was it the 117th cure to be funded?

That's not why raw milk is purchased, and gizmodo guy is truly an idiot.

Most of the pastuerized milk being sold is also processed in other ways, for example it is homogenised with milk powder to bring fat content to a standardized level.

Raw milk = non-homogenised milk = pure milk/natural milk

And raw milk is boiled and then cooled (superior to pasturisation) in domestic setting, before consumption.

This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn't just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.

This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.

And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?

Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

Why would even check "apples"? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there's an external event that correlates apples with a result, it's a bit weird.

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.

You really need to check your assumptions that were involved here.

Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don't test and validate the hypothesis, you're just making things up.

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

Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.

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'd be happy to be corrected, but there is no clear definition of what constitutes science, short of blindly following authority of some institution prone to funding politics.

In medicine, funding is known to be ultimately controlled by big corporates, making "established science" murkier than, say, the science of standardization of units.

EDIT : last line, grammar