[fanofourforebears]

all studies have flaws and can be nitpicked to death. You can always suggest some minor change that wasn't done--the drug should have been given 3 times a day instead of 2; the dose was 10% too low or high; the drug was sourced from an inferior producer; the age range should have been different, etc. The search for the perfect study is a denial tactic. We now have multiple randomized controlled trials showing no effect; the onus is now on proponents of HCQ to produce even better solid evidence (not theory, not nitpicks, not observational studies) with randomized controlled trials. But it would be unethical to conduct such a study now. So the medical debate about HCA is over, time to move on. Sorry but that's the breaks. We all wish it had turned out otherwise, but it didn't. It's not a conspiracy, it's medical science.

Not nitpicking and not even an advocate of HCQ, this is about more than that. 

I encouraged you to take take a look at the doses used in many of the studies.  I did so because of the danger from too high of a dose they presented to the patients and the major impact this had or could have had on the results of the studies. 

In regards to the current mandates and restrictions, were you aware of the work done nearly 100 years ago? link was hard to find but I found this one.

[fanofourforebears]

all studies have flaws and can be nitpicked to death. You can always suggest some minor change that wasn't done--the drug should have been given 3 times a day instead of 2; the dose was 10% too low or high; the drug was sourced from an inferior producer; the age range should have been different, etc. The search for the perfect study is a denial tactic. We now have multiple randomized controlled trials showing no effect; the onus is now on proponents of HCQ to produce even better solid evidence (not theory, not nitpicks, not observational studies) with randomized controlled trials. But it would be unethical to conduct such a study now. So the medical debate about HCA is over, time to move on. Sorry but that's the breaks. We all wish it had turned out otherwise, but it didn't. It's not a conspiracy, it's medical science.

Not nitpicking and not even an advocate of HCQ, this is about more than that. 

I encouraged you to take take a look at the doses used in many of the studies.  I did so because of the danger from too high of a dose they presented to the patients and the major impact this had or could have had on the results of the studies. 

In regards to the current mandates and restrictions, were you aware of the work done nearly 100 years ago? link was hard to find but I found this one.