Please indulge my well-earned cynicism. Let’s recap what’s been going on.
Dr. Raolt says that HCL is showing remarkable results with his CoVid patients. Dr. Raolt expands this study beyond his own clinic and patients. Dr. Fauci says that this is “anecdotal.”
A doctor in New York says that HCL, when given early on, is showing remarkable results: 80 to 90% of his patients are surviving (or, was it even higher?). Dr. Fauci says that this is “anecdotal.”
Then a study comes out that says that Remdisivir, produced by Gilead, has done a full clinical trial and that their drug lessens the time of illness from 14 days to 11 days but it only mildly improves the death rate. Dr. Fauci says: “This is significant.”
So a common drug that keeps people from dying is no more than some “anecdotal” musing. But a drug that shows mimimal improvement on death rates and recoveries is “significant.” Why such a reaction?
Well, the ‘common drug’ is dirt cheap and no big pharmeceutical company is going to make money on it. And pharmeceutical companies give money to the NIH and the CDC. I’ll let you come to a conclusion.
However, let’s be aware that big Farma is making huge money in the area of anti-viral drugs used as part of the ‘cocktail’ given HIV positive patients. Dr. Fauci has been in charge of this area for 35 years. Factor that into the conclusion you draw.
The WHO, who so ably handled themselves in this current outbreak (sarcasm alert), is responsible for introducing these highly expensive ‘anti-virals’ into Africa. It seems that whereever they found the HIV virus, these antivirals were introduced. And how did they know people had HIV? Because they tested them for antibodies to the virus. But, wait a second, when you have antibodies, that means that you’ve been exposed to the virus and fought it off, right? Isn’t this why we’re now so interested in testing people for antibodies?
So, just what kind of “science” lies at the bottom of all of this? And does the huge amount of government (and private–think Bill Gates, e.g.) money available affect, in any way, the “science” being employed.
I’d ask you to also factor these considerations into any conclusion you might reach.