Why a drug determined not to be effective in later treatment (in fact deadly) and was dangerous in patients with existing high levels of creatinine and related aminotransferases has continued to receive endorsement is beyond rational thought. Do we think the prexisting conditions were the reason for this? I'd like to believe there was a scientific reason for it's use beyond profit but that seems hard to come by. Is the renal failure leading to death a result of the precising renal compromise? I trust nothing from our political health agencies but curious about this.
Why a drug determined not to be effective in later treatment (in fact deadly) and was dangerous in patients with existing high levels of creatinine and related aminotransferases has continued to receive endorsement is beyond rational thought. Do we think the prexisting conditions were the reason for this? I'd like to believe there was a scientific reason for it's use beyond profit but that seems hard to come by. Is the renal failure leading to death a result of the precising renal compromise? I trust nothing from our political health agencies but curious about this.
*preexisting
Any word on Dr Meryl Nass ? And Do not Accept Remdesavir aka "Run, Death Is Near."
1-2 Fauci protocol punch for senior deaths, remdesivir then ventilator