Remdesivir (Veklury): SAGE HANA asks a simple yet deadly question: "Did the Gilead company hide the true toxicity of Veklury © (remdesivir) ?"; YES, they did, 2 key points: 1)major study by Wang et al
2020 (same morning NIH Fauci announcement) showed Remdesivir failed & was harmful, stopped early for HARMS! 2)Fauci, NIH, Collins committed fraud, made 'time to recovery' key outcome to find benefit
Above is the protocol violation and change, where Fauci and NIH could not find benefit with death etc. as the patient important outcomes so they went back and changed the protocol to make time to recovery the key outcome when it was NOT an important outcome. It was academic research fraud. So they tortured the data and fished and found the one outcome that they found some benefit (yet who cared about that) that they made it the key outcome. So they could declare benefit. And get the EUA. Trump had no idea that day sitting there the scientific fraud Hahn and Fauci dropped on him. And further studies showed that that too (time to recovery) was not beneficial.
You got to know that an antiviral works in the initial phase during infection, replication and not at later stages when disease has progressed and one is ill and there is the hyperinflammatory response. Other drugs e.g. corticosteroids, blood thinners etc. were needed. Not even HCQ or IVM used as an anti-viral could work later in the disease sequelae. I have seen no data to show me otherwise. So Remdesivir at later stages was DOA. Fraud. But it was money making yet they knew it was a failed EBOLA drug and kidney and liver toxic.
This is why I say hang them all, once courts and judges say they killed needlessly and they did with Remdesivir as part of the COVID protocol. I say hang.
Now, SAGE, can you ask Malone, what was his role in Remdesivir? Please ask him. We know…but ask him.
‘Publié le 10 juillet 2020 - 13:20
The media have focused on the scripted binary debate around the use of hydroxychloroquine. In the meantime, Veklury © (remdesivir) has been acclaimed to become the ideal remedy despite almost ineffective therapy. In recent days, we learn that the United States would have taken control of the stocks of Veklury © and that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) gave a marketing authorization for this drug for serious forms of Covid-19, AMM remaining to be validated by member states.
We are very surprised by these decisions, for several reasons.
The efficacy of the Veklury © against the Covid-19 has not been demonstrated and the only study to attribute it a “modest” efficacy concludes, in a haphazard manner, that its use would allow a quicker hospital discharge of a few days, evaluation criterion which did not appear in the initial version of the protocol. We invite you to refer to our analysis of this study to assess for yourself the weakness of the conclusions.
It is customary to use antivirals at an early stage of viral infections, when they are most likely to be effective. Indeed, many doctors believe that at the very advanced stages of the disease, it is no longer the virus that affects the body but the immune reaction, and therefore a pure antiviral like Veklury © is therefore not justified. The positioning of the Veklury © at the advanced stage of the disease raises questions.
The toxicity of the molecule, GS-5734, and of its metabolite GS-441524 has not been seriously studied and the data on its metabolism in the organism are not only incomplete but also based on a poor biological model defined, in any case incomplete. The supposed target is RNA polymerase without its principle of action being established. However, the pharmacodynamics of this molecule identified since 2012 would have had plenty of time to be fully characterized since.
Since its creation, this drug has never proven real effectiveness in humans, regardless of the virus for which it was tested: Ebola, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV.
Worse, in each of these pandemics, hasty conclusions were systematically published on its effectiveness and presented to the general public while being based on studies more than doubtful, if not hazardous. For Ebola, for example, it was concluded to be effective after having tested it on two patients who have recovered from the infection, without ever having demonstrated that it was due to the administration of remdesivir. Unfortunately for the French, despite its blatant failure during the Ebola epidemic, Gilead’s scientific hoax seems to stand the test of time. Recall that the patent expires in October 2035, and that this molecule is now recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for therapeutic use against Covid-19.
*editor’s note: I have added some bolding to the following excerpts
Auteur(s)
Le Collectif Citoyen pour FranceSoir - Translation @Smackenziekerr & @PaulGreeff
Publié le 10 juillet 2020 - 13:20
The media have focused on the scripted binary debate around the use of hydroxychloroquine. In the meantime, Veklury © (remdesivir) has been acclaimed to become the ideal remedy despite almost ineffective therapy. In recent days, we learn that the United States would have taken control of the stocks of Veklury © and that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) gave a marketing authorization for this drug for serious forms of Covid-19, AMM remaining to be validated by member states.
We are very surprised by these decisions, for several reasons.
The efficacy of the Veklury © against the Covid-19 has not been demonstrated and the only study to attribute it a “modest” efficacy concludes, in a haphazard manner, that its use would allow a quicker hospital discharge of a few days, evaluation criterion which did not appear in the initial version of the protocol. We invite you to refer to our analysis of this study to assess for yourself the weakness of the conclusions.
It is customary to use antivirals at an early stage of viral infections, when they are most likely to be effective. Indeed, many doctors believe that at the very advanced stages of the disease, it is no longer the virus that affects the body but the immune reaction, and therefore a pure antiviral like Veklury © is therefore not justified. The positioning of the Veklury © at the advanced stage of the disease raises questions.
