It would be nice to make a list of things that appeared to work in hospitals and then failed randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine is a good example. Lots of doctors were trying it and thought it seemed to help. Due to the interest in the drug several RCTs of it were performed and it was shown to have no effect on patient recovery or prophylaxis of covid.

This is just partially true. The studies you mention are on late treatment (and often on very high dosages). The data points to good efficacy for early treatment though. It seems clear that the only use for HCQ is during the viral multiplication phase which is not what the large studies have been looking into (they never look into early treatment for some reason).

This isn't true. A recent study showed significant results in using HCQ: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/throat-spray-a...

> there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science.

What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results don't follow academic guidelines?

There is more to medicine than just clinical trials.

Many different things can count as evidence, even if they are not up to your academic standard. Doctors observations, population-level improvements, and studies of different cohorts.

There are levels of evidence, there is strong evidence based on reports of observable ivermectin benefit to profylaxis and some benefit in treatmeant of early infections.

Please don't cross into flamewar, especially on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

OK I could have worded that better, but I certainly did not want to get into a flamewar. I think there is a well visible point there still.