The only "marketing" I see is a vast number of people raising doubts against a treatment strategy that has so far had very promising results. Like the BS study from Chen et al from Fudan University, and all the people repeating it without even bothering to read its abstract to see how poor the experimental design is.
Or the BS article claiming that the lead French doctor was a climate change denier, and therefore his results somehow less reliable. Of course the article ignored his 17 co-authors, and all the other researchers trying the same medications around the world.
I have posted lots of links to actual research papers and source documents. You, not so many. In fact none as far as I can tell. Let me correct that, you did give me the name of a report on medical education from 1910. Which has nothing to do with finding solutions for the COVID-19 problem facing our nation right now.
You claim to have years of experience in ICUs, so presumably you could be digging through contemporary research and analyzing it, or even commenting on the content of the research. What are you waiting for?
I’ve read everything posted here and commented. “Promising results” is not the same as saving lives. The information is there. As I have said I could write the paper in a half hour with access to the database. Where is it? If you want an experiment in real time, it sounds like they are using the drugs i NYC and not in Detroit. Watch their results. If the drug does not save lives there is no reason to subject people who are already trying to die to it. They are not 18 year old GIs in Viet Nam.
It can be known right this moment what has become of people taking the drugs chronically. If it is effective why are we not being given THAT paper.
As I continue to point out the paper that would end the controversy doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. Just 100% gaslight so far.