As a scientist the first test is intuition. The second test is having people getting better with treatment. The third test is conducting a full, deep study with the utmost scientific rigor.
So now there is a dilemna. People die in front of you. You try something. It seems to work. It uses a widely-used set of molecules (Hydroxychloroquine + azythromycine (+Zinc in some protocols). Will you try it, or will you make a double-blind study with half the people at risk of dying ?
History of aviation. People just couldn't believe that it was possible.
http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/...
"Not wishing to be miserly with his information, Root sent an eye-witness account of what the Wrights were doing to the Scientific American, with a letter telling the editor he was free to use it. But the editor was not to be taken in and made no effort to investigate what Root had dropped into his lap. Though the Scientific American printed in 1905 many articles about flying, nearly all were about devices that maybe ought to be tried."
I don't fail in anything, I just don't need to engage in endless debates about methodology. Half of the studies in psychology fail to replicate. There are problems everywhere in science, because geniuses are still rare and now ostracized because they produce new researched and are judged by lords of the old order. If you scratch hard, you can always find something.
Some people criticize, others just act. The people who create are always going to be the targets of the people who spend their time criticizing.
Now it's time to act. Not pull over waiting for some authority to decide for yourself. The list of publications is here to show that this available treatment doesn't come from a magical hat.