Now the Experts submitted their second rebuttal
Opinion Report #1
First Conclusion on Dr. McCormack’s Report
Dr. McCormack’s surrebuttal dismisses the ELISA immune study, maintaining his stance that in-vitro research alone is insufficient to support health claims.
He argues that only placebo-controlled human clinical trials can establish efficacy for COVID-19 or other diseases.
However, his critique overlooks the fundamental purpose of the ELISA study, to demonstrate immune system interaction, not to claim direct treatment.
While he acknowledges in-vitro studies as an early step, he disregards their value in understanding immune modulation, which is a key foundation for future clinical research.
Opinion Report #2
Conclusion on Dr. Dos Santos’ Report
Dr. Dos Santos maintains that the additional ELISA immune study does not change his prior conclusions.
He continues to classify B4B Earth Tea as an unapproved drug under FDA regulations and dismisses the study’s findings, arguing that in-vitro results cannot confirm real world efficacy.
He further critiques the study’s methodology, questioning sample sources, controls, and interpretation of cytokine activity.
However, his analysis overlooks the study’s core purpose, to demonstrate immune interaction and modulation, a foundational step in scientific research. Rather than engaging with the data, he focuses on regulatory classifications, disregarding the potential of plant-based immune support.
Conclusion on the Expert Reports
The expert reports by Dr. McCormack and Dr. Dos Santos demonstrate a clear bias against the presented scientific evidence without conducting any independent testing, analysis, or meaningful scientific rebuttal. Rather than engaging with the data from the ELISA immune study, which shows significant immune system interaction and 99% inhibition of the spike protein, both experts dismiss the findings outright based solely on the fact that they are in-vitro.
Instead of addressing the implications of cytokine modulation and spike protein inhibition, they focus on regulatory classifications and past marketing claims, avoiding any discussion of the study’s actual results. Their approach reflects preconceived conclusions rather than scientific objectivity, as they refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that a plant-based product could provide measurable immune support.
By disregarding the study’s findings without testing or counter-evidence, their reports highlight a systemic bias against natural health solutions, favoring a regulatory framework that excludes any product not developed within the pharmaceutical model.
Next Update March 18, 2025 When we meet and I shall request the Trial process gets started.