Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Monoclonal Antibodies and FDA Emergency Use
Since again the “news” media do such a terrible job of reporting facts, I’m turning to the knowledgeable people of Ricochet.
Is the monoclonal antibody treatment for which the Food and Drug Administration recently revoked emergency-use authorization the only monoclonal antibody treatment that was available to the public? In other words, did the FDA’s revocation stop all monoclonal antibody treatments for people who get COVID-19 or only some? The news media is interested only in reporting the politicians yelling at each other, not on any underlying facts.
I had been hearing many anecdotal stories about favorable results from monoclonal antibody treatments. Among the anecdotes, two friends of mine who recently (two weeks ago) tested positive for COVID-19 received monoclonal antibody treatments, and their conditions immediately improved significantly. Of course, the experience of two of my friends is not scientific proof of anything, and we can’t even be certain that the treatment caused the improvement of my two friends — though for one in particular, the coincidence of treatment and the magnitude of improvement was remarkable. Nor do I know if their treatments were the same ones for which the FDA revoked emergency-use authorization.
The closing of Florida treatment centers and accompanying yelling by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis gives the impression that all monoclonal antibody treatments have been stopped. But maybe Florida was using only one version, the version that was the subject of the FDA action.
I admit that I come into this discussion with a bias, as it seems to me that the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are focused on vaccines for COVID-19 and are generally opposed to (or at least uninterested in) finding treatments for those who become infected. That anti-treatment bias may not be true, but abruptly revoking the emergency-use authorization of monoclonal antibodies without much further detailed explanation provides fuel for the speculation that the agencies are anti-treatment. More information on the scope of the FDA’s action would help the not-medically-trained me evaluate what’s going on.
So, did the FDA’s revocation of emergency-use authorization for monoclonal antibody treatments apply to only some treatments or to all of the monoclonal antibody treatments that people had been getting? Do people who have COVID-19 still have an option to receive monoclonal antibody treatment, or are all options to receive monoclonal antibody treatment off the table?
Published in Healthcare
There are people who have serious and substantive criticisms of the FDA that point to the need for reform. You’re undercutting them. Are you sure you’re not a ChiCom agent?
Do you have information on whether the samples were from symptomatic people or not?
Are you saying he’s secretly taking ivermectin? Because that would be just like him.
Sure there is.
Look at individual. Decide what sort of infection is best for Leftist narrative. That is what they have. Who is going to know differently?
As long as it further their Leftist Democrat agenda then it is good. The deaths may even be the point.
Yes, I am. But on the plus side, I’ll have no problem getting security clearance.
Yes. I’m not sure how much I can share, as the data are for internal use. We test symptomatic patients for covid and influenza types A&B, and, also for RSV. We also test patients being admitted to the hospital or having procedures; they are presumably asymptomatic. Then there are others just called “asymptomatic.” I’m guessing these are people who had contact with positive cases, but are not showing symptoms. They might also be people being tested prior to travel, though I think we were so overwhelmed with necessary testing at one point that we were telling them to go elsewhere. At peak, we tested more than 12,000 in one week. During the omicron surge we saw numbers as high as 20% positivity among asymptomatic patients and over 50% in symptomatic. Fortunately, all of the numbers have dropped. We’re now under 30% positive among symptomatic and under 10% among asymptomatic. Blessed relief, we’re also testing far fewer people overall.
Thanks.
Fauci was really hated during the AIDS outbreak for doing the same thing. Just the opposite of Trump’s “right to try” philosophy.
Hated for doing the same thing as which?
I have read several reports that during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s Dr. Fauci was all in for developing an AIDS vaccine, and he vigorously opposed developing treatments for those already infected. [There are now effective treatments for AIDS, but there is still no vaccine.]
only if he caught worms on Epstein’s island….
He could be mentoring the next generation.
From a 9/15/21 CNN article. The final quoted paragraph is ‘intended’ to make us all feel better.
It turns out these are the ones they are now recommending not be used.
Should we assume they bought ’em up to sit on ’em instead of distributing them?
Interesting. Thanks for clarifying.
Right. Remember? This goes back to when Florida went rogue and started administering monoclonal antibodies and almost immediately Biden’s administration bought them all up. And the people here said that this was to streamline distribution. And then the Administration started withholding MCA from Florida, “to be fair to all the states”. So DeSantis went on buying them separately through Florida funds, bypassing the federal government.
And they’ve been working.
So now the federal government has banned MCA — for at best, questionable reasons. I knew then that this was the point from the beginning — to withhold effective treatments and to push for vaccination.
But, no, those who unquestioningly parrot the administration’s line said it was just to fairly dispense the medicines to all states, even those who don’t want them.
Why? Having already been paid for the MCA, they now want to push the new super expensive oral drugs.
I find the highlighted words a bit concerning.
Previously it seems “sites” were ordering treatments based on need. That didn’t work for the Feds, so they stepped in and bought up the supplies, so they could be distributed “equitably”. They were concerned that southern red states, Florida, Texas, etc., were purchasing treatments during the summer, based on need. Remember, Delta was spreading more rapidly there because of seasonality. That way they could be withheld in anticipation of the upsurge in fall/winter in the northern blue states.
DeSantis side stepped them and found another source, the GlaxoSmithKline monoclonal antibody treatment. The one that is still considered effective. A Governor doing the work the Feds can’t be bothered to do.
I knew a woman who worked in HIV vaccine development at Hopkins in the late 80s and early 90s and every time I’d see her instead of saying “Hello,” she’d say, “They’re never going to get a vaccine, it mutates too fast.”
That’s part of the problem, but there are other complications with that virus that are even tougher to deal with.
Well, this single one was difficult enough that they were never able to do it.
Delaying possible therapeutics.
Well, and killing people with experimental drugs.
I suspect it is legal