This means “standard of care” is also bullshit, if you didn’t know. It’s a negotiation between power players, not a sober assessment of the science.
-
Show this thread
-
This is
#regulatorycapture in action. Remdesivir, from all I can see, was a reasonable drug to try against#COVID19. There are lots of other reasonable drugs to try. Only the ones with deep pockets and good political relationships will get approved.1 reply 13 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
And then people will say “Science Says these are the good drugs and the others are bad” but never ask who determines *which* science gets done
1 reply 0 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
What ordinary lay humans care about — can this drug save lives? can it make
#COVID19 close to harmless? — is not even being tested!!!1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
“Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t have an RCT and remdesivir does!” Yes, true, and ALSO notice that hydroxychloroquine is a cheap generic so there’s nobody to *pay* for a big RCT.
3 replies 4 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
And the public only knows about hydroxychloroquine because there’s this one doc with a bee in his bonnet about it (and he’s probably biased and sloppy and goes to the media too early and exaggerates.)
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
If it’s a cheap generic that *doesn’t* have a crazed fanboy, it’ll have even less apparent “success.” When was the last time you heard Discourse about indomethacin or niclosamide?
1 reply 0 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
If you don’t like that the “standard of care” is biased towards the interests of a handful of pharma companies...maybe the problem is that you need to be a hundred-billion-dollar company to run a clinical trial that satisfies today’s FDA?
1 reply 9 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Is there any account of folks in positions of influence soberly realizing that the FDA can do more harm than good as a result of the pandemic?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @maxefremov
The FDA has loosened many of its usual restrictions because of the pandemic. The concept of risk-benefit tradeoffs is, I expect, very familiar to them. “Deregulation can ever be good” is clearly a notion the Trump administration has heard of.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Actually deregulating to the extent I support would require what is commonly called “fanaticism” — willingness to keep pushing against resistance to the point of becoming a boor — which I think is selected against in all leadership positions, public or private.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @maxefremov
“I don’t care how nice, smart, or “reasonable” you are, I’m not gonna accept your excuses until the cost (or death rate, or w/e) goes down” is the attitude you need here.
2 replies 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @maxefremov
Because bureaucrats *are* nice, sincere, and extremely well educated. They will always have plausible reasons, which they actually believe, why some source of delay or cost is necessary. And, typically, you will get your explanation and feel sheepish and not push.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes - 25 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.