437 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #405

 

Read this and perhaps you will be able to understand why my assertions were correct. In the event you can't understand the study let me know and I'll help you out.

[Hip]

Re post #405

 

Read this and perhaps you will be able to understand why my assertions were correct. In the event you can't understand the study let me know and I'll help you out.

 

Your last assertion appeared to be that watching Netflix is an antiviral.

Edited by Hip, 28 March 2024 - 06:09 AM.

[Mind]

A recent meta analysis was not analyzed properly and wrongly concluded that Ivermectin is NOT beneficial in the treatment of COVID. Once the data was corrected, it clearly shows a benefit with the use of Ivermectin.

 

For anyone who read all of the peer-reviewed RCT research and observational data posted in this discussion, it was pretty obvious that Ivermectin was beneficial. As was typical during the COVID panic, it was the US/UK governments that were spreading misinformation about Ivermectin (and many other things.

[Mind]

An independent reviewer was aghast at how many ivermectin trials for COVID were designed to fail - a charge levelled by many other scientists and research groups around the world.

[Hip]

An independent reviewer was aghast at how many ivermectin trials for COVID were designed to fail - a charge levelled by many other scientists and research groups around the world.

 

This article wrong asserts that ivermectin is antiviral:

 

Ivermectin inhibits the entire life cycle of SARS-CoV-2 in our cells from attachment, spreading, and replication (1, 2, 3).

 

If the article authors get that wrong, what other errors have they made?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #425

 

"This article wrong asserts that ivermectin is antiviral:"

 

By definition, ivermectin is an antiviral.

 

Read references (1, 2, 3) to see why your unreferenced claim is wrong. If you believe that references 1, 2., and 3 (in your second quote) are wrong, then state your objections, countervailing arguments, and provide citations to substantiate them (hint--you won't be able to refute the conclusions).

[Hip]

Re: post #425
 
"This article wrong asserts that ivermectin is antiviral:"[/size]
 
By definition, ivermectin is an antiviral.
 
Read references (1, 2, 3) to see why your unreferenced claim is wrong. If you believe that references 1, 2., and 3 (in your second quote) are wrong, then state your objections, countervailing arguments, and provide citations to substantiate them (hint--you won't be able to refute the conclusions).

 

 

Advocatus Diaboli, as we established, you believe that Netflix is an antiviral, so you cannot be involved in any rational discussion on antivirals.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Advocatus Diaboli, as we established, you believe that Netflix is an antiviral, so you cannot be involved in any rational discussion on antivirals.

 

Why do you pursue lines of argument like this? You know you are not arguing in good faith. AD sent you a link to a general description of "antiviral". Then you make this bizarre leap to Netflix?

 

I don't get it.

[Hip]

Why do you pursue lines of argument like this? You know you are not arguing in good faith. AD sent you a link to a general description of "antiviral". Then you make this bizarre leap to Netflix?

 

I don't get it.

 

It's only worth engaging with people who have a reasonable understanding of medical science, or who are interested in learning more. AD is using an English dictionary to get his understanding of antivirals. That's laughable; it shows a complete dearth of any medical knowledge. As I previously pointed out to AD, by the English dictionary definition, Netflix would be classed as a antiviral (as staying home watching movies takes you out of social circulation, and thus reduces your chances of catching something). Clearly this is not the understanding that pharmaceutical companies have of antiviral chemical compounds. 

 

I'd get a more intelligent debate on antivirals if I spoke to a 7 year old.

 

AD is essentially trolling here, by trying to turn intelligent debate into a farce.  

 

 

For me this is very sad, as I do enjoy discussing science.

Edited by Hip, 11 April 2024 - 10:42 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post # 429

 

"For me this is very sad, as I do enjoy discussing science."

 

Read references 1, 2, and 3 found in the article Mind linked to in post #424. Then, give your reason(s) for discounting the results of those studies. Include citations that back up your claims. Present your findings in a form that reflects how you would present them in a scientific discussion.

[Hip]

Re: post # 429

 

"For me this is very sad, as I do enjoy discussing science."

 

Read references 1, 2, and 3 found in the article Mind linked to in post #424. Then, give your reason(s) for discounting the results of those studies. Include citations that back up your claims. Present your findings in a form that reflects how you would present them in a scientific discussion.

 

Do you not remember my posts where, for your benefit, I went into great detail about the mechanisms of action of pharmaceutical antivirals, and explained in detail why ivermectin is not antiviral in vivo. You did not respond to those posts, nor thank me for the effort involved in writing them. 

