Search results

It's only one trial, and we don't even know if the report is correct. But a leaked draft report indicated that remdesivir was ineffective in its first controlled trial. Let's assume that this is true and we see the same from other trials. If so, this will not simply be another experimental drug failing. It will be deeply disturbing. Here's why.

Are the small levels of pesticides, herbicides and genetic modifications in our food -- whether human-made or natural -- harmful? Let's put the virus aside for a moment and see what we find.

When it comes to unwinding the lockdown, we are faced with the urge to be social once again. And since we are also faced with huge uncertainty, what does "an abundance of caution" actually mean?

Preliminary data, obtained from a randomized clinical trial of remdesivir in China, look bad. Maybe even very bad. But this doesn't mean that the drug won't be shown to be useful in other trials. Nonetheless, not good news.

As is most everything in life, being open-minded is hard work. It actually takes conscientious effort. Like being charitable or becoming a violin virtuoso, it requires practice. One does not become open-minded overnight. But you can always start on your journey today.

Where does the 2600 tons of oxygen we use daily in the hospitals come from? Not all creatures have a microbiome, what is up with that? Why are lies and misinformation so resilient? And two lessons from history, one about where we shelter, the other about "travel papers."

Should we open up the economy immediately or remain on lockdown indefinitely until a vaccine is made? Believe it or not, there are other options. It's too bad that society isn't smart enough to understand that.

Remdesivir, the most promising anti-coronavirus drug at this time is no fun to synthesize. But Gilead, the drug's maker, is synthesizing a whole bunch of it. Does this tell us anything about whether the drug works? Maybe.

As an avid reader of the New York Times, it pains me greatly to read about a familiar subject that has so many errors and misconceptions. Especially when COVID-19's impact on society is being discussed.

A recent poll shows that 78% of Americans support stay-at-home orders. As the economy comes crashing down to levels not seen since the Great Depression, our social fabric will begin to rip, and the public will change its mind.

So much news, so much confusion and so many questions – especially those around what different terms mean. What exactly is a therapy for COVID-19? Is it a cure, or something else, like a vaccine? To help sort it out, we prepared this summary; it may help a bit. And to go with it, a riddle: What do you call anti-vaxxers once a coronavirus vaccine becomes available?

While recognizing the Centers for Disease Control’s missteps in handling this epidemic, I also understand that the agency could still provide critically important leadership in getting us out of this mess. However, its botched attempt at providing testing for public health labs around the U.S. was clearly a major roadblock to establishing the kind of robust testing we would have needed early to contain the outbreak. I miss the CDC I used to know. 

The coronavirus pandemic has devolved into just another partisan battle. In the process, it has revealed how poorly served Americans are by their leaders and the media.

ACSH, among others, has been criticized as “racist” for using the “Wuhan virus” early in the pandemic, before COVID-19 became the universal descriptor. We were using a description based on location, like Lyme Disease, from Lyme, Connecticut, not a racial description.

To understand how severe and lethal COVID-19 really is, we need to know how many have been infected, which, in this equation, is the "denominator." An early study from Stanford of Santa Clara County says we may be underestimating how many cases there already are, which inaccurately gauges COVID-19’s infectivity and eventual mortality.

Early clinical trial results from Gilead show that its antiviral drug, remdesivir, has promise in treating patients with severe COVID-19. Though there are major caveats, there is good reason for cautious optimism.

Why are basic questions about the biology of SARS-CoV-2 so hard to answer?

Dr. Derek Lowe, arguably the finest and most influential chemistry blogger in the universe, has put together an excellent summary of the complex and confusing clinical data of hydroxychloroquine, which he published recently in his blog in Science and Translational Medicine. We thank Derek and AAAS for allowing us to reprint this important article.

Making good use of our time at home, murmurations, life in Beijing, what will be the new normal, and a boost from 4 lads from Liverpool.

Despite study after study, and the writings of expert after expert over the last 25 years, as a society we've failed to provide for our own security in the face of a potential public health threat. We have failed to supply and maintain our strategic national stockpile, we have consistently underfunded our public health infrastructure and we have underfunded our hospitals' preparedness. That's how we got to where we are today.

A South Korean company named Seoul Semiconductor claims to have developed an ultraviolet light-emitting diode (UV LED) that can kill 99.9% of SARS-CoV-2 in 30 seconds.

It's quite likely that the human toll from COVID-19 will not be as bad as the prediction models forecasted. That's because models contain simplifying assumptions that rarely hold true in the real world; our human response is probably the least predictable of all. And yet, while all models are useful, all models are also wrong.

If or when the economy collapses -- and especially if the virus keeps spreading anyway -- public sentiment will change quickly and drastically. Americans' trust in the medical establishment may be shaken. Like ventilators, the national supply of goodwill isn't unlimited.

The world anxiously awaits while clinical trials of remdesivir are in progress. The drug failed to stop Ebola. Does this mean it will also fail to stop coronavirus? No. According to a new study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the drug should work better. Here's why.

"Test here. Test now. Test, baby, test!" has become the conventional wisdom for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. But false positives and false negatives create substantial problems for mass testing.