The FDA and the WHO

[We Never Know]

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.)

As long as people get sick, we will have to rely on treatment.

 

[exchemist]

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

You read around the subject, to find out WHY they conflict.

Background here: The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

From this, I think I am inclined to follow the WHO on this issue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

It's not really that. The WHO's statement is nine months old and indicates studies into other drugs. FDA is four months.
The FDA also isn't congruent with the other nation's organizations in many areas. The FDA tends to allow way more than the rest of the world. In this case I suspect it may be due to areas of research lacking the FDA article indicates.
However, when it comes to things like medicine and science the most recent is where we generally want to turn to.

 

[We Never Know]

It's not really that. The WHO's statement is nine months old and indicates studies into other drugs. FDA is four months.
The FDA also isn't congruent with the other nation's organizations in many areas. The FDA tends to allow way more than the rest of the world. In this case I suspect it may be due to areas of research lacking the FDA article indicates.
However, when it comes to things like medicine and science the most recent is where we generally want to turn to.

"when it comes to things like medicine and science the most recent is where we generally want to turn to"

I 100% agree which us why I'm going with the WHO article from August 11, 2021

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Yes. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is tremendously easier to prevent something than treat it. Preventative care is the best care. It's held for centuries now and I don't think that approach to health is going to change.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

I honestly don’t know. Me personally I would go with the EAU recommendation. Only because in my mind Europe seems to be more stringent than the FDA. (Again, ingredients the FDA are apparently fine with, banned in Europe because they cause cancer. So…)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"when it comes to things like medicine and science the most recent is where we generally want to turn to"

I 100% agree which us why I'm going with the WHO article from August 11, 2021

The WHO article you linked to is November 20, 2020.

 

[We Never Know]

The WHO article you linked to is November 20, 2020.

See posts #1, #3 and #8

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You read around the subject, to find out WHY they conflict.

Background here: The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

From this, I think I am inclined to follow the WHO on this issue.

That one is very damning for the FDA article.

 

[Kenny]

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

EXACTLY!! and then we wonder why the trust level of people is at a minimum.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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 need preventive and treatment.

It seems like the treatment is for severe cases, I could be wrong.
People in a severe Covid state probably don’t argue about details any more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Sure you are.

 

[We Never Know]

Sure you are.

Sure and you blindly follow. Did you have a point?

 

[We Never Know]

We need preventive and treatment.

It seems like the treatment is for severe cases, I could be wrong.
People in a severe Covid state probably don’t argue about details any more.

Yep. All cases whether from the unvaccinated and/or breakthrough cases need treatment.

 

[We Never Know]

I honestly don’t know. Me personally I would go with the EAU recommendation. Only because in my mind Europe seems to be more stringent than the FDA. (Again, ingredients the FDA are apparently fine with, banned in Europe because they cause cancer. So…)

I think full approval overrides EAU.
Taking a 14 year old to the Dr now and asking for pfizer I would think he would say no, its only approved for 16 years and up. But thats by opinion.

I wonder why 12 was changed to 16 after nearly a year of letting 12-15 year olds take it.
Maybe they decided they didn't need it or whatever. There should be a reason but who knows.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think full approval overrides EAU.
Taking a 14 year old to the Dr now and asking for pfizer I would think he would say no, its only approved for 16 years and up. But thats by opinion.

I wonder why 12 was changed to 16 after nearly a year of letting 12-15 year olds take it.
Maybe they decided they didn't need it or whatever. There should be a reason but who knows.

I don’t know. I don’t do the oversights. It hasn’t been approved for under 16 year olds here as far as I know. Emergency usage may be the cause of previous allowances. But I can’t say for sure

 

[We Never Know]

That one is very damning for the FDA article.

Do you realize that you criticized one of my links because its was from Nov 2020, but that link is from Oct 2020?

 

[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.

You remind me of a big criticism I often hear from an anti-vax
friend...."Science is always getting it wrong! Can't trust it."
His background & general attitude is that truth is permanent,
eg, the Bible, definitions of words. Change is a sign of failure.

We're dealing with a "novel corona virus". This means that
there'll be learning by making & correcting mistakes. It's the
best method we have, since perfect a priori knowledge of the
natural world is impossible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You remind me of a big criticism I often hear from an anti-vax
friend...."Science is always getting it wrong! Can't trust it."
His background & general attitude is that truth is permanent,
eg, the Bible, definitions of words. Change is a sign of failure.

We're dealing with a "novel corona virus". This means that
there'll be learning by making & correcting mistakes. It's the
best method we have, since perfect a priori knowledge of the
natural world is impossible.

How is that like me? I'm very aware that when the firsts cases were discovered very little was known and the knowledge of this virus has grown by volumes since then, and it continues today to grow. I've been explaining to some members here that CDC changing certain parts of their guidelines and statements isn't a bad thing.
As for research, current does generally take precedence. And I say generally, because it's not always the case. As it seems with this where digging into stuff is needed to better evaluate them. With the additional article after the OP being more recent than the FDA, but also the FDA just not having the vast pool of data the WHO collected.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you realize that you criticized one of my links because its was from Nov 2020, but that link is from Oct 2020?

Yes. But it strongly suggests that additional research is needed to evaluate the two sources.