You have to be careful though because we've seen medical journals engage in deceptive practices recently around drugs that could potentially treat COVID. For example, the data showing hydroxychloroquine to be harmful to COVID patients was completely made up or non-existent. Unfortunately, medical academia, in some failed attempt to 'stick to the facts', have led themselves to have a lower a priori assumption of correctness.
Yes. Hydroxychloroquine ultimately turned out to be nothing, but the media and journals did a shameful job covering it. The media made it the latest episode of the Trump show with all that entails, and journals published garbage quickly to back them up. The result is that Trumpers would never believe it didn't work, and the #resistance would never believe it did, no matter what the science would ever say.
It's fine to point at the journals as the definers of what smart people should believe, but can't we say that the Lancet sucks for starting the anti-vax movement by publishing a shit paper by Wakefield, and damaged the integrity of science in general during an epidemic by publishing the hydroxychloroquine trash? Can we point out that they started some of our scariest antiscience trends?
There was a disinformation campaign against Hydroxychloroquine as well. In the failed JAMA study, they administered a nearly toxic dose at late stage patients (when there's no viral replication). This is now being investigated [1].
The largest peer-reviewed study on HCQ (29K patients) showed 70% reduction in death with early treatment. [2]
