You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional respo

You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. Sure. Now go and look up a dozen scientific journal articles on Hydroxychloroquine, then see if I'm pushing a false narrative about government and media pushing narratives, or if that's a pretty reasonable one. I'm fine with letting the numbers speak for themselves. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people. This both-sides stuff is actually true. Also, if everyone realizes I could just as well be talking about the other side, then they take that thinking a step further, then the philosophes win. Those who are so biased, that they can't see this, are probably unreachable anyways. If just one person changes their mind because of actually looking at something they didn't see, or saw in a different way, we all win. I think that's very relevant. In the long arc of history with regards to the truth, "sides" are irrelevant. (Seriously, how is getting HN readers to ask some questions and do their own research a bad thing? That's kind of head scratchy.)