I've had two surgeries for my own arrythmias, and am currently on (but tapering off) one of the meds that's totally contraindicated with 'quin and Zpack, so I'm following this as closely as time allows.

Recent 'anecdotes' include success with plasma/antibodies donated from people who have recovered, a growing suspicion that ventilators are not the right answer for all critical patients (and a very wrong answer for some), and IV administration of certain vitamins and minerals.

As doctors learn COVID-19 is not behaving like traditional pneumonia/flu infections and ARDS, and as they also face depleted supplies, they're resorting to MASH-style meatball-medicine and hoping something good sticks.

The best they can do in the present is "disseminate" (i.e. publish w/o controls or peer review) what worked and didn't work for them. Although inconsistent controls will have a detrimental impact on statistical validity, the averaging process from larger numbers of independent, anecdotal results will filter some of that out. I assume that evolving process provided some guidance into the 4 therapies the WHO recommended for further study.

Sadly, there was a lot of inconsistent or just-plain-wrong information (particularly about transmission and infectious periods) leading to incorrect guidance from the medical community. Many of those who practice in the field of medicine were making assumptions based on common sense, training, and experience with similar diseases, that were not quite right for COVID-19.

Mixed and rapidly outdated information is still circulating. Our best bet is still to listen to scientists, but lean toward the most cautious side of their recommendations, since the science on this isn't yet mature enough to speak accurately about much of it. Hindsight will be 20/20, and hopefully provide guidance for similar-but-different issues (medical, economic, and social) in the future.