The toxicity of the molecule, GS-5734, and of its metabolite GS-441524 has not been seriously studied and the data on its metabolism in the organism are not only incomplete but also based on a poor biological model defined, in any case incomplete. The supposed target is RNA polymerase without its principle of action being established. However, the pharmacodynamics of this molecule identified since 2012 would have had plenty of time to be fully characterized since.
Since its creation, this drug has never proven real effectiveness in humans, regardless of the virus for which it was tested: Ebola, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV.
Worse, in each of these pandemics, hasty conclusions were systematically published on its effectiveness and presented to the general public while being based on studies more than doubtful, if not hazardous. For Ebola, for example, it was concluded to be effective after having tested it on two patients who have recovered from the infection, without ever having demonstrated that it was due to the administration of remdesivir. Unfortunately for the French, despite its blatant failure during the Ebola epidemic, Gilead’s scientific hoax seems to stand the test of time. Recall that the patent expires in October 2035, and that this molecule is now recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for therapeutic use against Covid-19.
related:
Notorious GVB Warned that the Ebola Vaccine Ring Trials were Killing People: "We just wanted to have the case fatality rate of the whole period."
·
MARCH 20, 2023
Whatever hebbbened with that Pepcid AC deal? Did we win? Did we beat Covid with it? Is it better than Ivermectin, Pierre? Can I get Wellness Company or FLCCC Pepcid AC? BOB REALLY LIKED IT, Y'ALL!
·
JAN 23
Back to Frances Soir:
Worse, we have arguments to believe that remdesivir is in fact a very toxic molecule and that the results obtained in vitro are explained above all by the cytotoxicity of the molecules GS5734 and its metabolite GS-441524. We also believe that the late use of this molecule can hide its toxicity since the organs affected by Covid-19 and remdesivir are the same. Our comments are based on tangible data from official bodies and scientific publications validated by reading committees.
Also, if by chance our suspicions about the toxicity of remdesivir were not founded, we would be happy if Gilead and / or the health authorities provide us with complete data demonstrating its safety, since in the requirements of clinical research prior to use of a drug, it is not for patients to demonstrate the toxicity of a molecule but for the laboratory to demonstrate its safety.
The results of a study published on July 6 on 5 patients treated with remdesivir at Bichat hospital report serious side effects. "This case series of five COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care for respiratory distress and treated with remdesivir highlights the complexity of using remdesivir in these critically ill patients. Remdesivir has been discontinued for side effects secondary in four patients, including 2 elevations of ALT (3 to 5 N) and 2 renal insufficiencies requiring renal transplantation ". The results of the study can be found in the article entitled: case study on the first five patients treated with COVID-19 with remdesivir in France. A shocking element is the date of publication of this study on June 30, 2020 (date of online availability) while the patients were treated between January 24 and March 1, 2020. Such information on the toxicity of a drug and consequences should have been taken into account by the EMA.
We present a global analysis of the toxicity data in order not to get lost in the details of the studies in the MA dossier that we invite you to read. These elements are important, but all too often allow drug manufacturers to ditch information, we have highlighted the main information in Annex I, as well as the deficiencies.
We, European citizens and patients, demand that these shortcomings be corrected.
1 / Analysis of factual data on the toxicity of remdesivir
A- “Official” data When a drug begins to be used in humans, doctors have information about pre-clinical toxicity studies (data in vitro and in animals). For more information, you can refer to our article on pre-clinical drug development (our article on pre-clinical developments)
From the first clinical studies, adverse events reported by patients and sought by doctors are recorded. This information is recorded in a document called an "investigator's brochure" which is updated as clinical studies progress before pre-marketing authorization. A drug can benefit from a Temporary Authorization of Use (ATU) before Marketing Authorization, doctors must then have access to the tolerance information known at this stage.
Once the drug is on the market, it is packaged with an information leaflet which, among other things, informs about potential adverse events. To date, this notice is not available for France.
The document which will act as a leaflet for hospital doctors is not yet available and therefore the only document serving as a leaflet for side effects is today the document produced by the EMA that we mentioned and partly analysed in annex I.
Note that Gilead does not publish on its website any specific information on the side effects of the drug, and even less on its drug interactions. If the company or the doctors under agreements speak well of the benefits of the product, no one talks about the side effects (press releases and other announcements on the financial markets). In addition, in his patent pending, Gilead repeatedly asserts the safety of the drug if it is dosed correctly, from infinitesimal doses up to 100 mg / kg / day (1). It should be noted that the current mode of administration of this molecule is intravenous.
Official data on toxicity, side effects and drug interactions are therefore almost non-existent or very patchy. It is strange to note that the document produced by the EMA which reproduces that addressed to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, the American health authority) does not raise the question of toxicity in general, and more particularly of the genotoxicity and mutagenicity, studies which should be available today for this molecule whose "first administration to human" is not new. But it is not the only element of toxicity of Veklury (remdesivir) which is obscured by the EMA document.
