Run Kirsch is Near, another CETF-funded study that used Remdesivir.

camostat mesilate

The New York Times reported that Kirsch’s COVID Early Treatment Fund (CETF) was funding camostat mesilate trials on May 22, 2020, in addition to hydroxychloroquine and peginterferon lambda.

May 22, 2020. New York Times. Treating Mild Coronavirus Cases Could Help Save Everyone

Only very few treatments are being tested for patients with early-stage symptoms, according to the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund, which was created by the tech entrepreneur Steven Kirsch “to fund outpatient clinical trials on repurposed drugs.” CETF has identified four antiviral drugs as worthy of testing on Covid-19 patients; it is partly financing trials for two (in addition to hydroxychloroquine). One trial, conducted at various sites worldwide, will test the effectiveness against Covid-19 of peginterferon lambda, a drug also being considered for hepatitis D. The other trial, in Denmark, is for camostat mesylate, which is normally used to treat inflammation of the esophagus or pancreas.

A CETF webpage confirms that the CETF funded camostat mesilate trials in Denmark.

Steve Kirsch confirmed this.

The study authors in Denmark published: Efficacy of the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate in patients hospitalized with Covid-19-a double-blind randomized controlled trial on April 22, 2021 in EClinicalMedicine.

DIDN’T WORK.

The hypothesis underlying our trial was that TMPRSS2 inhibition would block SARS-CoV-2 replication in infected patients leading to reduced viral loads, and that this in turn would lower the risk of hyper-inflammation and prevent disease progression. However, the results from our double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial show that among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 camostat mesilate treatment did not significantly improve time to clinical improvement, the risk of intubation or death, time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, or any other efficacy outcomes.

Our findings show that 200 mg t.i.d. camostat mesilate is not an effective treatment for hospitalized patients with Covid-19

USED REMDESIVIR.

The outcomes of the ACTT-1 trial with remdesivir [12] and results of the Randomized Evaluation of Covid-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial investigating dexamethasone [26] were published during this trial. Therefore, some patients received remdesivir and/or dexamethasone as standard of care. All participants also received prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulatory treatment

STUDY DESIGN.

“Between April 4 and December 31, 2020, a total of 208 participants were enrolled; 139 were assigned to camostat mesilate, and 69 to placebo.”

They used Remdesivir in both the control and test groups.

“Remdesivir was administered to 96 participants; 64 (47%) in the camostat group and 32 (47%) in the placebo group.”

What the actual fuck? Ain’t that interesting. Exactly 47% received Remdesivir statistics in both groups. That should keep the death statistic fairly well balanced between the control and test groups. You could look at the death rates in both groups and say, “oh well, it looks like about as many died from COVID in both groups.” Too bad, it didn’t work.

YES, PEOPLE DIED.

How many? I dunno exactly. They didn’t say. The study authors didn’t report the “death” statistic alone. They reported:

A total of 26 participants (13¢1%) were intubated or died within 30 days (Table S2), 14 participants (10%) in the camostat group and 12 (18%) in the placebo group.

But wait, they did publish “death” in Table S2 in some colored bars. “Died OR intubated.” It might have been one, or it might have been the other. Look, if you squint hard enough at their graph, you can get close enough to breaking that statistic down- if you just have to know for some reason. I mean it’s just a clinical trial.

It looks like most of the “died OR intubated” category died to me (referencing the dark red color on the bar chart). Also note how the Hospitalized needing supplemental oxygen fell over time, and death increased over time. These statistics are consistent with organ failures associated with the Remdesivir poison.

How many of the 96 died who received Remdesivir? How many of the 112 died who did not receive Remdesivir? They don’t report that at all.

Hey, you know what? That seems like a really important statistic seeing how it became the “standard of care” in the United States. What if, get this, a trail funded by Kirsch showed that Remdesivir was killing the hell out of people?

Maybe if one of Mr. Kirsch’s “tens of thousands of paid subscribers” reads this, you can ask him for those statistics.

I don’t see “Remdesivir” as one of the topics that Mr. Kirsch writes about. One more time for Steve: “How many of the 96 died who received Remdesivir? How many of the 112 died who did not receive Remdesivir?” I hear he’s very good at statistics and likes to debate them. Why not share those two statistics for us?

Charles Wright