It does add to the discussion. The Orange Man raised many good points which people gaslighted the public about. Hydrocloriquine for one. Drs determined when used correctly it is one of the more effective agents.

As I say in my other comment, Policy needs to be data driven, not driven by complete speculation. Later it doesn’t matter what comes out if at the time the “theory” policies were based on were unfounded speculation. That is grossly negligent. Timing matters. And all of these matters are still speculation.

Based on the best data at the time, advocating hydroxychloroquine was grossly negligent, and while there still isn’t good studies that say different being data driven means using the best available data at the time to make decisions not being a time traveler and using future data. Here is a contemporary article on the drug https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/health/hydroxychloroquine...

And here are a few more on the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/technology/hydroxychloroq...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/politics/trump-fact-ch...

None of those stories seem unfair reporting.

It's hydroxychloroquine, and it only looked good in poorly controlled studies, like the Henry Ford study where the hydroxychloroquine arm was also given steroids.

And answer me this: if hydroxychloroquine was so effective, why didn't Trump's tremendous doctors give it to him when he got covid?

What about my comment doesn’t add to the discussion?

I find it pretty thought provoking that mainstream news said the Wuhan Lab Theory was conclusively debunked as false, and now there has been a complete narrative shift.

Some, like the Washington Post, have actually gone back and retroactively edited their articles from that time period to hide this fact.

It’s very telling that my earlier comment was flagged.

You should probably phrase your comment in that tone, instead of being needlessly antagonistic.