 

And now you ask me to go through the same process again? 

Edited by Hip, 11 April 2024 - 11:28 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #431

 

"Do you remember..."

 

Yes, I do remember. In post #396 of this thread you made your claims. I responded in post #397. Then, in post #405, you proceeded, in your typically desultory and verbose fashion, to avoid responding to my claims about in vitro hepatic metabolization of ivermectin. Where "hepatic", in context, refers to a human liver, including concomitant bodily interactions and reactions to the liver's metabolization processes that aren't operant in vitro.

 

Subsequently, in post #421, I presented a link, which you clearly didn't read, that refutes your contentions. Instead of commenting on the link, your response (post #422) was to introduce your "Netflix" nonsense.

 

"You did not respond to those posts..."

 

Confabulation, at best. More likely intentional prevarication. Or, a manifestation of acute hippocampal damage.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 12 April 2024 - 01:20 AM.

[Hip]

Then, in post #405, you proceeded, in your typically desultory and verbose fashion, to avoid responding to my claims about in vitro hepatic metabolization of ivermectin. Where "hepatic", in context, refers to a human liver, including concomitant bodily interactions and reactions to the liver's metabolization processes that aren't operant in vitro.

 

I did not comment on your post, because it was a silly argument. 

 

Your argument in that post seems to be the following nonsensical idea:

 

"OK, ivermectin is not antiviral in vivo. But ivermectin is metabolised and broken down into other compounds in the liver, and some of those metabolites could conceivably be antiviral against SARS-CoV-2".

 

 

Well that applies to most drugs and substances. Most drugs are metabolised by the body, and broken down into other compounds in the liver and other places. And the metabolites do have different biological effects than the parent compound. But you cannot assume that the metabolites are going to act as an antiviral in the body.

 

So you are grasping at straws to say that: "maybe, just maybe, one of ivermectin's metabolites might have an antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2". 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post#433

 

"Your argument in that post seems to be the following nonsensical idea:"

 

"OK, ivermectin is not antiviral in vivo. But ivermectin is metabolised and broken down into other compounds in the liver, and some of those metabolites could conceivably be antiviral against SARS-CoV-2".

 

My argument is not your distortion of what I claim. My argument is that ivermectin is antiviral in vivo, not the "is not", you are trying to attribute to me, in the above, because in vitro doesn't account for missing (or additional) ivermectin metabolites that can be found in vivo but not in vitro (again, refer to my link).

 

"So you are grasping at straws to say that: "maybe, just maybe, one of ivermectin's metabolites might have an antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2". "

 

My assertion that ivermectin is antiviral, is apodictic. It is not one of your putting-words-in-my-mouth "maybe" variety. Time and again Mind, et al., have provided numerous references demonstrating the effectiveness of ivermectin as an antiviral. For some reason, you are in denial.

[Hip]

My assertion that ivermectin is antiviral, is apodictic.

 

Your assertion that ivermectin is antiviral in vivo is not apodictic, but apocryphal.    

 

Like so many others, you got on the alternative media bandwagon, jumping to the conclusion that ivermectin is antiviral in vivo, because some patients improve when they take ivermectin. But this logic is flawed. 

 

The flawed logic appears to be: "sick COVID patients improve on ivermectin, therefore ivermectin must be having an antiviral action in the body".

 

But this is not a safe assumption. Ivermectin may well improve COVID patients, but that does not in itself prove the mechanism is antiviral. There are numerous mechanisms by which a drug could help COVID, but not be antiviral. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #435

 

Procure a box of Kleenex, a branks, and some duct tape.

 

Point your browser at perplexity.ai .

 

Type the query: "is ivermectin an antiviral in vivo". 

 

Follow up with "list your citations"

 

Wipe your tears away with Kleenex.

 

Don the branks.

 

Then have someone duct-tape your hands closed, and any other bodily parts that you may be using for typing.

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 12 April 2024 - 03:28 AM.

[Hip]

I really cannot understand why you have such learning difficulties, AD. You are so slow to take on board any information presented. I've provided copious explanations for why ivermectin has no demonstrable antiviral effect in vivo, yet this seems to go in one ear, and come out the other. 

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

What part of "Then have someone duct-tape your hands closed, and any other bodily parts that you may be using for typing." did you not understand. The suggestion was for your own benefit--i.e. not making a fool of yourself once again.

 

Oh well.