i'm not dr. fauci's peer, and i'm not going to pretend i am.

but, this is my opinion of his position.

this isn't a situation where a randomized study makes any sense. the study itself indicates that multiple treatments were used, and assigns the different results to that fact; fauci seems to think that's a bad thing, but it actually represents real-world use, as this drug probably wouldn't work as a sole treatment option. it's only going to be useful when you see patients fall into the cytokine storms. randomized trials are just going to lead to the drug being used in situations that are not actually appropriate.

so, his claim may sound convincing, but it isn't - it demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the situation very well. it seems like he's trying to rebut the second study rather than the first - but, as stated, i would expect the second study (the prophylactic one.) to fail.

i don't know what he's doing. maybe he's embarrassed and humiliated and digging in and hoping it works out. maybe he's legitimately confused.

but, i think an analysis and deconstruction by his actual peers would be highly useful, in context.