We are therefore surprised by the respective decisions of the international authorities, WHO, FDA and EMA, to authorize, as a first step, the use of Veklury © on a compassionate basis and recently as a treatment for Covid-19. We have referred to the FDA press release authorizing its use (2). According to data provided by Gilead to the FDA, Veklury (remdesivir) poses no risk of toxicity to the body, except for rats given doses higher than 3 mg / kg / day. It would thus only be a question of contraindication or of an administration adapted for certain patients suffering from renal or hepatic disorders.
Much of this Stack is done.
I have previously written how Remdesivir was created at EXACTLY THE SAME JUNCTURE as the SPARS Exercise was launched for a “fictional” pandemic scenario involving a novel coronavirus outbreak.
*We’ve done multiple posts on SPARS, the above link is about the placation “healing” crap in the later chapters as the sheen comes off the Operation and SOME REALIZE that they have been duped.
The following scenario is another part of the comprehensive SPARS Murder the World under Emergency Pretext, the “anti-viral” section.
And the North Carolina Baric-Sheehan Crew was using the exact same language in 2020 as the fictional SPARS talking points for an antiviral.
I may re-edit that post and post it again here.
The outlines for all of this came into view well over a year ago.
And for goddamned fucking four years now we have been blathering about Heroes and Villains and Goodies and Baddies and Controlled Opposition.
People went along.
People that you like.
They sold a war.
They sold a war.
They sold an emergency.
Under the emergency pretext, people were to be murdered with emergency “vaccines” and emergency use hospital death protocols.
Bureaucratic Mass Murder: A Mini-Documentary
·
SEPTEMBER 9, 2023
https://ko-fi.com/sagehanaproductions64182 https://www.buymeacoffee.com/sagehanaJ
Okay, so I will dig up the remdesivir post relating to SPARS and try to tighten it up a bit.
And then meeebbeeee we going to look at Radiation Poisoning.
This article is so as not to forget that the People who Own the World conscripted doctors in white coats to murder people.
That world is lost to you, Doctor.
That world IS lost to you, Doctor.
·
DECEMBER 29, 2023
'
see my substack content here from prior stack I wrote warning on the fraud of Remdesivir:
REMDESIVIR key study in LANCET April 2020 (Wang) swept under the rug by media & Fauci: "Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial"
see highlighted passage & numbers and you can see why this study was hidden by Fauci & NIH cabal for with the flawed NIH study, it showed that Remdesivir FAILED in cutting deaths & it increased harms
SEP 21, 2022
77
Share
My take:
There is evidence that Fauci and NIH et al. tampered with the study protocol so that they could claim some benefit as the drug was showing ineffectiveness and safety failures. So if you look at the protocol adjustment below, they made a non patient important outcome (time to recovery), the primary outcome. These are real crooks!
Remdesivir has emerged as liver and kidney toxic and a failed EBOLA drug, failed! It was a drug in search of a disease and found one here due to Fauci and his ‘standard of care’!
Substack Alexander COVID News evidence-based medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribed
Remdesivir emerged as one of these ineffective and potentially harmful drugs yet was championed by the NIH/NIAID/US government as a prominent treatment. The LANCET’s Wang et al. clinical trial results (below) were released on the very same morning that the US government’s NIH trial results (Beigel et al., https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764) on remdesivir were released, and showed a failure of remdesivir and even skewed heavily towards harms.
The key Wang et al.’s findings was that in adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, “remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.” Furthermore, and very alarmingly, adverse events were reported in “102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.” In addition, the Kaplan-Meier hazard ratio was not statistically significant, reported as HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03 (final report).3
Yet the NIH highly touted and flaunted study that did not report or focus on patient-important objective outcomes and only on reduced time to recovery, was deeply flawed methodologically. The reported primary outcome was time to recovery (discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes). Why was the reported primary outcome in the NIH study not mortality? Did researchers at NIH (including Dr. Anthony Fauci) use a secondary outcome such as time to recovery as the primary outcome because they were looking at the data and saw no benefit for patient-important outcomes such as mortality?
This is very serious if the NIH researchers tampered with the trial’s protocol so that they could declare efficacy yet for a secondary ‘less important’ outcome. Moreover, the legacy media and the NIH/NIAID officials completely disregarded the key findings (including strong signals of harms) from the LANCET Wang et al. trial released on the very same day. Why? When the glorified NIH study’s outcome was not patient-important and there was indication of harms: “serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%).”
SOURCE:
Wang et al.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931022-9
NIH tampered with the protocol:
They murdered my ❤️s sister with this 👿
It was history repeating with the endorsement and widespread use of AZT for AIDS/HIV patients. I have no doubt that drug killed far more people than the virus.
Also, Fauci's successor (Dr. Jean Marrazzo, previously head of infectious diseases at UAB), was one of the leaders in setting up the trials that got remdesivir approved.