioned above are for treatment, not prevenative like the vaccine.
But when something is posted about a treatment drug, its attacked because some think its is going against the vaccine.
Vaccine = prevenative
The above drugs = treatment
There is a big difference.

 

[We Never Know]

That's done by staying current and not comparing something nearly a year old to something recent. That is likely to not be consistent, especially as we've learned so much over the past nine months.

See post #3. Its not even a month old.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's done by staying current and not comparing something nearly a year old to something recent. That is likely to not be consistent, especially as we've learned so much over the past nine months.

But where there is some conflict, which happens at times,
there's useful info to be gleaned from areas of agreement.
Alas, too many justify minor perceived inconsistencies to
toss the baby out with the bathwater. Then the dingoes win.

 

[sun rise]

But where there is some conflict, which happens at times,
there's useful info to be gleaned from areas of agreement.
Alas, too many justify minor perceived inconsistencies to
toss the baby out with the bathwater. Then the dingoes win.

I don't see an issue with dingoes, myself.

But to the point - agencies and scientists are subject to confirmation bias and all the other logical ills that are endemic in the human race.

And it might be that there's conflicting evidence from different trials and a judgement difference can occur between "little evidence but maybe so why not try it just in case when the situation is dire" on one hand. And on the other judgement hand "little evidence so there's no good reason to try it but instead try something else when the situation is dire".

 

[SomeRandom]

I agree. What gets me is the drugs mentioned above are for treatment, not prevenative like the vaccine.
But when something is posted about a treatment drug, its attacked because some think its is going against the vaccine.
Vaccine = prevenative
The above drugs = treatment
There is a big difference.

I think that’s likely because of the conventional wisdom (if you like) “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
So to advocate drugs as an alternative is going to appear like you’re advocating the cure instead of a prevention technique (vaccination in this case.)
Which in this context is somewhat anti vax. Given that is a known anti vax tactic and has been for a number of years now so. I don’t really blame people for making such a conclusion. I remember that being a thing when I was a kid even. Different disease obviously but same outcome

 

[We Never Know]

I think that’s likely because of the conventional wisdom (if you like) “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
So to advocate drugs as an alternative is going to appear like you’re advocating the cure instead of a prevention technique (vaccination in this case.)
Which in this context is somewhat anti vax. Also that is a known anti vax tactic and has been for a number of years now so. I don’t really blame people for making such a conclusion. I remember that being a thing when I was a kid even. Different disease obviously but same outcome

Treatments aren't going agaist the vaccine.
We need treatments as much as we need anything because unvaxxed people and some vaxxed people will need treatments.
The people in the hospitals need treatment because its too late for the vaccine.

 

[SomeRandom]

Treatments aren't going agaist the vaccine.
We need treatments as much as we need anything because unvaxxed people and some vaxxed people will need treatments.
The people in the hospitals need treatment because its too late for the vaccine.

Of course we need treatments. I’m just saying a known anti vax method used to undermine vaccine reliance (if you like) is advocating drugs instead. This gives the appearance of accepting science, when in reality scientists will likely always recommend vaccines over medication. See the above “conventional wisdom.”
I’m not against advocating drug treatment. Though I know in America in particular such things are pushed by lobbyists looking for a profit instead of actually relying on the science for the best possible outcome (vaccines will always cost less to the public than ongoing drug treatments, after all.)
Always be aware of the profit driven mindset in American healthcare and how that can affect things in the long term

 

[We Never Know]

Of course we need treatments. I’m just saying a known anti vax method used to undermine vaccine reliance (if you like) is advocating drugs instead. This gives the appearance of accepting science, when in reality scientists will likely always recommend vaccines over medication. See the above “conventional wisdom.”

Kids under 12 and people with medical issues don't have a vaccine. Their only choice is treatment if they become infected.

 

[SomeRandom]

Kids under 12 and people with medical issues don't have a vaccine. Their only choice is treatment if they become infected.

For now. Again this is ongoing and subject to change. Under 12s I think are less likely to suffer the extreme affects of COVID anyway, which is why they’re usually exempt from like masks and the like. Though I think vaccines are becoming more and more recommended for kids as they are tested. Don’t quote me on that, but as far as I’m aware the current vaccines have just been approved for pregnant people in my country.
Also herd immunity is used to protect those very people. And has been used historically for like a hundred years now. What are you talking about?

 

[We Never Know]

For now. Again this is ongoing and subject to change. Under 12s I think are less likely to suffer the extreme affects of COVID anyway, which is why they’re usually exempt from like masks and the like. Though I think vaccines are becoming more and more recommended for kids as they are tested. Don’t quote me on that, but as far as I’m aware the current vaccines have just been approved for pregnant people in my country.

They have been approved here for pregnant women for a while now.
And kids are becomming more susceptible with delta so treatment is all they have.

 

[We Never Know]

For now. Again this is ongoing and subject to change. Under 12s I think are less likely to suffer the extreme affects of COVID anyway, which is why they’re usually exempt from like masks and the like. Though I think vaccines are becoming more and more recommended for kids as they are tested. Don’t quote me on that, but as far as I’m aware the current vaccines have just been approved for pregnant people in my country.
Also herd immunity is used to protect those very people. And has been used historically for like a hundred years now. What are you talking about?

Not to mention the Pfizer vaccine EAU is for 12 years and up.
When the FDA approved it, it was for 16 years and up.

 

[SomeRandom]

They have been approved here for pregnant women for a while now.
And kids are becomming more susceptible with delta so treatment is all they have.

I think the current vaccines have been approved for younger ages. It will likely be a part of “mandatory” childhood vaccinations in the future. So relying on drugs is only subjecting future kids to a longer treatment plan vs a couple of shots. Even in my country which has a universal health care system, the vaccines will cost far less than the proposed drug treatments. So why rely on them? (Likely going to be more expensive in the US.)

 

[SomeRandom]

Not to mention the Pfizer vaccine EAU is for 12 years and up.
When the FDA approved it, it was for 16 years and up.

Again ongoing information will change recommendations. This is expected. Well it is for anyone remotely aware of how science works. I’m an idiot and even I expected that

 

[We Never Know]

Again ongoing information will change recommendations. This is expected. Well it is for anyone remotely aware of how science works. I’m an idiot and even I expected that

Something I have wondered about.
If the EAU for pfizer was 12 and up but
The FDA approved it for 16 and up..
Can a 14 year old still take it?
Do we go by the EAU age or the new approval age?