I suffered through reading the article, basically her mother suffered from some unspecified ailment that during the mid pandemic left her immobile at home with caretakers.
I read some studies concerning the efficacy of Azvudine and Paxlovid. Paxlovid was said to reduce hospitalization and death by 89%. There was no comparable study for Azvudine but it is believed to be much lower because around 40% of the study group was found to have "improved clinical symptoms" within the 1st week of taking it. Some good news is that China's Shanghai Junshi Biosciences recently completed a study of their VV116 oral COVID medication and it was found to alleviate symptoms faster and patients tested negative sooner than with Paxlovid. They are trying to seek regulatory approval for it for wide distribution in China. It has already been approved for use in Uzbekistan, so it's already out, just not well known. This would be as inexpensive as Azvudine and as widely available if it is approved. Here's the link...
Tedros and WHO has been hijacked and politicized from pretty much early period of covid. Although probably not as much as American cdc and fauci. Nevertheless....
Both Azvudine and Paxlovid only help for some patients but these pills don't drastically reduce deaths or hospitalizations. Paxlovid study was under optimal circumstance that excludes people with vaccination and has to be taken 5 days after infection. For the most part, young people taking Paxlovid don't offer better outcome, old people who have up to date vaccination don't really need Paxlovid. It is only old people with many long term diseases and not up date vaccination that require Paxlovid to make a difference. Azvudine study was not in that kind of optimal circumstance so compare with two pills are not possible. But both pills do lower the symptoms and helpful for some patients.
If that is how the study was actually conducted, it's a bozo study.
It has always been a problem for many Western pharmaceutical nowadays. These companies want to have a better number such as 89% reduction in hospitals and deaths for taking Paxlovid pills so it can make more sales and charge more. Clinical trials have been designed in a way to get the optimal result not scientific result for the patients.
That's true in general of many Western pharmaceutical companies. However, in the case of China's pharma, there isn't such an onerous record of selection bias. There's a lot of evidence that Pfizer played around with numbers to get to those high 90+ percent vaccine efficacy figures. The debate over how "useless" China's vaccines are stems largely from their comparatively low efficacy after 2 shots. However, what isn't mentioned nearly as often is the T-Cell response China's vaccines elicit after COVID infection, which is far superior to MRNA vaccines. If this evidence holds true, then it's likely that after all is said and done, the death rates in China will be significantly lower than those places that only took mRNA vaccines.
