Fujifilm gives up developing Avigan drug for COVID treatment

Congratulations to Fuji Inc, for admitting the ineffectiveness of their product.

Unlike OTHER companies now in the international spotlight for LYING about theirs.

I always liked Fuji and it appears their people have more integrity than many others

So far, Japan has approved several drugs as treatment for COVID-19, including molnupiravir, developed by Merck & Co, and Gilead Sciences Inc.'s remdesivir.

Molnupiravir and remdesivir never should have been approved. I'd take Avigan before taking those two products...

Refreshingly honest, which is much more than we can say for certain other companies and their industry spruiker

I suspect they could have pulled the plug months ago and saved a load of cash.

Priming a dry well. Announce potential product effectiveness against an active threat, that had no potential, in order to bolster stock price. Should be a crime.

Unlike OTHER companies now in the international spotlight for LYING about theirs.

Refreshingly honest, which is much more than we can say for certain other companies and their industry spruiker

Which other companies? the most famous examples of people lying about the efficacy of a drug that was pushed even when useless against covid (HCQ, ivermectin) were not companies.

Integrity before profits, something hard to find these days.

Many other companies have given up trying to prove efficacy of drugs after small clinical trials, the amount and degree of control of the evidence necessary for approval of treatments makes this not hard to see, the difference is that Fujifilm pushed Avigan even when preliminary results did not really support the use of the drug when compared with already available options. Not really a choice when there is no profit to be made and any application for approval would be rejected by the data they got.

Molnupiravir and remdesivir never should have been approved. I'd take Avigan before taking those two products...

Molnupiravir has much higher rates of efficacy than Avigan, and Remdesivir was approved at a time where no better options were already available. Having a personal preference for using things that have demonstrated to be not useful against a disease is not an argument for their efficacy, if anything is an argument for personal bias.

I suspect they could have pulled the plug months ago and saved a load of cash.

Maybe Fujifilm considered this cost an investment so they could still say they were developing an antiviral against covid.

Late 2019 stock price ¥4000+ Avigan announcements and trials, government backing stock peaked Sept 2021 at ¥9792 and now falling. To 6000 range.

Due to the phenotype and other known parameters of the viruses that was crystal clear right from the beginning. We’ll soon see exactly the same for those nasal spray attempts. But of course it’s ‘nice’ everywhere to first cash in quite some amounts for monthly paychecks despite the known uselessness of the research.

Molnupiravir has much higher rates of efficacy than Avigan, and Remdesivir was approved at a time where no better options were already available.

The data Merck presented to the FDA showed that against the delta variant Molnupiravir was less effective than placebo; and yet the FDA still approved it!

The EU bought a billion worth of remdesivir the day before the WHO announced it was not effective.

Better late than NEVER announcing the Give - Up option, everyone watching could see it coming except Fujifilm.

The data Merck presented to the FDA showed that against the delta variant Molnupiravir was less effective than placebo; and yet the FDA still approved it!

The data from patients, of which Merk have no control shows efficacy at preventing complications and death, this means the approval was correct and based on more than just one single result.

The EU bought a billion worth of remdesivir the day before the WHO announced it was not effective.

Because they choose to err on the side of caution and have something that might be effective instead of not? that is not exactly something irrational to do at the time where options were much more limited than now.

Integrity before profits, something hard to find these days. Compare that to last weeks admission from Pfizer that their vaccinations were never tested to stop transmission.

You mean their vaccines were intented to be as all other vaccines developed before? is that surprising? next you are going to argue they "admit" the vaccines were not designed to work forever against any and all variants that could appear.

Being utterly ineffective (at best) wouldn't stop Pfizer or Moderna.

Yes it would because they would not get approval, but since the vaccines have recognized effectiveness according to the medical and scientific consensus obviously this does not apply.

Japan has approved several drugs as treatment for COVID-19, including molnupiravir, developed by Merck & Co, and Gilead Sciences Inc.'s remdesivir. Both companies are based in the United States

And now you know the REAL reason they don't want it manufactured locally.

$$$.

May as well have just approved it like they did for the other less effective than placebo drugs like Molnupiravir and remdesivir. At least then a Japanese company could make some money from the Covid money spinner...

