If a court orders you to do something, you cannot usually be held liable for doing it. Maybe this is the answer to all the quackery around HCQ and Ivermectin etc: get a court order and have whatever you want and then when you die it's very clearly no one elses fault.

The study that originally was widely and loudly used to turn the public opinion against HCQ had actually been retracted just 2 weeks after being published and without much fanfare.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Since then there have been studies that show HCQ can be effective in early treatment.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/

However, the damage seems to have already been done.

It was denounced for political reasons and Trumps doc was probably correct to give it as a preventative. I think it was even admitted that it was given on a hunch.

And no, it wasn't the Russians that spread the misinformation about it either...

In this case the patient isn't demanding the ivermectin, his wife is.

In many many countries Ivermectin is sold OTC in your neighborhood pharmacy alongside the aspirin, decongestants, etc.

If you've been paying attention, the opposition is highly suspicious.

Everything from "it's horse medicine" to "it's misinformation" etc. And yet, nothing about actual treatments. We're just supposed to keep taking booster shots for eternity, when something 100x cheaper may work too and may prevent it. Why wouldn't we investigate that with an open mind?

Like, do they want people to turn into big pharma conspiracy theorists?

My pet theory is that pro-vax and anti-vax are mirror images now. The pro camp gets its kicks from laughing at the naive antis, the same way the antis think they are so much smarter than the populace.

It is not science, it's science-fandom. And they are indeed useful idiots for big pharma, which convinced countries to take full responsibility for the long term effects.