Yes - thanks - but my point is that clinical tests on large groups are not appropriately referenced. What you see in many of those references are studies of the chemicals - some of which are for anti-viral properties of the chemicals - but not clinical texts on large groups of people. Anti-viral research is easy to locate, but not all of it's useful for COVID19. Some of the articles using COVID19 in their titles are also merely studies, reviews and evaluations. Most of what you see in the references are 'reviews' (of research) rather than significant tests on large groups. Some of the references are extracting minimal results from studies in other countries. Some of the references are obviously much more political than they are scientific, such as: "Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin." Many of the references are re-used as references for other chemicals. Many of the references are 'evaluations' rather than clinical tests. The many references look scientifically rigorous, but there isn't anything significant on clinical testing. Anyone can pick these articles in PubMed database, while not scientifically comparing the data. What you see in the website is a research paper on all of the PubMed and website data, and some of it's from Twitter. What you don't see are significant clinical tests that would offer reliable evidence of the efficacy of those chemicals.