-have to give within the first 5 days when the virus is still at low levels...which we already knew. The 6th day the virus makes it's move.
-For prophylaxis he gives the same dose as for malaria prevention (200mg/day 5days).
-he is so confident now of it's effectiveness (he is taking it), he does not wear a mask.
Shane, it is possible that HCQ is a helpful prophylactic at this level.
But think - what data do you need to know this is true? You need to give it - as prophylactic - to a large number of people who do not have COVID. You then need to use the fact that over time few get COVID, or few get severe COVID, as evidence.
To do this you need to compare your intervention with a similar cohort who have no intervention. Dr. Z's patients are very atypical, much less likley to have (any) COVID symptoms because much younger than typical.
Shane you know all these things, yet you go on thinking that because Dr. Z is unswerving in his belief it must therefore have more merit. Why? If Dr. Z acknowledges all the above and provided evidnce it would be different.
Since masks do not (hardly) protect the wearer but protect others he is simply betting the lives of others on his being right by not wearing a mask.
What is it about politics that makes it impossiblke for so many people 9including family GPs like Zelencko) to look clearly and what would be evidence and then try to get it.