Show me the data and I'm willing to change my tune.
No you will not change your tune. You get shown data, and you start nitpicking or bullshitting complaints that apply more to any data you have presented, except that you neglected to subject them to critical analysis in the first place.
Covid is very close to SARS, there's no reason to believe it won't act more similar to SARS than it does to common cold coronaviruses.
I've just explained a way SARS-CoV-2 acts more like common coronaviruses than it does SARS-CoV-1 just to illustrate how unsafe that reasoning is.
You keep saying all these things and you literally have no proof that backs up anything you say.
I presented some time back a thorough analysis of publications on Vit D and covid (and other respiratory diseases) by an expert panel of the UK government. It will be amongst the most thorough reviews of the area according to current knowledge that you will be able to lay your eyes upon. And yet here you are telling everyone you Googled an article or two or saw a YouTube clip of Rhonda Whoever and that makes you the best informed man around.
I don't care if it was others that said HCQ was an antiviral, but it wasn't me.
Your argument is in essence that you didn't call it an antiviral despite the fact that it was under study precisely because it was believed to be an antiviral, whilst you were touting it as having an antiviral mechanism of action. In other words, you are attempting to claim you didn't say something that you absolutely should have been saying if you knew anything about the field. In which case, you are arguing you are ignorant and incompetent.
I've been saying the same thing for over a year...
...and it's basically been all wrong.
You did essentially the classic error of every half-arsed amateur: you read an article or two and assumed they were true, and didn't think you needed to know anything more. Unfortunately, getting science right is about knowing the wider field.
For instance, the key to writing a literature review is to start by reading the literature, because it is only by knowing the literature in the first place that you can build on it with appropriate analysis and conclusions. I see this in student literature reviews. They read a paper, add that to their text, then they read another paper and add that to their text, and so on until they hit the word limit. This is evident in three seconds flat because papers contradict each other and so the lit review contradicts itself, or there is repetition because papers are basically saying the same thing but the student hasn't realised, and any number of other faults. It's even stuff like calling adrenaline "adrenaline" in one place and "epinephrine" in another, because they're just copying whatever the last paper they read said rather than synthesising a coherent work.
One of the useful things about having read the field first is then sorting out what is more or less likely. Zinc was a very distant shot. Proper reading would have established from the word go it was an unlikely pick for why HCQ is an antiviral. Yes, there's a paper saying zinc and HCQ, but there are a lot more with better ideas. But you have to read around to realise this. If you just read a paper on zinc and follow it up with a paper on HCQ and job done, you've just gone and fucked up.
And herein comes the fact that you latched onto this with a strength far greater than the evidence base supported - as you later did with HCQ, ivermectin, Vit D etc. You did this I suspect due to a series of cognitive biases. The rest is merely obstinacy. You are simply not capable of making sense of the data, not only because you are fundamentally unskilled in the scientific knowledge to do so, but because you have formed an irrational attachment to those initial beliefs that you adopted on inadequate information.
When you say there's no "proof" ("evidence" is a more appropriate term), actually, there is lots. The current state of science is on my side, not yours. What you really mean is "Convince me otherwise". But convincing a person is not about data, it's about a wider psychological shift to make it more attractive to them to change their view. One of the obvious barriers to convincing people is that it means they have to admit they were wrong. And most people really do not like doing this, so they tend to give very high preference to their existing beliefs. Even if their beliefs were formed on a negligible understanding of a completely inadequate data set. Your claim that approximates to "prove otherwise" is indicative of that bias you have, because it reveals your fundamental assumption that your existing belief is true, which you have then invested too much ego into to let go.
I have no particular interest in convincing you. (Anybody who debates on the internet should quickly learn to drop that ambition from their discussions.) I just enjoy arguing, and I don't think you should be allowed to propagate bullshit and lies without challenge.
