07-09-2022, 10:26 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Little Elm,Texas. (40 minutes North of Dallas)
Posts: 8,108
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EODguy
I posted to a respected peer reviewed scientific journal yet the random fact checker is who you believed?There is no challenge to the study as it was intended. However, the procedure and the virus are not applicable to COVID-19.
I guess you don't recall telling pretty much everyone that links we provided weren't good enough as the AGGREGATOR websites were not trustworthy in your opinion, so now you think some liberal newspaper overrides an actual scientific journal.
Show me where I said that.
Unfucking believable.
It does actually say that chloroquine stopped transmission of SARs Coronavirus and pretty much killed it off in the original host, doesn't it?
You go ahead believe USA Today, since that is the most respected bastion of science in the USA. [emoji849]
If you don't like USA Today fact checker there are two others for your reading pleasure.
Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk
|
Maybe this will help explain why the study is not applicable.
Overstates scientific confidence: The claim that chloroquine is a cure against SARS-CoV-2 is based on an in vitro study published in 2005 on SARS-CoV-1. It is impossible to infer that a drug will work as a COVID-19 cure in a living person from an in vitro cell culture study on a different virus, even one as closely related to SARS-CoV-2 as SARS-CoV-1.
Factually Inaccurate: There is no indication that the 2005 research paper was requested, conducted, or funded by the NIH. Rather, the authors were affiliated with the U.S. CDC and a Canadian research institute.
__________________
 X5 4.6 2002 Black Sap, Black interior. 2013 X5M Melbourne Red, Bamboo interior
Dallas
|