>>The first French study saw the doctor remove from his negative outcomes six patients.<<
I appreciate your perspective on the evidence thus far. That decision of the French doctor bothered me, although I did assume that he had a valid reason to do so and that he was attempting an honest assessment of the efficacy of HCQ.
People also keep claiming that long-term lupus patient on HCQ are not getting Covid-19, but if that were definitively true, I would think there would already be a write up to that effect, but I haven’t seen one. And you would think it would be a relatively easy check to make too, especially with all the specialization in medicine today. How hard would it be for a major hospital system to collate all of its patients on long-term HCQ for lupus or arthritis and then survey them for Covid-19? The list itself should be trivial to acquire. A major pharmacy business could also be a source, for that matter.
There is definitely a bandwagon effect underway for HCQ. Personally, I suspect it’s well justified, but there’s still that nagging doubt about it in my mind. That said, I would ask for it if I come down with Covid-19, and quickly (and zinc and zithro too.)
Who would publish it Fauci?
The doctor did a pretty good job of describing and owning up to some of the shortcomings of his study. A key error he made was reporting the one group as "100%". That number should have triggered skepticism on his part.
In my opinion, he should have reported each of his results as a range of values, calculated by including the omitted patients in each of the groups.
If all six of the omitted patients were included in the group that received HCQ and Z-pack, then the range would have become 6 to 12 out of 12. In that case the worst case number for the HCQ/Z-pack group would have been lower than the best case for the HCQ alone group. That would have meant that the study makes only a very weak case that the Z-pack made a difference.
Allowing himself to put "100%" into his report caused an unjustified focus on his work. Given the other weaknesses in the study, his work is very poor. If HCQ/Z-pack is proved to be a superior treatment, then the doctor deserves to be called a successful propagandist. If HCQ/Z-pack turns out to be only minimally valuable, then the doctor is deserving of criticism for an unwarranted interference in the search for the truth.