Dr. Paul Marik on how government incentivizes hospitals to mistreat patients with toxic remdesivir

On December 12, 2019 (around the same time the COVID 'pandemic' started) the following study was published in which remdesivir was tested as one of the treatments for ebola:

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31774950/

In that study, the Data Safety Monitoring board terminated the use of remdesivir because of its toxicity. Regardless of its toxicity, the NIH enrolled hospitalized patients in a clinical trial looking at the use of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID.

When preliminary results were out, Anthony Fauci said in a press conference in the White House that the trial was good news, see:

Fauci on remdesivir for COVID-19: ‘This will be the standard of care’
https://rumble.com/vpqlyq-fauci-toxic-ineffective-remdesivir-to-be-standard-of-care-based-on-proof-of.html

The primary endpoint was changed during the clinical trial. This is scientific misconduct, but the captured authorities allowed it anyway. The investigators changed the primary endpoint, because they saw that remdesivir would not perform well on the original primary endpoint.

The primary endpoint was changed from an 8 point ordinal scale that included death and a requirement for mechanical ventilation. These are both patient centered and reasonably objective outcomes.

The primary endpoint was changed to time to recovery, which is not really patient centered and is way more easy to fudge due to its subjectivity. It is for instance very easy to declare all patients on remdesivir 'recovered' 36 hours too early too early and all patients in the control group 36 hours too late. Now it seems that remdesivir reduces time to recovery by 3 days, while this is not the case in reality.

This article is the final report of the discussed trial:
Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

The two studies sponsored by remdesivir's manufacturer (i.e. conflicted studies), Gilead, show a reduction in mortality. However, the four independent studies (i.e. more likely to be unbiased studies) show no such reduction. In fact, they show an increased risk of death by 3% and an increased change of renal failure by 20%.

The federal government will give hospitals a 20% bonus (financed by taxpayers) if they prescribe remdesivir. This perverse incentive is nothing less than wealth transfer for mistreating patients.

Not only is the federal government strongly incentivizing the use of a highly profitable, toxic, ineffective drug, but they're also doing everything in their power to prevent the off-label use of cheap, safe, highly effective, FDA approved drugs and treatments. Examples of the latter are ivermectin, fluvoxamine, budesonide, melatonin, high dose vitamin C, calcifediol (active form of vitamin D) among many other drugs and supplements.

One of the most important things to remember when treating COVID or any other respiratory infection, is that you should treat it as early as possible, intensively and with combination therapy.

REFERENCES

WHISTLE BLOWER: Hundreds of dying patients removed from remdesivir trial to make drug look better
https://rumble.com/vtewht-whistle-blowers-dying-patients-removed-from-remdesivir-clinical-trial-to-ma.html

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet: US hospitals get on average $100 000+ bonus if they mistreat 'COVID' patients
https://rumble.com/vrjy3z-dr.-lee-vliet-us-hospitals-get-100-000-bonus-on-average-if-they-mistreat-co.html

Dr. Peterson Pierre on the perverse incentives U.S. hospitals receive for 'COVID' patients
https://rumble.com/vsimnp-dr.-peterson-pierre-on-the-perverse-incentives-u.s.-hospitals-receive-for-c.html

Clinical outcomes of using remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: A prospective randomised study
https://www.ijaweb.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5049;year=2021;volume=65;issue=13;spage=41;epage=46;aulast=Mahajan
This study concludes: "Remdesivir therapy for five days did not produce improvement in clinical outcomes in moderate to severe COVID-19 cases."

https://c19rmd.com/

SOURCE

Sen. Ron Johnson moderates a panel discussion, COVID-19: A Second Opinion. A group of world renowned doctors and medical experts provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.

More at www.ronjohnson.senate.gov

https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html