From the dripping Faucit; Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Why do you keep insisting that others are "medical outsiders", when you have no medical credentials at all?
Having a conversation with a pharmacist, and having a relative who has an administrative position in a medical practice, do not make you a medical expert.

If you have data, present it. The insults you lob and the bragging you do only make you ridiculous.
Why do atheists lie about my credentials?
You are not a medical expert.
Let us see if you are honest. You want to make more claims which you can't back?
List all my science degrees and all my medical degrees.
Then we can discuss which bother you the most.
You still are blocked from discussing the topic. Do you know why?

Go ahead and tell us why you people have no problem with tony lying.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”

This means, of course, that Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”
For some reason the self appointed elites can't comment a word on Virology Journal article. Maybe they need somebody to explain it?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Why do atheists lie about my credentials?
You are not a medical expert.
Let us see if you are honest. You want to make more claims which you can't back?
List all my science degrees and all my medical degrees.
Then we can discuss which bother you the most.
You still are blocked from discussing the topic. Do you know why?

Go ahead and tell us why you people have no problem with tony lying.
You are an anonymous poster whose grasp of basic science is lacking. You have attempted to support your claims to be a medical expert by describing conversations with pharmacists and relatives who work in medical groups.

If you want to make a scientific argument, make it. Instead you lob childish insults at actual experts like Fauci.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
True Pundit, July 12, 2020

The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”

This means, of course, that Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”

Now he plays stupid
Pretends we have no idea if it works or how it works
Doesn't know if it causes damage.


I posted Faucit was a Quack February 2020.
Will the following members Vibise, Bonnie, Livln, Backup tell us why their pet Fact Check bloggers have not posted this.

This is not a new experiment.
Good research

Facing is in the hot seat presently, I saw a Fox Jesse Waters show, and it was e-mail after e-mail in self incrimination on his funding of and knowledge in the China Virus lab in Wuhan

What I seen you would think he would be in front of a firing squad for treason and a Million counts of 1st degree murder

Hes communicating on knowledge and coverup of the Covud19 virus, and its relationship to Wuhan

Will he be as slippery as Hillary, Comey, Hunter, McCabe, Strzok, on and on, and the rest of the criminals on furlough?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
How to deal with covid has become a political issue
Where have you been? Democrats made it a political issue from the beginning.
that is viewed very differently by people on opposite sides of the partisan divide. And they act accordingly.
I appreciate your candid admission to that fact.
Of the Congressional districts in which at least 60% are vaccinated, 38 of 39 have Democratic Representatives.
The reasons for being vaccinated or not or voluminous. The fact that the Democrats are obedient to a dictatorial news media doesn't tell me anything I don't already know about Democrats.
Of the districts with less than 1/3 vaccinated, 28 of the 30 are Republican.
There's a pretty good chance that a lot of Republicans don't have a bunch of comorbidities.
There is no other explanation for this other than political.
I can think of another explanation the exercise of adult independent judgment about health issues might be one explanation.
It cannot get starker than this.
Well this post is an indication of some of that. You can't think of any explanation for not getting the vaccine because the dictatorial media has told her you've got to do it. I don't know if you intended to illustrate the point but you certainly have.
The news media politely refer to these GOP districts and people as "vaccine hesitant",
Right we wouldn't want anybody to provide a sufficient window for reflection on what they ought to do regarding their health. Therefore we've got to demonize hesitation. It's absolute par for the course.
but the reality seems to be that these RWers are most strongly motivated by "owning" the libs, and will jeopardize their own health in the process.
I would say that you can put that on my tombstone, but I expect to outlive you.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Where have you been? Democrats made it a political issue from the beginning.

I appreciate your candid admission to that fact.

The reasons for being vaccinated or not or voluminous. The fact that the Democrats are obedient to a dictatorial news media doesn't tell me anything I don't already know about Democrats.

There's a pretty good chance that a lot of Republicans don't have a bunch of comorbidities.

I can think of another explanation the exercise of adult independent judgment about health issues might be one explanation.

Well this post is an indication of some of that. You can't think of any explanation for not getting the vaccine because the dictatorial media has told her you've got to do it. I don't know if you intended to illustrate the point but you certainly have.

Right we wouldn't want anybody to provide a sufficient window for reflection on what they ought to do regarding their health. Therefore we've got to demonize hesitation. It's absolute par for the course.

I would say that you can put that on my tombstone, but I expect to outlive you.
This HCQ was a Fauci wunderdrug 2005. Must be senile and forgot his paper. The dictatorial media has selective memory loss.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
So....spreading lies about Fauci is okay, because he supposedly lied to Congress? Two wrongs make a right?

Here is an analysis of what went on, fact-checked by Newsweek:


This has been dealt with several times on this forum.

The Washington Post also analyzed this, but it is behind a paywall, drat it.

“Dealt with several times” does not make something true.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
This pretty much agrees with what USAToday had in it. The OP is mostly false.
So why didn't your fake check bloggers post this study?
Why do science and medical outsiders use USA as a fake check blogger source?

You seemingly can't answer questions.

USAToday is a science outsider source just like you.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
How can you get a patent on that?
Yeah I think the boys at the Patent Officer not gonna be any help with that. It kind of reminds me of the Three Stooges joke where Curly says "I got a million idea, I'm going to invent potato chip." Mo says "somebody already invented the potato chip." Larry says "yeah, just think of all the advanced publicity."
 

