Remdesivir and it’s Troubling Use Against COVID-19

Much like other drugs under scrutiny in the fight against COVID-19, remdesivir has been in the spotlight recently. The drug, produced by Gilead, was the first FDA approved (under EUA) treatment for cases requiring hospitalization.

The drug was also endorsed by Anthony Fauci who cited the drug as the “standard of care” for patients, and stated it had, “clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover.” Along with Fauci’s endorsement, the United States quickly stockpiled over 500,000 courses of treatment, thus securing Remdesivir’s place on the medical front lines.

However, the move was followed by skepticism and concern from the scientific community when the largest study, led by the World Health Organization, showed no statistically significant benefit to using the drug, with no reduction in mortality. The WHO also recommended against its use.

Yet, the drug was still used in hospitals across the country and across European countries. The most troubling detail, though, is the drug’s well-known and catastrophic side effects, which include rash, diarrhea, hypotension, abnormal liver function and renal impairment. More serious reactions, such as acute kidney injury, septic shock, and multi-organ failure, were also noted.

These findings have been replicated with the most recent study published on September 14, 2021. But why is it still in use when the data points to no statistically significant improvement in outcome? What makes this drug so special when there are safer alternatives?

To put it into perspective, from 2020 to present, remdesivir has racked up 1,500 deaths and over 6,000 adverse reactions according to the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System. However, ivermectin only has 430 adverse reactions and 30 suspected deaths and has the advantage of 20+ years of VAERS monitoring.

Despite the overall safety of a drug like ivermectin, it’s still waiting on its FDA authorization and freedom from Facebook jail, while remdesivir is touted as a savior. Its dire side effects are ignored and the lack of efficacy hushed. But why?

Perhaps we shouldn’t look at the mortality rates, hospitalizations, or improvements. A more enlightening piece of information might be the cost. You see, remdesivir is pricey with the bill for privately insured patients coming to $2000-3000+. When the patient is covered under Medicare or Medicaid, the government covers the cost, which gives the hospital somewhat of an incentive to use the drug.

Considering its widespread use, that’s quite a chunk of change for hospitals and drug companies, never mind the spike in kidney failure. Ivermectin, on the other hand, can be obtained for around $50. Which do you think the medical-industrial complex wants to use?

Content syndicated from TheLibertyLoft.com with permission.