Regardless of who it is.....
I want news where there are facts....
I don't need people telling me how to think about things.
I could never listen to Rush Limbaugh for that reason.
While Rush seemed to think many of the same things I had already concluded, he would run up to the door, but not go through and ask the tough questions. My enthusiasm for his commentary waned upon realizing that back during the Clinton Administration.
As for facts, it seems the left is busy editing what "facts" we get to see if we are not willing to dig them out ourselves.
Not to mention placing those events in context that makes them look very different, in effect putting lighting and camera angle effects on the written word. For that reason, I prefer to view the material at its source or as close to that whenever possible.
Even upon reading scientific papers, I have found instances where the conclusions are not supported by, or sometimes even contrary to the data presented, so I'd rather read the whole thing and make up my own mind.
Knowing, for instance that the regimen using Hydroxychloroquine was three parts, and knowing what those parts were supposed to do in the treatment strategy, enabled me to see the deviousness involved (or incompetence, take your pick, but I believe people died as a direct result of the way the studies were structured, and not just those involved as test subjects) in testing just one of the three parts without the others--a test unlikely to produce a good outcome for the patients without the full regimen.
Every one of those studies later used to discredit the use of Hydroxychloroquine left out the critical Zinc supplements, which were to be administered to provide the Zinc the Hydroxychloroquine was supposed to transport into the lung cells (Type 1 Pneumocytes) to stop the virus from replicating. In addition, the drug was administered to patients with advanced cases, in hospital, rather than to people whose early onset cases stood the most to benefit.
The studies could not have been designed better to "prove" the drug a failure and damn the treatment regimen, at least in the press, and the patients who received no benefit were on their own to live or die so someone could "prove" a point. As a result, the 'conclusions' drawn were not representative of the regimen's potential and were used (politically) to promote the "vaccine".
Motive? Why would any researcher risk being eventually exposed as having done a study designed to keep millions of people from receiving what later information tends to indicate is an effective treatment for COVID? Why is the same thing being done to demonize Ivermectin (another anti-parasitic drug which also acts to get Zinc through cell membranes). Aside from the fraud associated with the 2020 elections, there is a lot of money to be made, and some researchers get their grant money from the drug companies who stand to make a lot of money.
