Background story to CV19 / HCQ and IVM treatments, page-651

I have never come across such an unprofessional medical study on any platform. Something is very wrong with this, from the use of emotive introductory language to the over-emphasis on study type, insufficient duration and uncontrolled enrollment.

This article is not characteristic of any I have seen previously, and appears to have been written by someone with very limited technical knowledge (at best). For all intents and purposes this is clearly geared towards discrediting a treatment, as opposed to genuinely investigating it. Look at the first listed reference:



Proper studies reference articles that back up their claims, not generic websites providing zero specifics in relation to the outcome(s) being evaluated. In all seriousness, how stupid do they think people are? How stupid are you for believing this? Perhaps your handler should have employed me to help push this agenda instead of you.