Locogringo, I closely follow the discussion at LindyBill's thread on HCQ and the opposite appears to be true there. The thing is, if HCQ really was effective in preventing COVID-19, multiple studies would have been able to confirm it. There is a HUGE desire to find something, anything, that will slow or prevent the spread of the coronavirus, so I don't buy any conspiracy theories that say research into HCQ is being hampered because #orangemanbad .
Anyway, if you want to take HCQ, you should be free to do just that. But if governments all around the world are going to spend public money on anti-COVID-19 treatments, HCQ would be a colossal waste of money.
As for discussion on an Internet forum, always take them with a large grain of salt. "Recommendations" are more often than not a popularity contest.
I leave up with a quote from Michael Crichton. This was used to denounce climate change alarmism, but it can equally apply to the "alternative facts" surrounding HCQ:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. Tenchusatsu |
