It turns out that Hydroxychloroquine is kind of meh. But that's not the most relevant, most important part to think about. It's how the media covered this issue

It turns out that Hydroxychloroquine is kind of meh. But that's not the most relevant, most important part to think about. It's how the media covered this issue that needs to be talked about. When the very first person said “Vitamin D helps” and “Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure” and “masks don’t work”, that became the red letter, unchangeable, holy truth to the masses. Facts: - Medical professionals are the ones who *started* talking about Hydroxychloroquine. - This issue became *highly politicized* with the media taking a very one-sided stance, even using hysterical comparisons to "goat urine" in one case. - Efficacy of HCQ was correlated to very early dosing along with zinc. This was seldom covered in the press and was never mentioned in mainstream articles and analyses of results. - Studies which were widely criticized were mentioned time and again by the press, simply because it fit their chosen narrative Just go and look at the numbers coming out of HCQ studies. This issue was nowhere near as one-sided as it was portrayed in the mainstream press. Go look at the numbers coming out of HCQ studies and compare them to Remdesivir, then go and compare the coverage of each. (That one goes to the level of WAT!?) Examine articles and coverage for emotional manipulation. The western press looks extremely fishy in this regard. Again, it turns out that HCQ is kind of meh. Ivermectin does seem to be quite good, however. But of greatest importance, is how did the press acquit themselves in their coverage? It seems clear to me, that they care more about "saying the right thing" and following a narrative, and "it bleeds, it leads" than they care about providing accurate, unbiased information. Science should not be politicized. Right now, our press is basically at the level of Lysenkoism. Ideologically motivated science coverage is what is preferred.