That author appears to have an axe to grind around HCQ. He mentions - writing in August 2020 - favorably the argument that an RCT shouldn’t be performed of HCQ because it is already known to be effective. ‘ RCT fundamentalists called their [hydroxychloroquine] study “flawed” and “sloppy,” implying it had a weak methodology.’

Well, now that it’s not august 2020 and we actually have the results of well conducted HCQ RCTs, we know that HCQ turned out to be no better than snake oil. All the claimed observational improvements were just anecdotes and luck. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroq...

The mistaken conclusion that he came to around HCQ should be factored into evaluating the validity of the arguments he makes - which led him to downplay the need to study and verify whether HCQ was actually working.