It's the same thing with famatodine, where someone observed that folks taking it for heartburn have a lower risk of death. So rather than doing an RCT with giving folks 10mg orally (a normal dose), someone started doing an RCT with like 140mg injected.
Just thinking about it logically, why would you ever give someone a drug that ostensibly works by blocking viral replication when they've already had the virus for multiple weeks? It makes zero sense, which tells you there is something shady going on.
edit: I'm assuming this: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/35547...
The thing is it's pretty evident it works and also why many governments and leaders around the world are taking it as prophylaxes. Anecdotally (doctors in the family), it is being used in private hospitals in my country quite successfully.
Meanwhile, drugs like benzodiazepines are basically just dumped on a largely unwitting populace with the tacit blessing of these very same people who are fretting about hydroxychloroquine. There is more than simply the disinterested caution of science going on here.
Doctors in the heat of the moment cannot wait for a randomized trial. They started keeping patients off intrusive ventilators without doing a randomized trial, based on annecdotal evidence.
But these trials still need to happen.
As I pointed out on Twitter over a month ago, the bill gates foundation was doing a study on HCQ for preventing covid19.
The "inert" placebo they decided to use in the control group? VITAMIN C.
That's right, one of the most potent and documented immune boosters is now being assumed to be "inert".