That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up... and all that to check a random fruit?

On what basis did you come up with sample size of 100? I have read studies with samples less than that size, including control groups.

I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say "it's on an ancient book!" and "somebody who followed it lived to 100 years" but they don't have to prove it.

I am not aware of testing techniques involved in Indian traditional medicine and have no comments on their scientific-ness. Also, for the record, I don't think Ramdev/Patanjali have developed their cures for modern ailments in accordance with whatever traditional testing techniques used to be.

Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

I haven't said you can't, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that's a proper study, you want a proper justification for it.

Justification is easy : An apple offers numerous benefits over allopathic medicines and if it is found to be a replacement of any medicine, it should be replaced.

Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful?

Nutritive value alone settles that question as far allopathic drugs are concerned.

... else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges?

I haven't ruled any of them out.

For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated.

They did all of that, and other things, because they didn't have any drug that worked, but they specifically wanted only a combination of drugs to work, so they just did whatever jugglery they could.

For the record, there is still no drug to cure covid.

On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don't just say "I'm going to check on the fridge". It's not impossible, it's just not the most likely scenario so it's far from your first guess.

As far as curing covid is concerned, ALL drugs are still useless. IN REAL LIFE.

What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation.
If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that's because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don't say at random 'why not apples?' and then mobilize a team. You don't have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?

They checked the drugs at random. Four years of hit and trial and there is still no method to the madness that happened.

Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

I haven't said the opposite. Just that there doesn't seem any reason to test for apples.

The only clear reason that remdesivir got tested before apples is that big pharma, or anyone else systematically funding doctors, does not see any jump in bottomline when apples are black-marketed.

In a complex set of assumptions, reasons do not exist. They are invented to butter the side of bread that suits one.

Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

I'm sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It's really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying "big pharma bad because profit".

I am all for profit, if made legitimately. But I have seen single dose of remdesivir (which wasn't curing anything) sell for over $1000... in India.

Can't say I enjoyed the conversation, but I'm done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.

Unfortunately, most people mistake familiarity of ideas with their truth, and you are no different. This is why big lobbies get their way through propaganda, and people's will is generally meaningless.