So, you didn't work as a scientist (by your own admission, despite the first paragraph), but you were more than happy to take advantage of their patients in notion of "disproving" their work (by finding measurement errors?). OK. However, since we agree that science should have no priestly role, how about we tone down the silly reliance on the poorly conducted Ford study, and look at the actual science.The fact that I worked as a scientist my whole working life, and never had anyone successfully overturn any bit of my work for any reason is, apparently, something you are unqualified to assess or characterize.
My sad experience working for people who were the top of their fields, and more or less making a nuisance of myself for proving some of their previous work done wrong, and seeing how they wrote their research proposals and how they secured their funds, and used them, gives me little assurance that we should endow "Science" with any sort of priestly role as major lights of society or governance.
Since I quoted someone who does not work for the government, moot.While there is a valuable function for having more than one side on any point of science, the Government has a known bias in public policy in favor of too much authority and too much regulation and too much trust in the cliques who most obsequiously seek to hang their career stars on the system.
There is nothing political in the statement that using HCQ for Covid19 is quackery, any more than there is in saying vaccines work or or homeopathy is just over-priced water.No thanks deserved here for your being such a stupid uncomprehending faithful believer in a false political narrative and wishing to justify it with wrong-headed authoritarian beliefs that are contrary to real science.