Why oh why did you publish this bogus?
Again, to be clear: The transfer of results of an in-vitro study to the effectiveness in humans is not scientifically compelling. Data from an in-vitro study aren't proof of the efficacy of an active ingredient in humans (in-vivo). Read the study: https://rdcu.be/b692N
-
-
-
Този туит не е наличен.
- Показване на отговорите
Нов разговор -
-
-
Reminds me of an old study that found potent antibacterial activity in vitro in an organic extract. A long and expensive purification process finally isolated the antibacterial agent. It was acetic acid: vinegar.
-
..mmh, könnte beim Echinaforce der hochprozentige Alk sein
Край на разговора
Нов разговор -
-
-
This should have been stated clearly in the abstract. People only read the abstract - at best.
-
Already the title starts with "In vitro ...". Any biomedical scientist - the target audience - knows that this specifically does not yet imply activity in humans. A valid critic is that Spiez lab didn't released a properly worded press release for laymen parallel to publication.
Край на разговора
Нов разговор -
-
-
In welcher Verdünnung wurde das Mittel als Kontrolle getestet? Übrigens ist das Fazit dieser in-Vitro Studie: Das Mittel könnte eventuell. möglicherweise irgend etwas prophylaktisches bewirken.
#Echinaforce#Vogel#Echinaceapic.twitter.com/KqnKOeL7ZK
Благодаря. Twitter ще използва това, за да подобри хрониката ти. ОтмянаОтмяна
-
-
-
Fakten interessieren die Boulevard-Fritzen nicht.
Благодаря. Twitter ще използва това, за да подобри хрониката ти. ОтмянаОтмяна
-
-
-
Warum veröffentlichen Sie es dann um Himmels willen?
Благодаря. Twitter ще използва това, за да подобри хрониката ти. ОтмянаОтмяна
-
-
-
Too late, I bought the stuff already.
-
congrats - you get expensive urine.
Край на разговора
Нов разговор -
Изглежда зареждането отнема известно време.
Twitter може да е претоварен или да изпитва моментно затруднение. Опитай отново или виж Twitter Status за повече информация.