echemi logo
Product
  • Product
  • Supplier
  • Inquiry
    Home > Medical News > Latest Medical News > Weigh! Remdesivir is not an effective drug for new coronavirus

    Weigh! Remdesivir is not an effective drug for new coronavirus

    • Last Update: 2020-02-05
    • Source: Internet
    • Author: User
    Search more information of high quality chemicals, good prices and reliable suppliers, visit www.echemi.com
    A novel coronavirus pneumonia Remdesivir has spread quickly on the Internet A critically ill patient in the United States has improved rapidly after the use of the drug He hopes to win the coronavirus pneumonic medicine for a long time So the media scrambled to report that the people could not stop the hot tears, and finally they were saved But as a novel coronavirus professional who has been working for more than 10 years, the author said: the Remdesivir new drug of Reed is not an effective drug to treat new coronavirus pneumonia! Why does remdesivir structure say that? Is it too arbitrary? It's not that the author is too arbitrary It's the common sense of drug researchers This paper is only from the perspective of popular science analysis for the public We all know that the law applies the presumption of innocence If there is no sufficient evidence to prove that a person is innocent, he must be acquitted On the other hand, on the effectiveness of drugs, it's just the opposite It's a guilty inference or "invalid inference": if you want to say that a drug is effective, you have to provide sufficient test data to show the effectiveness of the drug, otherwise it's invalid This is a very important logic It is the logic of the State Food and drug administration to judge the effectiveness of drugs It is also the logic of this paper's argument Otherwise, the reader has to ask the author to make an experiment to prove that remdesivir is invalid The author has no obligation In order to prove this point, the author's obligation is to find out the relevant information, indicating that there is no experimental data to prove the effectiveness of the drug, so the author's conclusion is Established What kind of evidence (test data) can show the effectiveness of a drug? Is it from authoritative experts, or because it comes from the secret recipe of the palace and the ancient recipe of the millennium? Do you or your friends use it? Or do you say it's really good? All of these are basically meaningless to prove that a drug is effective, so what makes sense? Test data, clinical test data What kind of experimental data can prove it? Shuanghuanglian has done experiments and produced data to prove that it has the effect of inhibiting new coronavirus in vitro; Jieeryin also had test data to prove that it has the effect of inhibiting SARS virus in vitro in the same year, can it be proved, can't it! Because what they do is only in vitro test, in the easy to understand big vernacular is: take a cup, the first step is to add virus in the cup; the second step is to add medicine in the cup; the third step, the virus died or weakened It seems that the evidence is conclusive In fact, the coronavirus is Li Kui in the body and Lin Daiyu in the body If you pour (add) the oil, salt, sauce, vinegar and tea in your home, you may also kill the virus If you can't kill it, if you have money, pour Maotai wine into the test cup If you don't have money, pour Erguotou into the test cup You will surely kill it and understand your hatred! It is suggested that Hongmao medicinal wine can be made in the same way, and the conclusion of "inhibiting new coronavirus" can be obtained through experiments The in vitro test is very simple It can be completed in two days Radcivir has also made the in vitro test effective, but the in vitro study effect is also very limited It is only used to screen drugs, rather than to verify the effectiveness of drugs If there is a certain relationship with the effectiveness of drugs, it is only half a cent In vitro can't explain the problem, can in vivo research prove it? It depends on what it is Animal body or human body Avicenna, an Arab doctor 1000 years ago, said: "living in animals does not prove the effect on human beings, so drug experiments should be carried out on human beings, not on lions or horses." but for the sake of safety and economy, in modern drug research, animal experiments are carried out first, and then human experiments are carried out after effective experiments Is it too late for radcivir to do animal test? The special affairs office and the State Food and drug administration have high efficiency They directly approve the human body test, skip the first phase and directly enter the confirmatory clinical test Reed, novel coronavirus, was originally developed as a drug for the treatment of Ebola virus disease It has been tested in humans and has been proved to be safe In animal models, it has proved that it is active against viruses of atypical pneumonia (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) They also belong to coronavirus, and is very similar to the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in structure Coronavirus may be useful, so it is reasonable to enter the confirmatory clinical trial directly Some people will ask, "doesn't it mean that the United States has tried on a patient?"