The only incoherence here is your initial unsubstantiated claim "there are over 50 studies" regarding zero efficacy of HydrocyC as a treatment (at any particular stage) for COVID19 and your claim soon after that a two month old study is too old in the in the world of C19. That essentially invalidates your 50 studies that are likely backdated more than two months.The only thing I can link this incoherent rambling to is my mention of over 50 trial studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine earlier in this thread.
Unless of course you'd like to provide dates when all those studies were published.
You'd rather pawn off a more recent publication that I more than likely can counter with a google search.
You went from 50 to 1 faster than a speeding bullet.
Hence, rushed science is not very good or reliable science.The pace of science right now covering Covid is insane. A study that's 2 months old is outdated.
That is why I debunked one study that THE WHO and likely you hung your hats on.
This is not hard to understand.
This is weak of you to say.I don't care. It's like you TRY to find inane things to argue about. This is all meta and I'll ignore more of the same.
It is not "inane" that I pointed out a very prominent yet dishonest, totally bogus publication in a reputable scientific journal that was used by entities like the WHO and laymen like you as a truth be told cudgel. It is also not inane to ask for sources for a person's bloviating rhetoric.
Have some coffee with that humble pie.