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 One researcher presented unpublished data on federally approved compounds that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 activity, including lactoferrin.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
I think it's very important to note that this was research done in a laboratory, using cell cultures and computer modeling. It is wonderful that they discovered this combination and looked into the effective and cytotoxic concentrations, but this is not a study that sought to establish how effective these compounds are in humans. The liver does incredible things to a lot of compounds, and not every medication/molecule reaches the cells in equal concentrations. Hopefully they're already working on testing this clinically to determine safety and efficacy- but until that is studied, it's hard to say with any certainty whether this will be effective. Scientists have cured cancer in cell cultures a million times, but it's still hanging around in people.
The Pathogens paper that I linked noted that there were hundreds of thousands of human subjects in trials.
Did I miss something?
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).