This is not that difficult.

Repost plzzzz

imgflip.com/m/political_jokes

Yeah, no. CDC is one of the worst sources, just like the WHO because they keep supporting these disproven models.

And the best source is...?

Individual studies that are vetted to make sure they were done correctly.

Vetted by whom? And which studies have received said vetting? I’d love to see them!

You take a look at the methodology, who paid for the study, whether it was double blind, the number of participants, and what they are comparing it to. Things like that.

Are there any studies out there for COVID that meet the standard?

Many studies. There's one that shows 3,000 people taking Hydroxyquloriquine + zinc and being cured in 8-12 hours.

I'm not finding any studies (legitimate or not) that involve as many as 3,000 people total, let alone with that many showing improvement. Links?

There was an NYU study released a week ago that showed promise for a combination of hydroxychloroquine, zinc sulphate, and azithromycin, but the lead researcher says the study needs further peer review and a separate randomized controlled trial before it's released as an official treatment. Studies I've seen with just hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have proved less promising.

This is all about treatment once you have it, though. Are there studies that are focused on prevention? If not, what are the best sources for daily preventive measures?

This one talks about the 'planned' studies in January:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200409/chloroquine-zinc-tested-to-block-covid-infection

This one references doctor surveys where they say they would prescribe it.
https://dcwhispers.com/new-study-shows-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-greatly-reduces-risk-of-covid-19-threat/

This one debunks the two studies that are held up as saying it doesn't work.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/pseudo-science-behind-the-assault-on-hydroxychloroquine/

It looks like the 3,000 study was scrubbed from PubMed.

So there are studies that will come out. Awesome! Really looking forward to that. In the meantime, we have to decide which sources to trust to give us useful guidelines. It appears as though you trust a computer scientist who has only taken a keen interest in the medical field in the past couple months (before this year he was all about climate science, which is also not his area of expertise) and an article without a named author that doesn’t cite sources on a website that is political in nature, not medical.

I’d sooner trust the WHO and CDC, even if I thought they had a political agenda; at least they start from a place of medical understanding. The latter two sources you’ve cited are political but are without any medical credibility. The WUWT article appears meticulously researched and is worth a read, but only as supplemental analysis of more credible sources (like NYU, for example) and certainly not as the foremost analytical voice to be had. The DC Whispers article has some truth to it, but intentionally leaves important information out that weakens its narrative and does not show any significant rigor in its research, so it’s not worth bothering to read when the stakes are so high.

I would think a study that size with such clear results would only be removed if its methods were faulty or its results incorrect. Especially since it’s a government entity under the executive branch.

Well start by throwing out any study that does not use zinc. Once you do that you'll start finding lots of studies that show its very effective.

For instance the NYU study didn't add zinc.