The data was not in conflict for HCQ if you were paying attention to what I was posting. And there were zero randomized control trials to support its use unlike the data I posted for Remdesivir. Ultimately, the WHO thinks that the data is not strong enough to make a firm conclusion after looking at multiple additional studies and they recommend more clinical trials before giving their approval.Tell that to the WHO.
So which is it???
Is it possible there is data in conflict..... you know, like there was in the early HCQ days? Is it possible the more we find out about Remdesivir and it's use the more we will find out about it's efficacy in the real world (good or bad)? And why aren't you assigning the worst motives for those panelists at WHO that have reached a different conclusion/recommendation than yours.... Or do you just save all of that vitriol for the current oval office occupier?
You want absolute certainty, but as I've mentioned, that is not something that most clinical trials can provide, unless the drug is a knockout. Remdesivir probably has beneficial effects if given ASAP after infection. But given the expense and need for an IV, it makes it more questionable. If it was cheap and easier to administer, I think the WHO would recommend its use. I don't make any recommendation because I don't work at the FDA, so whether WHO and I are in alignment is not relevant. The key difference between HCQ and Remdesivir was in the quality and transparency of the decision making process IMO. The former was based on cheerleading of anecdotal (and possibly fraudulent) evidence by people like Dr. Oz, while the latter is based on examination of controlled trials by a panel of the best experts in the world. AFAIK, Remdesivir is still going to be used in the US as it just got another emergency approval from the FDA as part of a combo therapy just yesterday. As a nation, we can afford to spend money on something that may only be marginally useful. A lot of WHO member nations can't.The panel highlighted that, despite the conditional recommendation against remdesivir, they support further enrolment into RCTs evaluating remdesivir, especially to provide higher certainty of evidence for specific subgroups of patients.