Here's an example of how the press takes a story of an interesting preliminary study that may or may not have anything to offer, and blows it up into headlines:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/health/frog-flu-virus-study/
So frog snot might be an anti-viral. Uh-huh. Anybody besides me lose money in a company that touted frog snot antibiotics, called "magainins," which never panned out to work in humans?
So NNVC may have a competitor in anti-viral scams down the road.
Sigh.
Anyway I posted this because every time a basher posts something like this involving an antibiotic mechanism, claiming that there won't be any need for Brilacidin as an antibiotic, it's just as stupid a claim. We haven't heard anything recently about those "antibiotics" that they found in dirt (which the bashers all seized upon), have we?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/health/frog-flu-virus-study/
So frog snot might be an anti-viral. Uh-huh. Anybody besides me lose money in a company that touted frog snot antibiotics, called "magainins," which never panned out to work in humans?
So NNVC may have a competitor in anti-viral scams down the road.
Sigh.
Anyway I posted this because every time a basher posts something like this involving an antibiotic mechanism, claiming that there won't be any need for Brilacidin as an antibiotic, it's just as stupid a claim. We haven't heard anything recently about those "antibiotics" that they found in dirt (which the bashers all seized upon), have we?
1