A tale of two drugs--one pushed by Fauci, the other sneeringly dismissed. Which one works, and costs $2?

Ivermectin was derived from a bacterium discovered in Japan in the 1970's.  Researchers later isolated the active ingredient, which turned out to be phenomenally effective against parasites.

One such parasite, found in much of Africa and the tropics, causes "River Blindness," blinding hundreds of thousands of people each year in poor nations.  But thanks to an innovative partnership of advanced nations, western pharmaceutical companies have provided billions of tabs of ivermectin to 3rd-world countries at cost.  Result: a bottle of iver tabs for 5 days of treatment costs $1.80.

By contrast, a 5-day course of the anti-viral Remdesivir--a drug toxic to the liver but which was constantly touted by Anthony Fauci --costs $3,120.

In March of 2020 --just 2 months after the first case of the Chyna virus hit the U.S I watched Anthony Fauci--at a press conference with president Trump--praise the not-FDA-approved Remdesivir FOUR times in six minutes.  I remarked at the time that for a government official to praise an unapproved, proprietary drug, by name, four times in such a short period, was extremely unusual, and that Fauci doing so suggested he owned stock in the company that made the drug.  Good guess.

If you were a lobbyist who could convince a government official (who happens to own stock in your company) to convince your government to buy, say, a billion dollars worth of Remdesivir, you would.  But totally, entirely based on the science, citizen!  Completely objective!  No conflict of interest, nope nope nope.

Normally a drug is only approved for use by the FDA if it's proven to be both safe and effective.  Yet just six months after Fauci made those glowing endorsements of Remdesivir, in October 2020 the FDA approved it for treating covid.  The approval was based on the results of a relatively small trial with about 1000 participants, conducted by the company that developed the drug, Gilead Sciences.

But a later trial, with 5000 participants, conducted by the W.H.O. concluded that remdesivir "had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay."

Based on that study, the WHO recommends against using remdesivir to treat Covid-19 patients.

When researchers reach opposing conclusions, who do you think wins?  Answer: If you can control the government's decision, what some other study finds doesn't matter.  You win.  Interesting how that works, eh?

Your corrupt government--specifically Fauci, Walensky, Biden, Harris et al--deny that ANY studies show ivermectin to be effective against covid, and they refuse to fund any trials--which are expensive.  But Fauci loved him some Remdesivir, and da gruberment approved it despite a study with five times more people finding no significant benefit.  Interesting, eh?

Following the WHO study that found Remdesivir wasn't effective, an article in the British Medical Journal examined a different antiviral, 'Tamiflu' — a drug advertised as preventing or treating influenza.  Millions of Americans took it.

During the early 2000s governments began stockpiling Tamiflu, paying billions to its manufacturer, Roche.  But in 2013, independent researchers gained access to Roche's unpublished data, revealing that the drug caused many side effects and only shortened the duration of flu symptoms by a few hours.

Tamiflu only cost $75 per treatment, but given the tens of millions of doses stockpiled on the order of government officials (posing as experts), it was still a massive waste of money.

The BMJ article implies that remdesivir is be a similar tale.  If the key players in the order to approve that drug weren't government officials this would be a major scandal.  But we now know no Democrat in government is ever even charged with wrongdoing.  Such a deal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/?sh=7b9438766c27