? It's true that patients are getting better soon, but there are too few patients in one or even 10 trials, which is not significant to prove whether a drug is effective or not Even if the clinical trial design is not good, even 1000 cases can not be explained The death rate of the new coronavirus is not high Many patients kill the virus by their own immunity If this part of patients take a certain drug and the body recovers, can we say that the drug is effective? How to prove the effectiveness of a drug? There is an internationally accepted gold standard, which is a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial This gold standard is like a mirror or monkey king's eyes, which can distinguish whether a drug is effective and return a "magic drug" to its original form Novel coronavirus pneumonia is what is used in randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials If there is no control, all patients with new crown pneumonia will have a drug No matter what drugs are used, they may get good results in the end Some patients can heal themselves, and most of them can be cured without specific drugs Because there is no control, it's like the sun rises after the rooster crows for 365 days in a row, and it can't prove that the sun is the rooster crows Only when the cock's mouth is covered every time, the sun will not rise, and it can be preliminarily proved that the sun is called by the cock Therefore, we need as like as two peas The placebo is usually controlled by placebo, and the placebo is made of water or starch, which is the same as the test drug, but it has no effect Some patients take the experimental medicine, some patients take the placebo If the effect of the two groups is similar, even if the cure rate is as high as 90%, it does not mean that the medicine is effective If the effect of the two groups is significantly different (the experimental group is slightly better than the placebo group), even if the cure rate is only 30%, it also means that the medicine is effective, so no control test says that the effect is not enough to be trusted Control alone was not enough, and patients had to be "randomly" assigned to two groups, rather than randomly If most of the patients with mild illness were assigned to the experimental group and the patients with severe illness to the placebo group, even if there were differences between the two, it would not be a problem Double blind trials, in which patients and doctors do not know whether to use drugs or placebos to avoid the placebo effect Because the patients and doctors who take the medicine tend to think that the medicine is effective, while the doctors or patients who take the placebo think: "it's only the starch that works." Finally, the psychological effect will cause some deviation to the test results According to the current statement of Gilead Science Co., Ltd., Gilead is cooperating with Chinese health authorities to carry out a randomized, controlled trial I don't know if double-blind test will be used Time is pressing It is flawed not to do double-blind test, but it can also be understood How long does it take for a new drug to go on the market from the start of clinical practice to the final validation and approval? The answer is 3-5 years How likely is success? According to the statistics, it is less than 10%, which is based on the effectiveness of animal experiments Radcivir is lack of animal experimental research, the probability of success is more difficult to say Of course, I also look forward to radceway's success, but in the end, I have to talk about the data Finally, for a drug that has just been started in a human trial and has no clinical trial data, it is completely possible to say that it is not an effective drug, and there is no reason to say that it is effective Novel coronavirus's statement emphasizes that Reed's data is not available for any new country and has not been approved in any country Different views, welcome to dialectic in message area Listen to the white statement: this point of view only represents the author, not the position of yaozhi.com, welcome to exchange and supplement in the message area; if you need to reprint, please be sure to indicate the author and source of the article.
    This article is an English version of an article which is originally in the Chinese language on echemi.com and is provided for information purposes only. This website makes no representation or warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness ownership or reliability of the article or any translations thereof. If you have any concerns or complaints relating to the article, please send an email, providing a detailed description of the concern or complaint, to service@echemi.com. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days. Once verified, infringing content will be removed immediately.

    Contact Us

    The source of this page with content of products and services is from Internet, which doesn't represent ECHEMI's opinion. If you have any queries, please write to service@echemi.com. It will be replied within 5 days.

    Moreover, if you find any instances of plagiarism from the page, please send email to service@echemi.com with relevant evidence.