They are all considered quack remedies from a scientific perspective, no different to Vit C tablet in fighting flu or garlic oil, etc.
Remdesivar was promoted before HCQ or about the same time before the hint of MRNA and as I have often said, the speed of approval is setting the precedent for new drugs in the future from a patience regulated drug trial life cycle to 'live rat' condition when ends justify means.
Why isn't AZT recommended for everyone? Side effects? How about recommending to pregnant women? Oh ok, it was excluded in the trials so regulators now taking a cautious approach? Scomo and his cohorts globally are still pushing the 'results far outweigh the risks' approach which is creating a new precedence is the philosophy of future new drug approvals?
I do understand the dilemmas we are facing with the pandemic but somewhere lost in all the confusion is the polarisation of scientific opinion. Who do you believe? Pfizer is speculated to have the potential to make $15B or profit (not revenue) so do you think they and their peers will ever let anyone endorse cheap available alternatives in curing instead of preventing infection?
We do not even know what are the medium term side effects of these experimental MRNA yet and if they work on the variants. What if they don;t work on the variants? Do we than get a booster yearly, re-code the MRNA for an update vaccine in the constant battle with new variants? How about a 2 prong approach of cure and prevention? The Flu yearly epidemic is a road map that vaccines do not really work because we keep playing catch up to immunise.
Just saying and I am not an anti-vaxxer as the authorities are approving a drug without even knowing the consequences of side effects and we are constantly discovering these dangerous reactions real time.
