Due to his earlier research with colleagues at UF, Ostrov already knew diphenhydramine was potentially effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The latest discovery has its roots in a routine meeting of scientists with the Global Virus Network’s COVID-19 task force. One researcher presented unpublished data on federally approved compounds that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 activity, including lactoferrin.
Like diphenhydramine, lactoferrin is available without a prescription. Ostrov thought about pairing it with diphenhydramine and ran with the idea. In lab tests on human and monkey cells, the combination was particularly potent: Individually, the two compounds each inhibited SARS-CoV-2 virus replication by about 30%. Together, they reduced virus replication by 99%.
99% reduced replication. Your natural immune system can handle the leftovers (If you still have the immune system that God gave you and not the new one that the clot-shot reprograms yours to.)
Let that sink in. 99% Antihistamine + Milk Protein
Link to the scientific paper published in the Journal; Pathogens
The Pathogens paper that I linked noted that there were hundreds of thousands of human subjects in trials.
Did I miss something?
What are they saying the dosage of each is? I can't read Dr reports kek. I'll also look to find human trial.
Figures 2,5,6,8, and 9 mention human along with section 3. Again. I can't read Dr....
no doubt. I cant read it either.
I have a biology degree so I can understand a lot of it, but I was never a researcher and I never published.
I was a field biology specialist, in the mud with the bugs, so I know how a publish paper reads, but MUCH of it goes over my head.
The quote you cited in your OP said it was a lab experiment.
Where do you see that? I just searched the entire paper for the word "human" and did not find any mention of human subjects or trials.
From the section: 3. Discussion and Conclusions
Looks like the authors used the word individuals rather than humans. I admit I assumed they were synonyms, though I acknowledge I did not read the 'methods' section to be sure. Anyway, I believe that author is referencing a prior study with this statement, so the answer may not be in this paper's methods section.
That means it was an EPIDEMIOLOGY "study," and NOT a clinical trial.
What does THAT mean? A bogus PCR test?
Vero cells = MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS
In vitro = IN A LABORATORY, not in animals or humans
Yes, we know about how virologists ALWAYS use monkey kidney cells to "prove" their nonsense, but it is STILL nonsense.
Irrelevant. It was a LAB EXPERIMENT, along with a mention of an epidemiological "study" (IOW: nothing but a QUESTIONNAIRE and nothing to do with actual science).
No, the reason the methods are not telling you there was a clinical trial is because THERE WAS NOT A CLINICAL TRIAL.
It is ALL speculation, disguised as something scientific to fool the masses, and especially the media (so the media can fool the masses).
This was my read as well. Other studies were mentioned, but the one linked took place in a lab on cell cultures.