May as well have just approved it like they did for the other less effective than placebo drugs like Molnupiravir and remdesivir

Molnupiravir is not less effective than placebo acording to patient data, and Remdesivir is still useful for limited populations (as well as developed at a time where no better options were available) Avigan is neigher so obviously it has no argument to use to be approved, at least against covid.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34914868/

May as well have just approved it like they did for the other less effective than placebo drugs like Molnupiravir and remdesivir

Molnupiravir is not less effective than placebo acording to patient data,

The data Merck presented to the FDA showed that against the delta variant Molnupiravir was less effective than placebo. I watched the video of that online FDA meeting, and that is what Merck's own data showed. It seemed effective against a previous variant, but not against delta. The FDA looked at this data and they agreed to give it an EUA! Japanese approval came soon after, presumably based on the same data.

The data Merck presented to the FDA showed that against the delta variant Molnupiravir was less effective than placebo. 

No, it did not, making up significative differences where there are none is a very transparent way to mislead people. At much it would mean delta was more resistance to the antiviral effect, which is irrelevant since the dominant strains are of omicron, against which the drug have demonstrated efficacy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248931/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00507-2/fulltext

 I watched the video of that online FDA meeting,

Watching a video is a terribly poor replacement from actually looking at the many scientific reports that clearly contradict your beliefs. Studies including tens of thousands of patients that prove it does reduce the risk for the patients. Pretending one single group, exposed to a variant that is not even important now is somehow more important is not rational.

My point is that the facts I brought up confirm that the FDA (and the Japanese regulators) have been captured by big pharma. They gave it an EUA despite the most recent data (at that time) showing no benefit, while showing that it was a carcinogen and teratogen. While continuing to ignore all the positive data on cheap repurposed drugs that had already, long ago, been confirmed to also be extremely safe.

My point is that the facts I brought up confirm that the FDA (and the Japanese regulators) have been captured by big pharma.

Because they approved a drug with evidence of efficacy than actually proved to be useful against a disease? that is not "being captured" that is being scientifically congruent and taking an evidence based decision that saved lives.

Not agreeing with this shows very little empathy for the people that have been helped by the drugs, and also shows a very strong antiscientific bias, all drugs have risks, but the evidence at the time clearly showed the benefits were higher than those risks, specially because it was never planned to be an over the counter drug but used under medical vigilance on patients at a higher risk of complications and death.

While continuing to ignore all the positive data on cheap repurposed drugs that had already, long ago, been confirmed to also be extremely safe.

The opposite, the ones trying very hard to ignore the evidence are those that keep trying to push ivermectin and HCQ as if they had any usefulness against covid, even when the literature by now proves beyong any rational doubt both are completely worthless as medications against covid. Trying to misrepresent retracted and debunked reports as anything other than invalid evidence to change the scientific consensus is obviously not an argument. It is just rejecting the actual best evidence available.

The company subsequently began a new clinical trial in 2021, aiming to test the drug on 316 patients, but ended up testing on only 84 people before terminating the trial this year, it said.

So they just threw in the towel. Sounds like they realize the market for the drug diminished.

The EU bought a billion worth of remdesivir the day before the WHO announced it was not effective.

Because they choose to err on the side of caution and have something that might be effective instead of not? that is not exactly something irrational to do at the time where options were much more limited than now.

So, on that line of thought, even though medical experts in Asia gave the correct advice, the WHO should have erred on the side of caution and advised more people wear masks, yet they did the opposite, and your opinion contradicts your new "opinion":

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

So, on that line of thought, even though medical experts in Asia gave the correct advice, the WHO should have erred on the side of caution and advised more people wear masks, yet they did the opposite, and your opinion contradicts your new "opinion":

No, your repeated misrepresentation is not the same line of thought, because the evidence at the moment indicated the masks were effective with symptomatic patients, specially in hospitals the advice to prioritize the scarce masks to this environment is the only valid recommendation that was possible.

To contradict this you would need evidence that indicated mask use by the general population (asymptomatic people) had an effect, you have repeatedly said you have this evidence, but never present any, which means you understand the misrepresentation you repeatedly try to push is baseless.