CovidPapers, Recovery: Incompetence, Lying, Manipulation and Big Bucks

CovidPapers, Recovery: Incompetence, Lying, Manipulation and Big Bucks

Publié le 15/07/2020 à 12:11 - Mise à jour à 12:35
FranceSoir
PARTAGER :

Auteur(s): Le Collectif Citoyen pour FranceSoir

-A +A

Recovery is the large UK multi-arm, phase 3 trial evaluating 6 potential treatments for Covid 19. One trial, including 11,000 patients, conducted under close supervision by two Oxford University professors, Peter Horby and Martin Landray . We were able to interview Martin Landray on the 5th of June, 2020 in an interview which gave rise to a 'verification' by the Liberation service. We return to this essay, which turns out to be disconcertingly light, combining all the elements of what could become the saga of the summer, with scientific distortions undoubtedly more astute than the "Big Data" study published in the Lancet and retracted a few days after 

Concomitantly with the cessation of the hydroxychloroquine arm of Recovery, we observe a manipulation of opinion.

The results show a fatality rate of 23% and 25% in hospitalized patients for the placebo and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) groups. How to explain them compared to that observed in France of 18%?

In France, 18% of patients who arrived at the hospital with covid19 symptoms died. The rates by age group are 26.6% for those aged 70 and over and 8.5% for those aged 40-69.

How to explain such a difference between the two groups. We would need the exact data from the Recovery test in order to see more clearly and understand. Some points were raised, such as the age of the patients who appear higher in Recovery. However, looking at the French figures, the obvious jumps out. If there is a case fatality rate of 25% after 28 days, this means that 75% has therefore escaped. The rate may not be better than placebo, but it would be important to know if the treatment allowed some to avoid dying and especially others to die given the exaggerated dose of hydroxychloroquine administered ( 2400 mg on the first day and 800 mg / day thereafter) As a result, no conclusions can be drawn from the results of this arm since the dosage is too strongly criticisable in terms of toxicity according to the very statements of opponents of the HCQ!

We should also check the other pathologies (co-morbidities) which will no doubt have had an impact on the fatality rate, while knowing that in the Recovery protocol, not all patients were tested, some were included in the test only on medical assessment.

On this aspect, much remains to be analysed and already the conclusion of the HCQ arm seems more than questionable; we will come back to it.

 

Another aberration: the dosage on patients in poor health

Regarding the dosage used in the HCQ arm, Professor Landray told us that they had used the one used for amoebic dysentery, which, according to the doctors we consulted, is never treated with hydroxychloroquine, but with hydroxyquinoline (INTETRIX)! We have found publications that speak well of hydroxyquinoline. We had already addressed this point well in our previous article.

Such confusion seems surrealistic to say the least!

Professor Horby tried to drown the fish by correcting the words of his colleague in Liberation. Supposedly Martin Landray did not speak of amoebic dysentery, but of hepatic abscess of the liver, moreover a complication of the first affection. This disease was previously treated with chloroquine. However, Professor Landray did speak about amebiasis. If it weren't for a medical professor, it would seem like incompetence.

Extract from the interview with Martin Landray

Excerpt from Martin Landray's interview report approved by him

Professor Horby mentioned in the Liberation article a 1995 WHO document that was used as the basis for the essay. We are therefore in the presence of two distinct diseases mentioned by the Recovery team to justify the dosage. These two diseases are not treated with hydroxychloroquine, but with contemporary medicines. When we look at the Recovery protocol, it says that the dosage is based on the plasma concentration to treat malaria. Malaria can be treated with chloroquine and again not or very little with hydroxychloroquine. In addition, Recovery dosages cannot be based on chloroquine, because the pharmacokinetics of these two molecules are different. (see Vidal)

We know that the proportions of elderly people at risk were higher than in France (18%) and that in the Discovery program (French trial) in which the loading dose is 800mg then 400mg. The Recovery team reported that the HCQ was not cardio-toxic, but we can question the toxicity itself in this population. To this we add that India warned WHO about the high doses used by the English in Recovery (4 times more than in the Indian or French test). Obvious medical error justified by playing on the possible confusion between the diseases.

On the dosage, an additional element that draws our attention is the difference that exists between three documents: the protocol, the statistical analysis and the presentation. In the presentation, hydroxychloroquine is the only molecule whose grammage has not been specified. Everyone else has one. There is also confusion between the protocol and the analysis plan. Imprecision and error that serve the authors when you look closely.

There are notable differences between the HCQ dosages depending on the documents we are looking at. Indeed, the document relating to the protocol dated May the 15th (V6) the dosages are entirely in accordance with those of the Protocol Plan declared.

On the other hand, a brand new document dated June the 9th, the “Statistical analysis Plan”, reveals a completely different dosage, different from the plan of the initial protocol.

Additional question we can ask ourselves. Did the patients in the HCQ arm die faster than the placebo group? It is very likely that the answer is yes, but that the results are never given in detail. Thus the number of deaths could be the cumulative number of deceased patients (by overdose of HCQ and by covid19)

Remdesivir has been included in the Recovery test since May 26 by decision of the authorities (MHRA) and by Recovery on the 27th of May, 2020. This was presented to the investigators in a document dated the 2nd of June. The program allows for the addition of a drug to bring the best of science to the trial. However, in the interview of the 5th June, 2020, Professor Landray tells us:

• Remdesivir was never included in the ReCoveRy trial.

• Currently, the following drugs are being tested: Lopinavir-ritonavir, low-dose corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (which we have now stopped), azithromycin, convalescent plasma, and Tocilizumab.

• On the document of 2nd of June, 2020 that we had looked at, there were 3 pages on the Remdesivir, and Mr. Landray had told us "this is the educational material that we provide to the investigators, and page 15 to 17 talks about Remdesivir , because we are monitoring all the developments in treatments around the world, so this is the current state of research or results on this drug. "

•  Finally Remdesivir is not included in the trial because at the time of the test, it was not available in the UK.

All these statements are of course fallacious. It is not the only omission. So either Landray does not know about his own trial - but in the interview he did have time to go over the medication list and talk about Remdesivir on several occasions - or this omission is voluntary so that no questions are asked.

In addition, to include a drug in the trial, there is an MHRA approval procedure. This was the case for the HCQ. Authorization was requested on 23rd of March  and obtained on the 25thMarch, says Landray. The inclusion of Remdesivir in March was possible because it was officially tested also in the Chinese phase 3 trial. We note that as of the 26th of March, no study had shown any proven activity of Remdesivir, even minimal. In order not to ask the question about the mortality rate, for Remdesivir, a new indicator was created: the improvement of hospital stay. It is the only indicator where Remdesivir would have shown “a glimmer of hope” since in the test, it is written that it is not statistically significant, but that there is a tendency to improvement, which moreover, it is completely marginal, almost non-existent (see publication in the Lancet of the Chinese study NCT04257656). All this without taking into consideration the severe side effects caused to a significant number of patients.

 

An expert pharmacist tells us:

"It is common practice in test design to create a composite indicator to allow the inclusion of a molecule."

There is always an indicator that will show this famous statistically significant effect (or not elsewhere as in the case of Remdesivir).

Hydroxychloroquine with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties is disqualified on the basis of a factual indicator such as the death rate without looking at its ability to reduce hospital stay for the 75% survivors. But for the Remdesivir we bring him in by the small door on a glimmer of hope.

The conclusion of Professor Horby and Professor Landray to recommend the withdrawal of hydroxychloroquine is not justifiable in light of the arguments developed and seems to be blatantly biased, accompanied by manipulation with the intention of never comparing the properties of l 'HCQ against Remdesivir. There is something shocking and extremely serious about the ethics of medical practice.

Let us take a closer look at Pr Landray and Pr Horby, two professors covered with diplomas and university responsibilities.

 

Who is Professor Peter Horby?

A professor from Oxford Nuffield College who has an extensive academic and industry collaboration curriculum as the Executive Director of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) who received £ 4.5 million from funding for vaccine research.

On June 8, this institute, chaired by Prof. Horby, released a comprehensive Covid19 patient report with over 67,130 records and endless patient details. More Big Data. Still surprising that Professor Horby is able to publish so much data on the Covid19 and not yet have published information on the details of the analysis in Recovery. An even more surprising factor is that, given its proximity to China, and its work done upstream, why did it not alert the authorities more quickly?

On the 24th of January, 2020 Professor Horby published with Professor Hayden an article on Covid19 in The Lancet. A second paper between Pr Horby and Pr Hayden was published on the 24th of January. Another article in pre-publication on February 20 with Professor Hayden present who also participated in April in tests on the Remdesivir

 

And the 3rd article on Remdesivir in which Professor Hayden was originally among the signatories but is no longer there on the 24th of April on the 2nd version of the article. A question that we are sure to ask.

It seems to us that it would have been very helpful if CheckNews had asked questions about Professor Horby's conflicts of interest rather than trying to validate our claims.

 

We have an analysis from John Ward, a British political journalist and historian who has been blogging for several years and who exposed the opioid addiction problems of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

 

Another ERGO research centre led by Pr Horby has received £ 14 million from Astra Zeneca and Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook.

