> After he went to the mat for hydroxychloroquine, it's pretty natural for everyone to be skeptical To be fair to the inarticulate speaker: evidence for the ef

> After he went to the mat for hydroxychloroquine, it's pretty natural for everyone to be skeptical To be fair to the inarticulate speaker: evidence for the efficacy of chloroquines, sparse and vague though it may have been, was very much more convincing than this stuff. Chloroquines are existing drugs with a long history and a reasonably well understood mechanism of action. This thing is pure experimental medicine. It wasn't practical at the time, didn't survive as a treatment, and everyone involved in the original research is retired or dead. That doesn't make it wrong, but this is a long way from being ready even for a study.