I smiled at that, but it'll turn off normies who we share it with.
Sending normies actual studies means they won't read them, so quick "highlight" articles like this would be effective if not for the weighted language.
Does the doctor who wrote it even understand what he was reading?
Using an in silico approach
That means a COMPUTER PROGRAM. There were NO humans. NO monkeys. NO dogs. NO mice. Not even so much as a petrie dish or test tube.
It was done in a computer, which was programed to use certain inputs, run a pre-determined software program, and spit out an answer that was NOTHING to do with anything in the real world. Garbage in, garbage out.
demonstrated the possible mechanism of action
Possible. Lemme guess. That means "we need to do more research" which means "we need more MONEY."
Possible mechanism is an hypothesis. It is NOT a conclusion.
ivermectin fights Chinese Germs
There is no such thing as a "germ" -- Chinese or otherwise.
There are microorganisms, such as bacteria and parasites, but not germs. And not viruses.
Through molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation
Get that? SIMULATION.
The science is clear: Ivermectin is a safe and effective remedy for covid
It may be, but this paper does not come anywhere close to proving it.
These are powerful findings
No, they are nothing more than guesses.
While ivermectin is traditionally used to fight malaria and parasites
Yes, that does seem to be true. So, let's find out why it works on malaria, and then maybe we can figure out how it heals the body, more generally.
a recent study claims that the drug inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in in vitro
In vitro = in a test tube or petrie dish, and NOT in a living organism. Let's see the study. Did they use monkey kidney cells ("vero cells")? I will bet anything they did, and then did they also reduce the toxic antibiotics they normally use? Was that the real effect? This statement means nothing without proper context.
a recent study claims that the drug inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in in vitro
No, actually it isn't. You (the author of the article, Dr. Eddy) did not cite ANYTHING.
but the evidence speaks for itself.
No, it doesn't speak anything because it is not evidence. It is a COMPUTER SIMULATION, and nothing more.
our in silico data have indicated that ivermectin efficiently utilizes viral spike protein
Nonsense. "Dr." Eddy needs to go back to school and learn how to read.
From the article " ivermectin fights Chinese Germs ....". He also refers to it as Fauci Flu. One of us? OP is the author? Cool.
I smiled at that, but it'll turn off normies who we share it with.
Sending normies actual studies means they won't read them, so quick "highlight" articles like this would be effective if not for the weighted language.
That article is complete nonsense.
Does the doctor who wrote it even understand what he was reading?
That means a COMPUTER PROGRAM. There were NO humans. NO monkeys. NO dogs. NO mice. Not even so much as a petrie dish or test tube.
It was done in a computer, which was programed to use certain inputs, run a pre-determined software program, and spit out an answer that was NOTHING to do with anything in the real world. Garbage in, garbage out.
Possible. Lemme guess. That means "we need to do more research" which means "we need more MONEY."
Possible mechanism is an hypothesis. It is NOT a conclusion.
There is no such thing as a "germ" -- Chinese or otherwise.
There are microorganisms, such as bacteria and parasites, but not germs. And not viruses.
Get that? SIMULATION.
It may be, but this paper does not come anywhere close to proving it.
No, they are nothing more than guesses.
Yes, that does seem to be true. So, let's find out why it works on malaria, and then maybe we can figure out how it heals the body, more generally.
In vitro = in a test tube or petrie dish, and NOT in a living organism. Let's see the study. Did they use monkey kidney cells ("vero cells")? I will bet anything they did, and then did they also reduce the toxic antibiotics they normally use? Was that the real effect? This statement means nothing without proper context.
No, actually it isn't. You (the author of the article, Dr. Eddy) did not cite ANYTHING.
No, it doesn't speak anything because it is not evidence. It is a COMPUTER SIMULATION, and nothing more.
Nonsense. "Dr." Eddy needs to go back to school and learn how to read.
You're absolutely right....