Unlike the other two this is useful, thanks. The "may not' be possible gives me pause considering some of the result tracking studies that came out. The argument Campbell makes isn't about preventing infections but limiting them. The take away I get from your breakdown, is it may very well work to limit infection at the safe doses, but not very well but: a) we don't know for sure yet (which in my mind is a clear failure of the public health authorities...they've known this for a while and we know Fauci has been funneling money in certain ways) and b) not very efficiently (which is fine, but the argument is at the time we didn't have anything else and much of the 3rd world still doesn't have anything else). The conclusion which would hold out is so long as the dosing is kept safe, what would it do harm, since there is the possibility it seems to help. Thanks!