Showing: 1 - 3 of 3 RESULTS

Trump hails experimental treatment for his virus recovery, without providing evidence

President Donald Trump credited an experimental drug treatment with helping his recovery from Covid-19 and suggested his diagnosis could be a “blessing in disguise” in the nation’s battle against the pandemic. But there is no way for the president or his doctors to know whether the drug had any effect.

In a new White House video posted Wednesday evening, Trump said his illness had shed light on an experimental antibody cocktail that he tied to his improved condition. Seemingly sensitive to the fact that his treatment course has been far more comprehensive than the care received by average Americans, he promised to swiftly get the drug approved for broader use — and distribute it for free — even though he does not have the power to order that himself.

“I want everybody to be given the same treatment as your president, because I feel great,” Trump said in a video from the Rose Garden. “I feel, like, perfect.”

Still, questions continue to swirl about the trajectory of Trump’s recovery and when he might be able to return to normal activities, including campaigning, less than four weeks before Election Day. The video marked Trump’s first appearance before a camera — albeit a White House-operated one — in nearly two days. The White House has released only limited details about his condition and treatment, leading to questions about what lies ahead for Trump.

Trump received an experimental antiviral cocktail made by Regeneron through a “compassionate use” exemption, a recognition of the above-and-beyond standard of care he receives as president. The safety and effectiveness of the drug have not yet been proven. And there is no way for the president or his doctors to know that the drug had any effect. Most people recover from Covid-19.

It’s not the first time the president has trumpeted an unproven treatment. He spent months painting the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a miracle treatment for the virus — taking a preventative course himself — even though experts have said it is not effective against Covid-19.

Trump hailed the Regeneron cocktail even as drugmaker Eli Lilly moves forward with its own similar treatment.

Eli Lilly formally asked the Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday to allow emergency use of its experimental antibody-based on early results suggesting it reduces symptoms. There is no timetable for the FDA to make a decision, though the agency has moved on such applications within weeks.

Lilly says it could supply as many as 1 million doses of its therapy in the final quarter of 2020, with 100,000 available in October. Regeneron confirms it has also applied for emergency authorization, and said Wednesday it has enough doses for approximately 50,000 patients, and expects 300,000 available within the next few months.

The company said this advance production would allow the treatment to be distributed “immediately” if it were authorized by the FDA.

In the video, Trump continued to play down the threat of the virus, promising those who are ill that they’re going to “get

Expert Breast Cancer Treatment Recommendations Based on Latest Evidence Updating for Multiple Languages

Expert Breast Cancer Treatment Recommendations Based on Latest Evidence Updating for Multiple Languages

PR Newswire

PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Oct. 5, 2020

Ongoing updates are underway for NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Polish, and Portuguese, free online at Follow #NCCNGlobal for more.

NCCN Foundation is hosting free metastatic breast cancer webinars for patients and caregivers on October 8 and 12 at

PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Oct. 5, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — During Breast Cancer Awareness Month this October, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) is sharing and updating evidence- and expert consensus-based management recommendations which lead to optimal outcomes for people with breast cancer.1 Translations of the English-language NCCN Guidelines® for Breast Cancer have recently been updated in Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. The currently-available Korean, French, Polish, and Portuguese versions will be updated by the end of the month. All are free at

NCCN Guidelines® for Breast Cancer in Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish.
NCCN Guidelines® for Breast Cancer in Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish.

“Breast cancer has a very high cure rate, but remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death for women worldwide,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, Chief Executive Officer, NCCN and Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University Medical Center, who specialized in breast cancer. “We want health care providers everywhere to have access to the carefully-vetted treatment recommendations included in the NCCN Guidelines. That’s why we’re always looking for ways to increase the readability and accessibility of these resources.”

NCCN also adapts NCCN Guidelines into tiered and pragmatic approaches for varying resource availability in low- and middle-income countries, called the NCCN Framework for Resource Stratification of NCCN Guidelines (NCCN Framework™). There are also International Adaptations of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Spain, as well as NCCN Harmonized GuidelinesTM for Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, all written in collaboration with regional oncology experts.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer have also served as the basis for creation of three volumes of NCCN Guidelines for Patients®, to help cancer patients talk with their physicians about the best treatment options for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), Invasive Breast Cancer, and Metastatic Breast Cancer.

“We are expanding our knowledge of this disease at a rapid pace,” said William J. Gradishar, MD, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chair, NCCN Guidelines Panel for Breast Cancer. “We’ve made six updates to the main breast cancer guidelines already this year. They include multiple new treatment recommendations covering management, staging, and special circumstances such as pregnancy.”

NCCN also has separate guidelines on topics like screening, genetic/familial risk assessment, risk reduction, and supportive care.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer were downloaded more than 890,000 times in 2019, making it the most-downloaded NCCN guideline across all cancer types. At least 335,000 of those downloads came from outside the United States

Is there any evidence that closing bars at 10pm will stem the spread of coronavirus?

It seems that every aspect of Covid-19 will be contested. Students of the history of public health politics will be having a strong sense of deja vu: the field is littered with heated debates that in essence are about numbers.

a group of people walking in front of a store: Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

© Provided by The Guardian
Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Related: Pubs and restaurants urge PM to review 10pm curfew in England

As someone who has worked in the field of tobacco control for some 40 years, I have witnessed many such debates. First, there was the question of how risky smoking was; then the addictive nature of tobacco. There were questions over how much safer low-tar cigarettes were. Then, of course, there was the issue of the harmfulness of passive smoking. Most recently there was the claim that e-cigarettes were 95% less harmful than “normal” cigarettes.

To my mind these tobacco control dramas have had one important thing in common: a failure of some of those involved to use numbers as a way to achieve clarity. Instead vague quantification shapes a narrative. And that is exactly what we are seeing in the evolving arguments about the coronavirus.

A recent act in this pandemic drama centres on the policy of forcing bars and restaurants in England to close at 10pm. The prime minister claimed to have based this new rule on scientific evidence that much of the spread of the virus is taking place in bars late in the evening. He says that this is at least in part due to people having consumed quite a bit of alcohol by this time and so being less likely to respect social distancing rules.

This raises an important question. Does the government have a concrete estimate of the likely number of infections, hospitalisations and deaths averted by closing bars at 10pm? If so, what is the margin of error and what is the science on which it is based? Speaking personally I cannot recall the behavioural science subgroup of Sage – of which I am a participant – ever being asked about this. On a matter of such importance I would have expected advice to be sought, because the policy depends very largely on how people behave.

a crowd of people standing in front of a store: ‘Another important number is the potential loss of income for venues’: a street in Soho, central London, on 24 September.

© Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
‘Another important number is the potential loss of income for venues’: a street in Soho, central London, on 24 September.

If behavioural scientists had been asked to provide input into an estimate of the impact of the 10pm bar closures, one source of available evidence would be the extent to which allowing bars to remain open later at night in England and Wales back in 2005 made any difference to alcohol consumption or binge drinking. This would provide at least some evidence as to what might happen if one were to now restrict licensing hours.

The answer appears to be that the impact was minimal. This may be for reasons that are not particularly informative in the current scenario. But it points to the possibility that restricting licensing hours would have a limited