Yeah, that MN study of HCQ is an example of a study designed to fail. That study was looking at is as prophylaxis not as a treatment. They didn’t add zinc or vitamin D or C or antibiotics. They didn’t follow the protocols designed and used by for example the Dr. in upstate NY, the infectious disease clinic in Marseilles, and the virologist from Yale. It failed, and was supposed to fail. Easy to make a trial fail.
I don’t think it would work as prophylaxis. Not even the vaccines do that. The question is, will these combinations reduce severity of infection, reduce risk of hospitalization and death, keep viral load low etc. Could they be effective treatments for all the people who for whatever reason are not vaccinated and catch the virus. That’s the only question to study imo, and the protocols are well established and plenty of pilot studies done by these and other doctors.
The Marseilles study was a retrospective, not a trial. Huge difference. Before anyone puts any stock in it, I highly recommend they review the study, particularly the age and health of the HCQ group vs the non-HCQ group. In short, the non-HCQ group were older, sicker, and had far more co-morbidities than the HCQ group. There are many other problems with the retrospective study. Studies can be designed to succeed just as easily as fail, and Didier Raoult was not exactly a neutral party.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315163/