I disagree with the claim that "What the FDA is doing right now by delaying Paxlovid is equivalent to a soldier deciding to just sit around and let the enemy attack and kill innocent victims, or a doctor deciding to let a cancer patient die so they can go to the bar and have a drink with friends."
That is far too generous to the FDA. What they're doing is more like a soldier *obstructing the only exit* so that innocent victims cannot flee as the enemy approaches. Or a doctor deciding to *burn down the pharmacy* so that their patients cannot access the medicine they need to save their lives. Obstruction of life-saving medicine is harmful interference, not a mere failure to benefit.
"That is far too generous to the FDA" - wow, thanks the support. I really felt I was going out on a limb with my statements there and to be honest felt a bit nervous I was sounding too crazy. It means a lot coming from you =).
I love the doctor burning down the pharmacy analogy You are right.. For some reason I hadn't actually thought of it that way, I think because I was hung-up on thinking about the act-omission distinction. But you are 100% right, is more like direct, active interference into exchanges between between drug companies and doctors and their patients, with very harmful effects.
No idea. You could dig up the Phase 1 safety study and look at the side effects. If you have a reference on either concern I'd be very curious to see it. It seems the side effect profile for Ritonavir is not super great, so that might limit the use of Paxlovid+Ritonavir as a prophylaxis.
You misunderstand the severity in the molnupiravir trials. The positive Indian trials were in mild cases, while those stopped for futility were moderate. The Merck trial was in mild and moderate and showed much lower effects, so the main effect is probably in lower severity cases.
Oh.. thanks for pointing this out! I think I mixed up what "mild" and "moderate" meant, I think. I just issued a correction in the text and credited you.
I disagree with the claim that "What the FDA is doing right now by delaying Paxlovid is equivalent to a soldier deciding to just sit around and let the enemy attack and kill innocent victims, or a doctor deciding to let a cancer patient die so they can go to the bar and have a drink with friends."
That is far too generous to the FDA. What they're doing is more like a soldier *obstructing the only exit* so that innocent victims cannot flee as the enemy approaches. Or a doctor deciding to *burn down the pharmacy* so that their patients cannot access the medicine they need to save their lives. Obstruction of life-saving medicine is harmful interference, not a mere failure to benefit.
"That is far too generous to the FDA" - wow, thanks the support. I really felt I was going out on a limb with my statements there and to be honest felt a bit nervous I was sounding too crazy. It means a lot coming from you =).
I love the doctor burning down the pharmacy analogy You are right.. For some reason I hadn't actually thought of it that way, I think because I was hung-up on thinking about the act-omission distinction. But you are 100% right, is more like direct, active interference into exchanges between between drug companies and doctors and their patients, with very harmful effects.
Don't protease inhibitors delay wound healing and screw up your kidneys?
No idea. You could dig up the Phase 1 safety study and look at the side effects. If you have a reference on either concern I'd be very curious to see it. It seems the side effect profile for Ritonavir is not super great, so that might limit the use of Paxlovid+Ritonavir as a prophylaxis.
You misunderstand the severity in the molnupiravir trials. The positive Indian trials were in mild cases, while those stopped for futility were moderate. The Merck trial was in mild and moderate and showed much lower effects, so the main effect is probably in lower severity cases.
Oh.. thanks for pointing this out! I think I mixed up what "mild" and "moderate" meant, I think. I just issued a correction in the text and credited you.