> Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit.
It's ok for scientists to think something's true before they have all the evidence lined up - especially in a predominantly empirical field like medicine. That's how new ideas happen.
Have you ever encountered someone who is motivated by altruism? Someone who is motivated by getting the truth out there?
Certainly a scientist can say "I very much hope that HCQ is an effective cure for Coronavirus" but that is very, very different from being "Pro-HCQ".
When I hear "Pro-HCQ" that implies to me a very strong suggestion of treatment, i.e. - "You should take HCQ as a treatment for Coronavirus infection", which is extremely different from, "I hope that the research shows that HCQ will be an effective treatment for Coronavirus, and I am doing a study with the goal of showing that this is the case".
Does that make sense?
I think that middle option is actually how a scientist would interpret the phrase. I can see why a layman would read it otherwise, though.
Doctors and scientists need to be objective. Advocating a treatment before the data is there, or cherry picking results is not science.