Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Comparing different approaches to Covid-19 containment | 56 comments (56 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Funny, because it's true. (none / 1)
One notable difference between the two: hydroxychloroquine is in the public domain, Remdesivir may bring a lot of money to GILD shareholders. This may impact the PR efforts in the corporate media.
by Bernard (bernard) on Sun May 3rd, 2020 at 03:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Funny, because it's true. (4.00 / 3)
ahem.

"Remdesivir" (brand name of licensed USAMRID patent) appeared in the "public domain" ostensibly to treat ebola in 2014 and again 2018 to present, I might have mentioned more than once.

Neither it nor hydroxycholorquine (compound generic) is approved by FDA for treatment of COVID-19. And both are EAU authorized by FDA for ("off-label") treatment of COVID-9, cover-story, clinical trial of "investigational" (formerly known as "experimental") drug. NIAID's trial design (linked above) is suspiciously comprehensive and detailed, given purported inexperience with this "biologic" drug's active ingredients, forensic disposition, and therapeutic efficacy.

FDA's public notice alerts prospective trial-subjects and parents [?!] to known and unspecified side-effects that may occur with application. While such notice does not represent an informed consent agreement, I note with interest that the US Congress is preparing to indemnify any and all commercial establishments from tort claims relating SARS-COv-2 infection to exposure on premises. One several "trial balloons" floated by press in last three weeks, U.S. Republicans push for coronavirus lawsuit immunity for business, to which no opposition has appeared.

by Cat on Sun May 3rd, 2020 at 05:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Funny, because it's true. (4.00 / 2)
May Day And The Other Government - TPM
Part of the myth of the American identity is the extreme loathing of government. Somewhere in our history, government came to mean, specifically, the state. Private government, or the private sector, was positively not the government. The idea of private government, i.e. an institution that controls a large portion of our lives, has never been more important than it is now.

In "Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (And Why We Don't Talk About It)," Elizabeth Anderson discusses at length how the free market, as imagined by 18th and 19th century thinkers such as Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, was supposed to be a "levelling" force that gave more liberty to individuals. They imagined a society comprised mostly of people who worked for themselves, or companies that were quite small. Smith's famous pin factory in which he explained his theory of division of labor had 10 people and it was thought to be large. The massive corporations of today and the power they exert do not reflect that vision.

by Bernard (bernard) on Sun May 3rd, 2020 at 08:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Funny, because it's true. (none / 1)
hmm, yes, well, file in "most ignorant" or between preserved letters by the sainted gentleman farmer, Tho. Jefferson.

#WhereIsOSHA is not trending, and @ewarren is flogging another plan for a plan, billed as the "Essential Workers Bill of Rights" notwithstanding the imprimatur of random "Black or African American" clergy and URGENCY of enforcing OBSCURE provisions of 29 U.S.C., one might suppose.

by Cat on Mon May 4th, 2020 at 12:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Comparing different approaches to Covid-19 containment | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: