No, it's not medical semantics. You're making a ca
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 297)
Posted On: 09/23/2018 8:35:45 PM
No, it's not medical semantics. You're making a case that an IV drug "must" be able to work better, and that's simply not in accordance with the facts.
Brilacidin-OM is PROVEN to work in a clinical trial. You first claim that it can't work until there are lesions, then when that is shown to be untrue by the results of the clinical trial, you claim that there "must" be micro-lesions. And trying to throw around medical terminology to prove that a successful clinical trial couldn't be successful -- well, no one is buying that.
And you ignore all the reasons that a spit-and-swish solution is preferable to an IV formulation, with its attendant systemic risks, not to mention difficulty for the patients and expense for the insurance companies.
Didn't take long for your agenda to show.
Brilacidin-OM is PROVEN to work in a clinical trial. You first claim that it can't work until there are lesions, then when that is shown to be untrue by the results of the clinical trial, you claim that there "must" be micro-lesions. And trying to throw around medical terminology to prove that a successful clinical trial couldn't be successful -- well, no one is buying that.
And you ignore all the reasons that a spit-and-swish solution is preferable to an IV formulation, with its attendant systemic risks, not to mention difficulty for the patients and expense for the insurance companies.
Didn't take long for your agenda to show.
(5)
(0)