Hard not to make that assumption based on your past posting history praising HCQ/Zinc and posting only positive HCQ news/studies (usually with no comment and often with excerpts without quotes or attribution, which is annoying), while looking for flaws in any negative HCQ news/studies. I've posted all kinds of studies about HCQ, including being one of the first to post about Raoult's original study, which looked so promising. Sure, I've been much more negative lately, since all of the randomized, controlled trials have been negative about HCQ, either in hospitals or as a prophylactic.
Anyway, back to Zelenko, I linked two of your posts, below, with excerpts on this. Looking at these, do you still think it was unreasonable to assume you might have supported the Zelenko study? Rather than attacking me, maybe tell us what you think of the Zelenko study. If you think it's as flawed as I do, I'll apologize for jumping to conclusions based on your past posting history. Tell us what you think.
"The study you reference was practically useless as it did not treat with HCQ combined with zinc. It is understood that HCQ is an ionophore and aids in the cellular uptake of zinc which interferes with virus replication. Any study done without the additional treatment with zinc is worth less than zero. Bad science leads to wrong conclusions. I will quote Dr Cardillo, who has had great succes with HCQ: He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication."
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ventions-and-more.191275/page-55#post-4492049
"Thank you for sharing. Ironically, a week ago started taking Quercetin 250mg BID along with eating more zinc rich foods in my diet. Also, for those interested quercetin is a zinc ionophore, i.e., helps transport zinc across cell membranes."
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ventions-and-more.191275/page-63#post-4498557
The other oddity is that you immediately believed the results of the Ford and Springer (NYC) studies showing HCQ had a benefit, despite them both being retrospective/observational and despite them not using zinc at all, which you're on record saying makes them "worth less than zero." This is also despite the fact that the Ford study has been roundly discredited due to serious flaws in design (age, race and steroid co-administration not being controlled at all) and includes the fact that you don't balance that with acknowledging there's now two true randomized, controlled trials (Recovery and the NEJM study published Friday) showing no benefit, as well as the other two large observational NYC studies (JAMA and NEJM) showing no benefit. Would like to hear your explanation of this.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...rventions-and-more.198855/page-9#post-4625012