i suspect you well know that they did not just discover it now. i suspect you well know that it was shown to bind to most, if not all, enveloped viruses several years ago. i suspect you know that, for that reason, the DTRA initiative worked with it and acknowledged that what PPHM claimed about binding was true....it is very, very well documented. the issue has had more to do with the MOA. you certainly know that was not well-understood at the time, which has a lot to do with why PPHM's story has moved at a glacial pace.
you were one of the loudest voices laughing when the MOA became understood, and PPHM proclaimed that it revved up the immune system as an upstream checkpoint agent, with you and others claiming that since it 'failed' in early cancer trials (which it may or may not have, depending on who you believe), they 'changed' what it did. you also know, or should know, that numerous recent studies now indicate that there is an immune system effect that this compound has that may, that's MAY, increase the effectiveness of certain chemos and radiation therapies in oncology.
ignoring progress in science has not heretofore been a hallmark of this board.
maybe the stuff will be a flop in the long run, maybe it won't be.
given the fact that we all claim to respect open-mindedness, it seems reasonable to me that we should all consider current science on its merits rather than on earlier impressions which may or may not have been convincing.
i can handle snooty retorts from whoever gets the urge, if anybody does, but note that i have not attacked anyone, and this post is on topic. it should be responded to with facts, not a deletion.
