I don't understand the narrative that potentially valid therapies are being suppressed. There is a lot of crap data from small and underpowered trials which unfortunately are useless for providing information in which to base decisions on.
If you look at trials with sufficient enrollment to produce statistical power (ie solidarity, recovery, remap-cap, principle and others with enrollment in the thousands and comparisons of new interventions with standard of care) many drugs have been tested and their efficacy demonstrated relative to standards of care. Below is a list of some of the larger trials conducted and their trad outs in some compounds investigated.
Fluvoxamine - reduces risk of severe covid (possibly via sigma 1a agonism) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext
Principle trial https://www.principletrial.org/results
Currently investigating ivermectin and favapiravir
Budesonide - corticosteroid that can be inhaled. Reduces mortality.
Azithromycin- no benefit
Doxycycline - no benefit
Colchine - no benefit
Solidarity trial
remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - no benefit
Recovery trial
www.recoverytrial.net
Aspirin, azithromycin, colchine, convalescent plasma, lopinavir+ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine- no effect
The results of these trials indicate that there is a pretty robust search for repurposed anti-covid therapies, not a cover-up meant to maintain a monopoly on vaccinations or expensive drugs.
The trial looking at fluvoxamine for example was ended early due to robust results (so that patients in the placebo arm could receive treatment).
The difficult thing in this pandemic is separating signal from noise. There has been a glut of bad science, with groups pushing out underpowered trials lacking controls due to a sense of urgency (or possibly because the editorial bar has been lowered in journals when covid is a topic). Rather than providing insights though this data has muddied the waters and caused multiple red herrings to seriously waste time and resources resulting in quite a bit of death.
If you look at trials with sufficient enrollment to produce statistical power (ie solidarity, recovery, remap-cap, principle and others with enrollment in the thousands and comparisons of new interventions with standard of care) many drugs have been tested and their efficacy demonstrated relative to standards of care. Below is a list of some of the larger trials conducted and their trad outs in some compounds investigated.
Fluvoxamine - reduces risk of severe covid (possibly via sigma 1a agonism) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext
Principle trial https://www.principletrial.org/results
Currently investigating ivermectin and favapiravir
Budesonide - corticosteroid that can be inhaled. Reduces mortality.
Azithromycin- no benefit
Doxycycline - no benefit
Colchine - no benefit
Solidarity trial
remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - no benefit
Recovery trial
Results — RECOVERY Trial
Aspirin, azithromycin, colchine, convalescent plasma, lopinavir+ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine- no effect
The results of these trials indicate that there is a pretty robust search for repurposed anti-covid therapies, not a cover-up meant to maintain a monopoly on vaccinations or expensive drugs.
The trial looking at fluvoxamine for example was ended early due to robust results (so that patients in the placebo arm could receive treatment).
The difficult thing in this pandemic is separating signal from noise. There has been a glut of bad science, with groups pushing out underpowered trials lacking controls due to a sense of urgency (or possibly because the editorial bar has been lowered in journals when covid is a topic). Rather than providing insights though this data has muddied the waters and caused multiple red herrings to seriously waste time and resources resulting in quite a bit of death.
