My issue was the "might". HCQ wasn't being sold as a 'maybe'. Maybe, that's what that Dr's science said... but we'd be fooling ourselves if we said that HCQ in

My issue was the "might". HCQ wasn't being sold as a 'maybe'. Maybe, that's what that Dr's science said... but we'd be fooling ourselves if we said that HCQ in the public discourse was being sold as a 'maybe'. It was being sold as an alternative to a vaccine. The discourse was 'why are we not exploring HCQ and instead telling everyone to take vaccines. Don't take vaccines, take HCQ' when, at the time, there was no science supporting that hcq would be effective treatment for covid (when someone didn't already have worms...) let alone it was comparable to the vaccines in any way. The poster is trying to downplay this distinction, and it's completely dishonest.