Avigan (favivipir) in early studies may be taken orally and was found to be equally effective to remdesivir
Richard, didn’t they explain to you during your supposed PhD what an acceptable reference looks like? 
Zeus46
Member
- Member since Sep 22nd 2016
Posts by Zeus46
-
-
Thanks for the study that has been done on asymptomatic patients only. All old references are from stage III patients not from stage I/II.
These “old references” of yours are a fantasy. They don’t exist. Otherwise you wouldn’t be posting 20 year old BBC articles - that make zero claims of efficacy anyway.
Please give the links if you disagree… Although at this point it seems Wyttenfact status is all but assured.
-
Why is that that anti-vaxxers can never admit when that they are wrong?
Dr Richard is unable to offer any evidence for his wild claim that Avigan is as effective as Paxlovid, so offers some nonsense about them having the “same method of action” - which is only true in only the very broadest sense, as they both inhibit a (different) protease.
Wyttenbach, a buffoon who earlier claimed that Sutherlandia has a “50% success rate” at treating AIDS, now wants to pretend that a 20 year old article (which mentions that a clinical trial may take place in the future) is somehow relevant!
He doesn’t link to an actual clinical trial -because they all show Sutherlandia is not effective at treating AIDS. For example:
Consumption of Sutherlandia frutescens by HIV-Seropositive South African Adults: An Adaptive Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled TrialSutherlandia frutescens (L.) R. Br. is widely used as an over the counter complementary medicine and in traditional medications by HIV seropositive adults…www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov -
Sutherlandia has been used for AIDS therapy long before any drugs have been available. It's success rate has been a very high 50% compared to 0 with no therapy.
Nonsense. Another Wyttenfact.
Although I did find this paper:
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/asr/article/download/74296/64942
In South Africa the uncertainty surrounding Sutherlandia is evidenced in newspaper banners and online sites that refer to ‘the great Sutherlandia debate’, or ask ‘Sutherlandia: miracle herb or poison?’ . News of the clinical trials was similarly met with mixed and ambiguous responses. A professional body for doctors lauded this as scientific progress, but simultaneously added that they had collected abundant testimonies that traditional healers use human body parts in herbal mixtures.
An activist non- governmental organisation that promotes access to and the use of antiretrovirals, the interests and rights of people who are HIV positive or are living with AIDS, expressed scepticism about Sutherlandia and its trials. A spokesperson correctly stated that all the pharmacological compounds in the plant is not yet known to science and warned against the use of plant medicines based in ‘belief ’ rather than ‘fact’.
LOL
…and that was the second link under ‘sutherlandia aids clinical trial’
-
And Sutherlandia is what Muti men resort to after they run out of Albino body parts
-
So let's resolve our little row with Zeus46 - which anti-retroviral would you take given a cheap tried and tested (Avigan) or the new little - tested Paxlovid?
A row? I don’t think so. You’ve been challenged back up your daft claim that avigan is as effective as paxlovid. You can’t, as it this doesn’t exist. That you fail to understand this means that any discussion is pointless.
-
However my reservation is simply that other, cheaper, well-tested anti-retrovirals such as favivipir (Avigan) are known to be equally effective [as Paxlovid] and may be taken orally.
This statement is just obvious nonsense. It has no basis in reality… It mocks your claim of any “expertise in the medical field because you have a biophysics PhD”
-
Representing this new challenge are a new breed of cyber experts who do not accept a narrative as is. They question everything, and offer up their own theories backed by solid science.
This is knows as “doing your own research” by its proponents… and is generally a bad idea for at least half of the population.
You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To ScienceResearch is for the experts. Listen to them instead.www.forbes.com -
but do you THHuxleynew have the expertise in the medical field to decide which articles published today are 'good' and which are 'bad'? I do, because I have a biophysics PhD.
Why then do you say silly things like:
Paxlovid has no anti-viral properties other than what the drug companies synthesize by their BS propaganda.
-
As for halucinogenics for depression it is not a stupid idea and I believe has some concrete science behind it. Not sure if it will work though.
It’s interesting that they give one big dose and see long-lasting effects, rather than the daily dosing of standard anti-depressants.
But it makes sense that forcing a depressed mind well outside of its normal experience can give a lasting understanding that its normal experience is solely limited by its own perception of reality.
