1) I submit that the accusation of 'laziness' is mis-placed, and the reason is found in reply to your second point...

2) Had you taken the time to properly and fully review the article, as others do with your citations, you'd note that the author includes numerous links to the most respected medical journals in the world...i.e. "The New England Journal of Medicine" and "Science"...which buttressed his contention. Both of those sources have, as you should know, very high "Impact Factors" (74.7, and 41.8, respectively)...your chosen reference is not quite in the same league, with an "IF" of....wait for it..."1.6"!...you know...just above "Blog Level".

I do agree with you, though, that HCQ is better left to the dust bin of history.