> Serious adversarial effect

It's a well-understood drug, and any doctor worth their license would know how to use it safely.

> Revoked FDA use authorization

All that means is that more evidence is required before there's an official stamp of approval. "this drug may not be effective to treat COVID-19..." is what the actual request to revoke authroization said.

> Example of researches [sic] that doesn't see an effect of hydroxychloroquine

And there's other evidence contradicting that.

You said there's "no evidence" it's beneficial. That's pretty clearly false, merely based on what I already linked (maybe you should broaden your reading habits). We can debate the degree of confidence the accumulation of studies can give us, but that's outside both our leagues.

The "therapeutic" dose of HCQ in COVID-19 patients is usually 600mg and up. The therapeutic dose for e.g. rheumatoid arthritis is 400mg or less. These higher doses were linked to arrhythmia and very little evidence of a beneficial effect has been found.

HCQ has been used in petri dishes against many viruses and been successful there. Whenever they use it in vivo, it fails. This is not a new phenomenon. The link below is somewhat dated at this point (May 2020), but I believe it still stands.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01663...

In any case, if the FDA is saying "may not" the drug is not a slam dunk even if it has some beneficial effect. Winning the rhetorical war on HCQ isn't going to make COVID go away or be less serious in a substantial fashion.

> Winning the rhetorical war on HCQ

You said there's "no evidence". I said you were wrong, and apparently could muster better information than you could. That's not rhetoric, that's logic and evidence.