Bonnie

Super Member
So why didn't your fake check bloggers post this study?

It did--a link to it was at the bottom of the USAToday fact check report. It lists all the sources it used to fact check at the bottom,, after the article...you would know that if you had checked out the article--did you? All you had to do was scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Why do science and medical outsiders use USA as a fake check blogger source?

You seemingly can't answer questions.

I answered plenty. Now, did you fact check the OP before you posted it? Yes or no? Will you answer that question?

The USAToday fact check article listed its sources it got its facts from at the bottom of the page--including a link to that HCQ study. Did you see that?
USAToday is a science outsider source just like you.
But the sources USAToday used, and listed, are NOT.
 
Last edited:

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Yeah I think the boys at the Patent Officer not gonna be any help with that. It kind of reminds me of the Three Stooges joke where Curly says "I got a million idea, I'm going to invent potato chip." Mo says "somebody already invented the potato chip." Larry says "yeah, just think of all the advanced publicity."
Isn't it sad to see left wingers lack humor?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Due to the severity of SARS-CoV infection, the potential for rapid spread of the disease, and the absence of proven effective and safe in vivo inhibitors of the virus, it is important to identify drugs that can effectively be used to treat or prevent potential SARS-CoV infections. Many novel therapeutic approaches have been evaluated in laboratory studies of SARS-CoV: notable among these approaches are those using siRNA , passive antibody transfer , DNA vaccination , vaccinia or parainfluenza virus expressing the spike protein , interferons [], and monoclonal antibody to the S1-subunit of the spike glycoprotein that blocks receptor binding . In this report, we describe the identification of chloroquine as an effective pre- and post-infection antiviral agent for SARS-CoV. Chloroquine, a 9-aminoquinoline that was identified in 1934, is a weak base that increases the pH of acidic vesicles. When added extracellularly, the non-protonated portion of chloroquine enters the cell, where it becomes protonated and concentrated in acidic, low-pH organelles, such as endosomes, Golgi vesicles, and lysosomes. Chloroquine can affect virus infection in many ways, and the antiviral effect depends in part on the extent to which the virus utilizes endosomes for entry. Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects .

None of the negativist trolls want to talk science. One wants to peddle the glory and splendor of USAToday tabloid.

I posted on lysosomes on the evo board months ago

Fake checkers at USATOday can't talk shop.

 

Thistle

Well-known member
Isn't it sad to see left wingers lack humor?
You know I'll bet that the Puritans were actually wonderful people with great sense of humor. But the new left is exactly what they imagined that the Puritans were. They are completely humorless, vindictive, graceless people who are anxious to write a scarlet letter on everybody they meet.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
It did--a link to it was at the bottom of the USAToday fact check report. It lists all the sources it used to fact check at the bottom,, after the article...you would know that if you had checked out the article--did you? All you had to do was scroll down to the bottom of the page.


I answered plenty. Now, did you fact check the OP before you posted it? Yes or no? Will you answer that question?

The USAToday fact check article listed its sources it got its facts from at the bottom of the page--including a link to that HCQ study. Did you see that?

But the sources USAToday used, and listed, are NOT.
Here is what Reuters has to say about this 2005 study on HQC, though it does not mention Fauci:


It has multiple links within the article one can click on.

The study’s focus was the then-newly discovered SARS-CoV coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, not the SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19. While the two are both coronaviruses, they are different strains causing different diseases.

The 2005 study could not have investigated chloroquine’s effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 because the latter was not identified until January 2020 following the December 2019 outbreak in Wuhan, China, of what we now know as COVID-19 ( here ).


Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are two related, but different drugs with similar “clinical indications for use” and similar toxicity ( here ).

As of this fact check’s publication, evidence for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness against COVID-19 remains inconclusive.

Note the bolded part.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
None of the negativist trolls want to talk science. One wants to peddle the glory and splendor of USAToday tabloid.

I posted on lysosomes on the evo board months ago

Fake checkers at USATOday can't talk shop.

USAToday isn't about "talking shop" but about investigating the allegations such as what is in your OP. Isn't this the crux of your OP:

The claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci knew of and approved hydroxychloroquine as a cure for coronaviruses in 2005

THIS is what USAToday and other fact-checking websites have been disproving--NOT the research itself.

I hope you can discern the difference now.

Right off the bat, the first claus in your OP has errors:

"The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health"--both of these are false. The Virology Journal is NOT the "officia" publication of the NIH. The NIH Catalyst is.

AND the NIH is NOT Dr. Fauci's. He is NOT the director of the NIH. Dr. Francis Collins, MD, Ph.D is. Fauci is the director of the NIAID--one of 27 different Institutes comprising the NIH.

Here is a list of sites that USAToday to fact check this story:

Our fact-check sources:​


I took out links to all but two of these sources, so as not to break the rules. The 2005 Virology journal story lists 26 contributors at the end of the story--none of which is Fauci. Also, Fauci has no authority to authorize or approve the use of certain medicines.

So, if the article erred in those basic facts, what makes us think the rest will be accurate?
 
Last edited:
Top