Then look at the narrative in posts numbers 9 to 18 of this thread and compare the results with the charts of countries that have adopted LIMITED usage of HCQ vs. WIDESPREAD usage.
The Summary at the beginning of this article tells us the results.
The good: Has lots of data from lots of countries. Critics of HCQ in the U.S. cannot actually stop other countries from using it. Those other countries are getting their own data and performing their own analytics, no matter what CNN says.
The bad: Who owns and is running this site? HCQ advocates like Dr. Zelenko and Raoult don't hide behind anonymity, and URL registrations are not really secret.
Go to the bottom of the linked page and use the FAQ link. I think it will answer your questions.
tl;dr - they’re afraid of cancel culture.
This site tells us what we need to know ... they present their results BASED ON PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERED WHICH ANYONE CAN CHECK.
Why did you start c19study?
We welcome the goals of using a science based approach to decisions regarding COVID-19, but noticed that the sheer volume of research and data, and the frequently contradictory conclusions from equally qualified experts, made it extremely difficult for anyone to choose the best options. Moreover, decision makers were very suddenly thrown into positions where they needed to make very rapid and very public decisions. The fact that the science based approaches resulted in different decisions around the world highlights this difficulty.
Whether it be treatments or interventions, the plethora of seemingly similar quality research supporting contradictory positions, and the use of digital echo chambers, facilitates widespread confirmation bias - evidence supporting any initial position can be easily found. Self-serving bias and cognitive dissonance further make it challenging to alter positions, especially for those taking very public and strong positions with serious implications.
We felt that attempts to organize and make the research and data easier to navigate, highlighting areas of applicability, and analyzing limitations, could potentially be beneficial.
What is the search strategy for papers on c19study?
All significant original contributions related to the use of HCQ for COVID-19. With the seemingly contradictory conclusions reported, anything less makes cherry-picking easy. For HCQ, it is trivial to choose a search strategy that results in a subset of papers reporting any desired conclusion. This is especially so if one takes the conclusions reported in papers at face value without examining the actual data, methods, or regions of applicability.
Why is it c19study when it is all about HCQ?
We have been studying several topics, but have prioritized where we feel a contribution is most likely to be valuable. We had no idea that the world would bifurcate over a medication.
Who is @CovidAnalysis?
We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired". We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now).
Why should we trust @CovidAnalysis?
There is no need to. We provide organization and analysis, but all sources are public and you can easily verify everything. For the country-based analysis, all data is public and the analysis is simple to replicate. We also note that many equally qualified experts report contradictory conclusions. If you don't like our analysis, you can use our database to locate information you may have missed for your own research.