It seems increasingly illogical for folks to dismiss the growing number of actual practicing docs with real life success stories regarding HCQ+ used to PREVENT illness and hospitalization.
I don't care if they are triple-blind and have a white cane - 'studies' are still quite analogous to polls. They mean absolutely nothing without you digging into the specific params of the study, the funding and the motives. All of which always exist to one extent or another.
Studies are polls. The front line docs are an ID-required election. Which one matters?
Where are other front line docs saying they prescribed it as the successful docs suggest but it did not work for their patients?
I agree with you two that the whole discussion is out of hand. But it is out of hand in the sense that we are tripped up debating efficacy as if this is the Medical Republic web site.
Yet this is the Free Republic. And, yes, of course patients and anybody should be free to choose any dang treatment they want. Especially something so time-proven safe for so many millions. A few millions in America already take it long-term, countless millions around the world have taken it since Before-Fauci and even Before-Internet pre-history times. It's long been OTC in less politically-ill nations.
No problem we all debate whether to believe doctors or studies, Yale scientist or life-long bureaucrat. And it's OK we have silly arguments whether masks are a net benefit or mostly just a mandatory dunce cap for your face.
I would hope, though, that Freedom and access rights should be a no-brainer stance here. Me taking HCQ+ would harm nobody but the vaccine salesmen, the gov't control freaks and the election meddlers.
You clearly don’t understand how double-blind studies work. Go ahead and do what you want for yourself, but you really shouldn’t be dispensing medical advice.