Absolutely Not. You obviously have not read my other posts. I am against censoring. I am against manipulating studies to fit a given narrative. And, yes, I suspect that Big Pharma want HCQ to be removed in favor of their preference for monetary reasons. Heck, being a conservative does not mean being always with big corporations.

Because THEY can not admit that TRUMP is right about ANYTHING!!!!!

@Serg97
Uh ... No.
They ACTIVELY are promoting ... and Have Promoted the Idea that He LIES about EVERYTHING ... and They’ve got A LOT of people believing it.

Because ...
Politics (Orange Man BAD ... STUPID ... Trying to KILL YOU!!!)
and
MONEY (Rem...whatever ... not as effective and We’re Gonna Have a VACCINE!!!)

@Bay0Wulf Definitely the MONEY, CHLOROQUINE has been around long enough that there is little profit to be made by using it, let's get something new that cost 10 plus times more!!!!

I am in the health field, and while I understand how you are reading the information, it is crucial to point out that studies done on cell cultures, such as the one you referenced, are not indicative of how the same drug will work in the human body. A cell culture is a petri dish, In a petri dish, they can directly apply a compound to a cell culture. When you are working with a human, you have the entire body and it's multiple interrelated systems to contend with and finding ways to get that drug to the virus where it can work like it does in a petri dish, is worlds away from easy and very rarely pans out even when in vitro studies look promising. We are not petri dishes, as much as we may feel we are right now. The large majority of in vitro studies (meaning done in cell cultures in a petri dish) do not end up being successful when used on an animal or human. That precisely why it is fallible to jump to the conclusion that because it works in a petri dish, it will auromatically work in a human, let alone be safe even if you can find a way to make it work. This drug has been exhaustively studied by people willing to do the work and not just jump to fallible conclusions. The evidence clearly is not there to support it.

@Amzungu Thank you. You make sense. But so do the doctors in my post. The exhaustive studies you mentioned are not really as you pointed out to them since I am aware that a couple were retracted. And, I have done all kind of studies in my younger days, I still favor "field experience" over studies and theories. These doctors are taking risks to speak up. Why are they shut off. We need open debate not censorship.

@drshallal Field studies are not used to create or change best practices in medicine. There is a higher level of evidence required to determine both safety and efficacy., and you can't exactly just step around that process because it's easier or more efficient. Especially in a litigation happy place like the good ol US of A. I'm also aware of the retracted studies, but there are numerous others which haven't been retracted. Anecdotal evidence, which is all the doctors in your post have provided is the lowest form of evidence that exists. Anecdotal evidence only shows that further research is needed. I am extremely skeptical of any medical professional who claims anecdotal evidence equates proof and advocates that the process of further research is not needed. I think we'd all be better looking at this drug for possible preventative effects rather than a treatment, based on the highest levels of evidence that exist in regards to it, and thankfully there are scientists who are willing to do the work of investigating the preventative potential through valid scientific research.