We've seen this before. Some scientists' opinion contradicts the official declaration. That dissent is considered too dangerous and MUST be not only derided, but suppressed and ruthlessly removed from all publications, online or off line. It MUST be actively denounced at every opportunity. Those who dare to dissent must be publicly mocked.
But with the climate change crisis, the dissenters were more accurate. Is that the case here?
We should look at the science first. If the science doesn't hold up or if someone won't show us the science, that's when we should take a long, hard look at the people involved.
I'm the first one to admit that Stella Immanuel is not a good face for any treatment. But she's not the only one dissenting. Look at what Harvey A. Risch says. Now I am not a doctor. But I want to know why in the middle of an epidemic where what we “know” changes day to day, it's necessary to bury any mention of hydroxychloroquine/zinc as if this specific medicine is worse than the disease?
“Thou shalt not dissent” is dogma, not science. People should make up their own minds. But they can't do that if the argument is hidden. If the treatment works, people deserve to know the truth.