3 ms·
>If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted. You don't want to treat a disease (especially with drugs that have th
by passivate 5y ago
>If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted.
You don't want to treat a disease (especially with drugs that have their own problems), you want to prevent it from happening in the first place. Vaccines help prevent it, and so would still have gotten authorized.
- swader999 5y agoAgree but these two options weren't given a fair chance by Fauci. He clearly had conflicts of interest. The emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted if he had. These are viable alternatives. Quercetin is another one and much more benign.
- passivate 5y agoIf a drug had an obvious benefit as you claim, why would the world care what Fauci thinks? I think you need to reconcile your skepticism with a bit more appreciation for the scientists around the world who are also trying to find the solution without intentionally harming people. Fauci is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. That being said, absolutely none of those medications you mentioned are targeted drugs. Its not a good idea to take those drugs for years as a prophylactic, especially broad-spectrum drugs. The only reason to use them is if the disease is worse than the side-effects. We know their mechanism of action, and they're well known to interfere with other functions in the body. Our body already has a targeted defense mechanism and vaccines are the primary means to leverage it.