You can call me anything you want but you can’t back it up. Do it if you can. Go ahead.
You claimed you READ the STUDIES you posted. THIS was the LIE.
If you did, you would know that the “RIGHT” study did not involve hamsters, nor did it mention “hamster heart model” anywhere. Why did you argue about the definition of hamster heart model when it clearly wasn’t in the “RIGHT”" study if you had read it?
I told you that if you do not read a study, posting it without verifying it’s contents would be irresponsible. I specifically gave you a chance at the time by asking if what you THOUGHT was in the study was solely based on what the author of the ARTICLE that you read had written about the study.
You said “no”, you read the studies.
I can back this up with quotes. Are you sure you still want to deny this?
Why are you still lying your ass off after I posted this? Is this your strategy? Repeat a lie until it becomes true?
“Taking advantage of the trophic effects of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and using a hamster heart failure model , the present study demonstrates a novel noninvasive therapeutic regimen via the direct delivery of MSCs into the skeletal muscle bed. //”
Keep lying, zep. Keep lying.
What are you talking about? EVERY study with an animal model is done so results can be extrapolated for the potential use on humans. The next phase is the HUMAN TRIALS.
Did you just figure this out? You thought they were studying how to treat pet hamsters with heart failure?
Are you now claiming that you knew the study was done on hamsters all along and what you were really saying was the results extrapolated from the “hamster heart model” can be fully applied to humans?
You would still be wrong. And a liar.