We should dismiss anything you ever write after that without addressing it on the merits?
Note the authors have a written response to the hydroxychloroquine paper:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/the-case-against-ms-bik-and-pubpeer/
IHU Méditerranée Infection has been harassed by Ms. Bik, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Schneider through Pubpeer website. This phenomenon was triggered when we started to speak about hydroxychloroquine which seems to have excited them. My repeated requests to Ms. Bik to know if she had received money directly or indirectly from Pharmaceuticals companies and more specifically from Gilead, which markets remdesivir, went unanswered. Instead, she clearly asked an associate that we pay her. The very precise analysis of the 246 articles for which she accuses us of having committed « fraud » allows us to conclude very strictly that there is a total absence of fraud in the sense of conscious manipulation of the data in order to modify the result in the aim to make it more meaningful, a deliberate act and which therefore presumes a motive.
******************************************************************************************************
70% of the criticisms made on Pubpeer about the IHU articles relate to a potential absence or a numbering error of the “Comité de Protection des Personnes” (CPP) or Institutional Review Board (IRB), so we are dealing with ethics. In practice the rules of ethics depend on the declaration of Helsinki and the national laws. Under these conditions, obtaining anonymized samples such as faeces or the collection of lice on clothing for the purpose of a microbial analysis does not require, in French law, the opinion of the ethics committee or the request of CPP, we asked the question to the CNRS ethics committee.
********************************************************************************************************
I think the authors above must be referring to this report: https://www.mdedge.com/hematology-oncology/article/221518/coronavirus-updates/remdesivir-now-standard-care-covid-19-fauci
Remdesivir now ‘standard of care’ for COVID-19, Fauci says
by Sue Hughes, Apr. 30, 2020
"Hospitalized patients who had advanced COVID-19 with lung involvement and who received the antiviral agent remdesivir (Gilead Sciences) recovered faster than did similar patients who received placebo, according to a preliminary data analysis from a U.S.-led randomized, controlled trial.
On the basis of as yet unpublished data, remdesivir “will be the standard of care” for patients with COVID-19, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said during a press conference at the White House April 29."
*******
"In contrast to the positive results Dr. Fauci described from the NIAID-sponsored trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of remdesivir among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 in China was inconclusive.
The study, published online in The Lancet, showed some nonsignificant trends toward benefit but did not meet its primary endpoint.
The study was stopped early after 237 of the intended 453 patients were enrolled, owing to a lack of additional patients who met the eligibility criteria. The trial was thus underpowered.
Results showed that treatment with remdesivir did not significantly speed recovery or reduce deaths from COVID-19, but with regard to prespecified secondary outcomes, time to clinical improvement and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation were shorter among a subgroup of patients who began undergoing treatment with remdesivir within 10 days of showing symptoms, in comparison with patients who received standard care.
“To me, the studies reported here in The Lancet appear to be less promising than some statements released today from the NIH, so the situation is a bit puzzling to me,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who was not involved in the study. “I would need to look more closely at the data which NIH is looking at to understand the differences.”
The WHO was even more explicit in November 2020:
WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.
This recommendation, released on 20 November, is part of a living guideline on clinical care for COVID-19. It was developed by an international guideline development group, which includes 28 clinical care experts, 4 patient-partners and one ethicist.
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients
= new reply since forum marked as read