John Ward tells us:

"As a “focus group" psychologist with forty years of experience, I was trained to understand the respondents' body language. It’s my professional opinion, during Andrew Marr’s May 10 interview, Professor Horby showed all the classic discomfort signs of an interviewee hiding the full picture from his audience. ”

 

Furthermore, Professor Horby states that Remdesivir did not show any effect in a small study (note that he participated in this study, in which Professor Landray was Controller), then he refers to the study of Pr Fauci in the USA who would have shown this improvement in time spent in hospital. As for the HCQ, he said that we must be careful, because there are no convincing results.

But, it does not refer to the various positive studies for HCQ and there were. Omission

Who is Martin Landray?

He is a professor of medicine and epidemiology and one of the chief investigators of the Recovery trial at the University of Oxford. In addition, it occupies many positions. Here they are :

He is Director of Research, Health Data Research UK, Acting Director of the Big Data Institute, leader in Big Data and Computing innovation. He heads the Clinical Informatics and Big Data department at the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. He is a member of the Royal College of Physicians of London, the Higher Education Academy, the British Pharmacological Society and the European Society of Cardiology.

In the exchange of good practices around the interview report, Professor Landray removed several elements. We told him it was important to the reader and he didn't object to it, so we're releasing it now. He talks to us about Gilead spontaneously without being asked to do anything.

Another point which interests us in the first place is linked to the many functions it occupies. He is, among other things, Director of Research, Health Data Research UK, Acting Director of the Big Data Institute, Leader of Big Data and Computing Innovation, He directs the Clinical Informatics and Big Data at the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

 

Funding for the Big Data Institute comes from the Li Ka-shing Foundation, a Chinese philanthropist, and from the Robertson Foundation, founder of the hedge fund Tiger, which was one of Gilead's largest shareholders.

But that's not all, Professor Landray is also the controller of Professor Horby's study.

For all these reasons, we suspect, Professor Landray of intentional lies as well as Professor Horby of manipulation of CheckNews due to flagrant conflicts of interest. Recovery is like all the other tests on Remdesivir handled behind the scenes by Gilead who holds his patent and AstraZeneca who has just signed an agreement with France and Germany for 400 million doses of a vaccine that does not exist again. And all this to never put low-cost hydroxychloroquine therapy in direct competition with Remdesivir. The only trial that tests Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine is the French trial Discovery, which is still silent for reasons that will escape the public eye. This will be the subject of another article.

 

And what about the regulator?

All that remained was to question the role of the MHRA, the supreme body supposed to guard the temple. This regulator asked Recovery to look at the effect of hydroxychloroquine, it also authorized the inclusion of Remdesivir in the trial without tangible proof of its therapeutic activity.

Is there still an independent regulator? One might ask the question of who sits on the MHRA? Among the Board members, Anne Toni Rodgers and Amanda Calvert declare conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca which has just announced a plan to merge with Gilead. AstraZeneca has also just signed a contract with several other countries to sell  2 or 3 billion euros of vaccine doses to European countries.

Would the circle be closed?

Members of regulators with declared conflicts with AstraZenca who request to analyse the research arms of Recovery containing hydroxychloroquine.

Project managers with undeclared conflicts of interest with Gilead, AstraZeneca and the Bill Gates Foundation who hide the truth about their research, who manipulate opinion on the information available and who demonstrate at least incompetence by giving massive doses of hydroxychloroquine.

Remdesivir included by the small door in the test without making any noise and which is not mentioned in an interview. Remember that Remdesivir costs close to $ 1 a dose at the time of manufacture, but would be billed around 200 euros for treatment in COVID 19.  Please note that the price of drugs is discussed on a case-by-case basis depending on the indication and there the prices mentioned range from 200 euros per treatment to a few thousand euros,

at least twenty times more than the Raoult treatment, which would bring in a lot of money, much more than hydroxychloroquine.

Price: The cost of producing remdesivir was estimated by a Journal of Virus Eradication study to be less than $ 1 per day of treatment ($ 0.93). A controlled manufacturing cost, even if it would be far from being the cheapest of the treatments currently being tested. In comparison, hydroxychloroquine media has a cost of production more than ten times lower ($ 0.08). To arrive at the final price of remdesivir, additional costs and costs related to product development should be added.

According to analyst Evaluate, clinical trials of remdesivir against Covid-19 are expected to cost the US laboratory around $ 150 million.

A planned merger to become the world's largest pharmaceutical company.

Is the crime almost perfect?

 

Auteur(s): Le Collectif Citoyen pour FranceSoir


PARTAGER CET ARTICLE :


CovidPapers

Annonces immobilières

Fil d'actualités Opinions




Commentaires

-