Thanks for reiterating that point. There’s a reason the best medical trials are done double-blind so that neither the medical personnel administering the treatment nor the patient receiving the treatment know whether they got the actual treatment or the control. The best sources of medical information are the national health centers that accumulate and analyze the trial and field administrations of medication, not anecdotal sources of information that interviewed a few folks here and there for off-the-cuff opinions.
So here’s what the CDC has to say about COVID-19 vaccination safety Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC
Some folks can say that they are being “attacked” for expressing their opinion. I don’t think it’s personally attacking anyone to say such-and-such a conclusion is not very strong evidence-based reasoning with adequate statistical power to distinguish true differences from statistical flukes. That’s just making an observation.
Like my friend was gravely ill with COVID-19. He took hydroxychloroquine. The next day he had almost completely recovered from COVID. I think it’s just terrible how people are dismissing hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for COVID. How can anyone dispute that hydroxychloroquine saved my friend’s life? And I’ve heard lots of other reports from folks who took hydroxychloroquine and did far better with their COVID symptoms.
When people want to believe hydroxychloroquine cures or alleviates COVID, they suck up all the reports where folks got better after taking hydroxychloroquine and tend to ignore all the reports where folks didn’t. Especially when something can happen all the time by itself (folks get better from COVID or get tinnitus or hearing loss), just because it happens to happen after a medical treatment doesn’t prove anything by itself. Correlation is not causation.
To paraphrase a famous quote, originally from Bernard Baruch, that’s taken many forms over many decades ~“everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts,” also, everyone is not entitled to their own brand of “scientific reasoning.”