You have to giggle a bit when AF asks for proof th

You have to giggle a bit when AF asks for proof that it works. It show's he probably can't understand science or the process much. Instead - actually probably like a lot of finance people - looks for top line summary info...so here is how you find the science evidence (hint - the part at the end of the paper is as important as the content - the bibliographies is the storyl).

Pick a paper or 2 , say this one : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article...4820303439
Also other papers (like from yale on their recent patents, find their publications etc on CCR5 that relate to the MOA - all the science). Find the peer reviewed ones.

Old school science journo/researcher maybe would have looked at the bibliographies at the end of the paper. And for those papers, expand their bibliographies etc.

Make a list of the researches from each entry as well. Look at the abstracts and key take aways - note those.

Before long the list of evidence gets pretty big. Also you start seeing the facts jump out and the patterns.

You would then build a doc and/or flattened table under a) HIV b) cancer c) CCR5 d) Covid etc. (ie. area (hiv etc) , researcher, institute, summary, link to paper - that sort of thing). There is usually bib db somewhere that can give you citation cross scores.

This is what I did when I first heard about leronlimab and convinced me about the science and that it wasn't bs and made sense - i didn't write it down etc but i did follow the paper trail and do a light weight version for my own dd.

This is one of the first things they used to teach you when you started doing research (or did when I was at Uni 30 years ago, don't know how it works now - it maybe all online now).

Have we done this in an easy to find form - join the dots and make it easy by providing a ready to go literature review. Do we have one ?