Please, if you think that study claims that remdesivir was the responsible agent for that high mortality rate, as opposed to Ebola, please quote something from that study that says as much. Table 2, BTW, doesn't say what you're claiming the study say.
If medical science has been corrupted as I am thoroughly convinced it has then it isn't necessarily a question of what the study says. Remdesivir was put in the study by Anthony Fauci of the NIAID, a department of the NIH. Since this constitutes a conflict of interest Fauci had to hire an independent panel of 9 people in addition to his own panel of 9. It was the independent panel that pulled Remdesivir. Does the study say that?
As I pointed out in post
#264 the study says that, and now I'm quoting: "Patients of any age, including pregnant women, were eligible if they had a positive result on RT-PCR within 3 days before screening and if they had not received other investigational agents (except experimental vaccines) within the previous 30 days. Neonates who were 7 days of age or younger were eligible if the mother had documented EVD." End quote.
What does all of that mean? Why not experimental vaccines? Because vaccines inject attenuated pathogen. (look up
memory, T and B cells) Does an RT-PCR test determine a person is symptomatic, meaning having the disease? Sick? In danger of dying from Ebola? Does a neonate 7 days old who's mother
had documented EVD mean they are sick and possibly dying from Ebola? Because I'm not a professional but I don't think so. For the reasons I gave in that same post. They were looking for the
presence of the Ebola virus. As
I said, the test will read positive up to at least 12 weeks. Infection doesn't necessarily mean symptomatic. If the cycle threshold is high enough it will find just about anything you want and therefore, nothing, really. You can be infected and not have the disease. Unless you have symptoms you don't have it. You might have had it. You may have only been infected and not had it etc. Where does that come from. The guy who invented the PCR test, Kary B Mullis, himself said
here about Fauci "the man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it under an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron
microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine." And
here he explains how the PCR test, used in both the Ebola study and the Covid-19 "Plandemic" were overestimated in the way I've described. Meaningless. So, the question becomes, was the patients in the African Ebola study in danger of dying from the disease, or was the qualification for entrance in the study merely have the presence of something like the Ebola virus, including neonates who never had it. Do you see? You seem to think "well, PCR test, that means they had Ebola and were possibly going to die." This causes you, I think, to misinterpret the study.
So, does the study say they were symptomatic? Does it say that they were sick from Ebola at the time of the study?
But then you open a whole other can of worms, including, does the study on the efficacy of a drug, like Remdesivir, involve the measure of the drug's death rate? Can you distinguish the symptoms of the disease from possible side effects, including death, by the drug? What is the all cause mortality? As I've repeatedly stated, respiratory viruses have never caused acute kidney failure. Never. It doesn't do that. What is the evidence that Remdesivir very possibly does? Again, does the study say people treated with Remdesivir died of acute kidney failure? From Remdesivir?
What that study
says about these things aren't relevant to me in this context because I only want to establish that Fauci abused science by using the medication to exaggerate the "Plandemic" and make trillions of dollars for the healthcare
industry. And also because it can be so easily misinterpreted. Much like the Bible. When I watch Fauci on television interviews and especially with Rand Paul's interrogation - I'm on Paul's side. I want him to lock that [expletive] away. But he doesn't seem to understand that Fauci is telling the truth, in a sense, just in a roundabout way. In a way that seems designed to deceive the public or their representatives. Paul seems to understand this but always gets it wrong. And he's a doctor. True, I am not a doctor or scientists. So, you get my opinion but I don't think it's an uninformed one. It has been a while. I stopped that exploration a few months back and I took in a lot of information and my memory isn't that great, so take that as it is.
By the way, I stated in my earliest posts in this thread on Remdesivir that healthcare workers, specifically nurses, gave Remdesivir the nickname "runmurderisnear." I remembered that wrong. It's actually "run-death-is-near."