Did you go through the video? He is a doctor just like you. What is your answer?
First of all, he's a PhD. Not a physician. So he is a doctor, but not a doctor "like us". That said, he's clearly smart and the video isn't completely wrong.
The first part of the video looks at anecdotal evidence -- for example, that Costa Rica is "using" hydroxychloroquine and their death rate is lower. But we have no idea how much they are using, or if that data is accurate. So this is "interesting", but it's not good enough.
He then goes through the VA study. His conclusions are not unreasonable. HC seemed to increase death rates, but was given to sicker patients. Perhaps sicker patients are more susceptible to cardiotoxicity. When looking at less sick patients (those who got HC prior to being put on the ventilator), there was no difference -- so no clear evidence that it worked, but also no evidence that it harmed. But the number of patients was very small. So interesting, but can't really base decisions off it. (Interestingly, right at 17:00 he misunderstands a statement in the paper about RCT's. He's wrong there, they are not claiming their study is an RCT. They are stating that the concerns they found suggest we should wait for other RCT's before proceeding. He gets back to this around 28:00 - the problems with a non-randomized retrospective study.) I do agree that the press made a bigger deal of this than they should - it's not great data, but doing a retrospective review is often the first step.
He then goes on talking about measuring zinc blood levels. This is where I'm going to take exception. There's no medical evidence that measuring zinc levels is of any use, except perhaps in diagnosing Zn deficiency (and even in that case there is quite a bit of controversy). The evidence that HC has anything to do with Zinc is thin at best. Here's a
recent article from Nature, which is one of the best basic science journals around, all about HC and how it works, and Zinc isn't mentioned. At all. This whole theory of Zinc and HC fighting off viruses is not based in any clear science that I can see.
After that, he goes completely down the naturopath discussion, looking at blood selenium levels, etc. There is no science around any of this.
Which brings us to the Lancet study, quoted above, but here's the link for it again:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
This, again, is a retrospective study. It is not randomized, so has the same problem -- there may be bias in the study, since the patients who got HC might be more, or less, sick than those who did not. Physicians might feel pressured to "do something" if the patient was more ill. Still, this Lancet study has some big advantages over the VA study. First, it's huge. 90K patients, 600+ hospitals -- that gives you a much broader patient base, and makes the study much less susceptible to a random fluctuation at a single site. Second, they only included patients who started treatment within 48 hours of diagnosis and before they were on a ventilator -- so this is like that table in the video from the VA study that showed "no difference". And the UK was (relatively) pro-HC treatment, so many patients were treated early in their disease.
Unfortunately, the Lancet study has the same problem as the VA study. If you look at the data tables, the need for mechanical ventilation in the control group was 9-10%, and in the HC/C groups was 25%. This is a problem. One explanation is that treatment with HC markedly worsened patients such that they needed mechanical ventilation. Another is that physicians gave the drug to patients who appeared more ill, hence ended up on the ventilator more, and hence died more. This is the problem with non-randomized studies -- we can't be sure which is "right" (or if there's some other explanation).
Even with all that, the evidence for HC+Zn+Azithro is poor or non-existent. The best we can say at this point is "we don't know". I am very worried about the increased cardiotoxicity seen in the Lancet study, there appeared to be many more arrhythmic deaths which would not be expected even if the patients were just "more ill", and marked QT prolongation seen. Your suggestion that this is only a problem for people with underlying QT problems is incorrect. Your suggestion that lots of doctors say "my patients on HC do fine" is also hard to interpret -- if a patient dies, it's impossible as a single physician to know if a drug they were on caused it. That's why we need studies to look at this. You also mention that Azithro is needed as part of the treatment to "treat any lingering infection" which doesn't really make sense -- Azithro is an antibiotic, treats bacterial infections. This is a virus infection. (Azithro may have some anti-inflammatory effects, although this remains somewhat controversial). Antibiotics definitely cause C Diff infections, so there is real harm to using them when not needed.
You also mentioned that short courses of HC might be safe. HC has a very long half-life, so once you take it, it remains in your body for weeks. There are lots of case reports of toxicity from HC pre-COVID. I can't find a big study looking at it -- but that's probably because we just don't use it all that much any more, and because it would be very difficult to find a good comparison group (ie identical patients not on HC). The one thing the Lancet study is reasonable convincing of is cardiotoxicity of HC (IMHO).
I doubt any of this will change your mind. There's lots of stuff out there on the internet that looks believable, but isn't true. Flat Earth is a great example -- there are lots of videos "proving" the earth is flat using math, physics, videos, pictures, etc. They seem believable -- in fact I find them fun to watch because they try so hard to be real. Yet the earth is in fact round.
The same is true here. There is no good evidence that HC + Zn + Azithro works for COVID. There is some retrospective data that suggests it doesn't, and suggests harm, but has limitations that prevent us from forming any clear opinion. Ongoing randomized trials will hopefully answer the question more fully. The use of Zinc for virus infections is largely unproven, and given studies that have been done will likely have no effect or a very small effect. Touting it as some miraculous cure for COVID that's being hidden is hard to believe given the data we have.