Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop reflexively playing for a team, and start attempting something approaching critical thought.
Now show us the evidence that the current Corona virus actually existed in 2005 and that hydroxychloroquine was tested and found effective against it in 2005. Otherwise this is all pure conjecture and assumption, nothing more.
This "source" is worse than the usual fake sites used.
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/
"Media Bias Fact Check" is run by some guy named Dave Van Zandt. Evidently we're supposed to accept whatever Dave Van Zandt tells us.
Now show us the evidence that the current Corona virus actually existed in 2005 and that hydroxychloroquine was tested and found effective against it in 2005. Otherwise this is all pure conjecture and assumption, nothing more.
It's an overused term, but the deliberate ignorance being shown here is just unbelievable. I don't buy that you truly believe in the position you publicly espouse. Not for a minute. Nobody could be as active as you are on this topic and also be able to reject everything they've been shown. I think it's some bizarre tribal thing. The one thing I'm sure you're not basing your position on is an objective analysis of the available information. Whatever you're doing, it's not that.
It's an overused term, but the deliberate ignorance being shown here is just unbelievable. I don't buy that you truly believe in the position you publicly espouse. Not for a minute. Nobody could be as active as you are on this topic and also be able to reject everything they've been shown. I think it's some bizarre tribal thing. The one thing I'm sure you're not basing your position on is an objective analysis of the available information. Whatever you're doing, it's not that.
Aside from the fact that the study is 15 (!!!) years old and talks about Cholorquine, you can't convince me that the anti-vaxxers, anti-science, MAGA folks actually read the article, much less understood it.
That's quite a leap to go from worshipping someone who suggested ingesting bleach to understanding this: "Under normal conditions, we observed two immunoreactive ACE2 forms, migrating at ~105 and ~113 kDa, respectively (Fig. (Fig.5B,5B, lane 1). The ~105-kDa protein is endoglycosidase H sensitive, suggesting that it represents the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) localized form, whereas the ~113-kDa protein is endoglycosidase H resistant and represents the Golgi-modified form of ACE2 [19]. The specificity of the antibody was confirmed by displacing the immunoreactive protein bands with excess cold-soluble human recombinant ACE2"
Aside from the fact that the study is 15 (!!!) years old
A few people have made mention of the age of the study. Odd that the current cv19 vaccines are at least partially based on patents that are far older but yet this study's age somehow makes it somehow less relevant?
A few people have made mention of the age of the study. Odd that the current cv19 vaccines are at least partially based on patents that are far older but yet this study's age somehow makes it somehow less relevant?
You ever heard of the saying "standing on the shoulders of giants"?
A few people have made mention of the age of the study. Odd that the current cv19 vaccines are at least partially based on patents that are far older but yet this study's age somehow makes it somehow less relevant?
Yes, yes it does. How many times has the virus mutated since that study 15 years ago?
I'm not saying that the study is not a good starting point, or doesn't have relevant information. I'm saying that resting on the laurels of a 15 year old study and implying that it's the "gotcha" is where the error is.
Well that and...again...I would wager many of the MAGA crowd here didn't read/understand the technical language, yet are implying that the study is the end all/be all. It wouldn't be so laughable but for the fact that they believe the guy who suggested ingesting bleach can do no wrong.
Could these people be any more corrupt and untrustworthy?
May I assume you mean the purveyors of fake news?
There is a basic structural difference between primate and human cells and lab grown vs human cells.
BTW, NIH does not approve medicine.
Trump was taking hydroxychloroquine. It did not prevent him from being infected. He was not treated with hydroxychloroquine. Trump chose to vaccinate in early January, just 3 months after being hospitalized with Covid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
