My RealClear Markets Op-Ed On How Remdesivir Is Based on Junk Science

Pierre Kory — Collected Works

2022-02-24

Document text

For anyone who has followed my substack, you will quickly be able to tell that the below Op-Ed is not my usual “writing voice” as I both had some help and had to adopt a more “professional” rather than “personal” tone. It still works (although a few F bombs may have driven the point home even more strongly). 
 Published today by RealClear Markets at this link , also copied below. Enjoy - Pierre
 

 
 
 Remdesivir claimed the  top spot  for hospital drug spending in 2021, with sales earning Gilead $4.2 billion in the first nine months alone. The problem is that, at best, the drug doesn’t work.
 Despite some initial indication that Remdesivir might slightly reduce recovery time, the World Health Organization conducted a  large-scale analysis  that found it “had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.” Unsurprisingly, the WHO recommended against using this drug to treat Covid-19 in November 2020 (and still does).
 At worst, however, Remdesivir is harmful. A  subsequent analysis  of the agency’s safety database found it likely caused kidney failure, and when independent trials (those not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company) are analyzed alone, there is a clear statistical trend to harm. WHO also  warns  that the drug may be associated with an increased reporting of liver problems.
 How is it possible that an ineffective and potentially dangerous drug that is scarcely used throughout the world received more money from U.S. hospitals than any other drug?
 The answer is because our drug approval system is broken. It’s skewed towards expensive, patented, often marginally beneficial or unknowingly dangerous treatments produced by our pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of well-known, safe, cheap, generic drugs – and ultimately patients.
 Look at  this chart  created by an independent researcher that displays the efficacy of all drugs and compounds that have been studied against Covid-19. The ones circled in red are the only medicines that have received FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA is essentially fast-track approval) in the U.S. Each authorized medicine commands an exorbitant price while all the low-cost, effective drugs remain unauthorized for treatment of Covid-19. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the price tags were unrelated to their FDA status.
 Moreover, Remdesivir was approved based on a single, small trial with questionable results. This should never be the basis for approving a medicine for mass use – even during a public health emergency. The same thing has happened with monoclonal antibodies, Pfizer and Merck’s antiviral pills, and, of course, the Covid-19 vaccines.
 Even more troubling are  reports  that the FDA did not consult the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee in granting Remdesivir’s EUA. But the committee consists of outside experts that the FDA has at the ready precisely to weigh in on antiviral drug issues. It boggles the mind that the agency would authorize a drug without even consulting the very body that is supposed to advise it on such issues.
 Compare these lightning-fast and flimsy approvals to the non-existent government response to mounting data that fluvoxamine is effective against Covid-19. The  Journal of the American Medical Association  and  the Lancet  have each published large, randomized trials to this effect, with the latter showing fluvoxamine reduced Covid-19 hospitalizations by two-thirds and deaths by over 90 percent.
 The NIH review of the fluvoxamine studies unsurprisingly takes great care to  highlight potential study biases  while dismissing the importance of the outcome benefits found,  while ignoring the limited benefit  and  far more glaring flaws in the Remdesivir study. Fluvoxamine already has full FDA approval. It is safe and inexpensive (a pill costs  about $1 ). Given what we are seeing with the patented and expensive drugs like Remdesivir (a course costs about $2,400), perhaps fluvoxamine’s small price tag is the problem.
 As if this all weren’t dispiriting enough, we have undoubtedly spent so much on Remdesivir because hospitals have a major financial incentive to administer it. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  established  a system that provides a 20% bonus to each hospital’s bill to encourage them to use Remdesivir and other EUA approved high cost, patented medications.
 The only way any of this will change is if we create an independent, well-funded government body dedicated to conducting fairly designed and transparent research studies of repurposed generic treatments. While we certainly must encourage innovation, we cannot afford to overlook cheap and effective solutions that are already at our disposal. But that clearly will not happen until we break the strangle-hold that pharmaceutical companies have on the approval process.
 P.S. I just want to say how much I appreciate all the subscribers to my substack, and especially the paid ones! Your support is so greatly appreciated. Thanks my friends.
 Subscribe now