Lots of folks in one political camp cite the survey you referenced. I came to the same conclusions on that survey as you did, in particular because there's no patient data, and it relies on doctor opinions with no outcome data, and it was a survey done during the "HQ buzz" surrounding some initial good results that I don't believe were ever replicated.
Those same folks rarely cite the next report in the series, described here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...effective-coronavirus-treatment-survey-142567
Here's an excerpt:
"According to Sermo,
when participants were asked to "rate the efficacy of medications you have used or have seen used to treat COVID-19," 52 percent listed "plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19" as "very or extremely effective," followed by Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) or Chloroquine at 38 percent, "non-approved drugs" at 37 percent, Interferon-beta at 36 percent and "traditional Chinese medicine" at 34 percent. '
Interestingly, this survey was done at at time when plasma from recovered patients was a big hot thing. I guarantee you 52% of the survey respondents didn't do valid trials all the way through to completion using plasma. And, HQ is no longer top but still rated around "non approved drugs" and "Traditional Chinese medicine." Not much of an HQ signal there even if the data were believed to represent actual results.
I file these Sermo reports -and articles written about them- in the circular bin.
Chuck, what say you?