The patients are likely experiencing a lot of nausea though. Similar chemicals with fewer side effects are likely not being tried for reasons of political acceptability.
I've done it. I love becoming an instant expert on anything under the sun, and using that knowledge.
A while ago I successfully defended my driving license in magistrates court, using info gleaned from the internet.
By the time the the clerk raised a highly detrimental (to me) piece of case law, I had realised she was blagging it as much as I was, and was prepared to blindly accept my statements about what was relevant or not, presumably in order to avoid looking silly in front the (lay) magistrates.
-
Early on in the Rossi years I believe he claimed to know calorimetry, and had offered (with Rothwell I believe) to test an Ecat. Whatever he was, it was always fun debating him.
If you remember, he actually claimed to be a “World Class Expert” in calorimetry (to much derision).
-
Perhaps if you read the paper, you would understand why they also reported the results from a subset of the placebo group.
(It’s almost like having SOT back with us!)
-
Not all to your or my liking, but as a whole we have a lot to offer.
You’re right. There is lots to offer, for sure! My favourite bit was the ‘the graphene in vaccines makes you magnetic and gives you a MAC address’ part. Closely followed by pretty much anything Navid says.
FM1 claiming a vaccine injury and vaccine related clotting…12 months after getting his shot, (and a month after having covid) was also
a highlight. an interesting insight into the mind of an anti-vaxxer. Pardon me. -
288 completed the trial on the placebo side not 679. The effect of ivermectin looks a lot better with accurate numbers
Such a dumb comment shows that you haven’t bothered to properly read, let alone understand, the paper that you attempt to criticise. I wonder which website mislead you into thinking this?
…From the per-protocol group: 82 out of 624 ivermectin recipients (13.1%) ended up in hospital. In the placebo group 40 out of 288 patients (13.9%) ended up in hospital.
-
Speculation on your part.
For sure… Thats why I prefaced it with “I believe”. Also, you claim to not know his professional background, which is somewhat surprising:
OK Shane. I'll go this far. I have an M.D. from a major US University. I did one year of internal medicine residency at a large city university medical center and a two year postdoctoral fellowship also at a major center. I also have varied experience with basic and applied research in medicine and biophysics. I was an assistant professor of medicine and assistant dean at a US medical school.
I happen to think my speculation probably accurate: Imagine… He was finally in his element, instead of floundering around and being mocked for his weak grasp of physics, he got to explain - even show off a bit - his core competency. He worked in a medical school FFS! His wanting to share knowledge, and try to improve others’ understanding is basically a given.
But… if you read the last posts of his, you just see a man frustrated at being ignored. People here had access to a real doctor who could explain complex stuff to them, but instead chose to bombard him with their own dangerous ideas about wholly unproven treatments, even after he explained why they were talking nonsense!
If I remember correctly SOT was stocking up on hydrozychloroquine
Well it would seem that you are blessed with a selective memory.
This pretty well ends the bullsh*t about hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin being effective. 96,000 patients reviewed. Across several levels of severity. vs non-treated controls. Results suggest the drugs may make things worse and have no overall benefit.
Having invested almost $1000 to obtain plenty of HCQ and Azi from the US, Canada and India, I am not happy to see this. -
Now I wonder about members like Oldguy and SevenofTwenty and how they're doing.
Oldguy is alive and kicking, and apparently working in his lab, according a post he made under a new username.
SevenOfTwenty seems to be OK, despite a rumour to the contrary. He’s still fit to practise medicine, at least.
I believe he left in disgust at the obstinate behaviour of several people in this thread, who appear to think they know more the entire medical establishment, thanks to their medical degrees obtained from the hallowed University of Google.
-
While we are on the topic of, erm, dubious websites that people here like to quote from… I was looking at some old posts linking to http://www.globalresearch.ca , which was/is an anti-vax propaganda site, and also a website that has been theorised by many to be a kremlin-funded disinformation outlet.
A couple of days ago I thought it would be amusing to find what their hot take on the Ukraine situation is. I wasn’t disappointed. But during the writing of this post I found out some sad news:
The forum members most suckered in by their nonsense were ‘Toffoli’ (now banned, for being too kooky for even this thread), followed by ‘Lou Pagnucco’, then Wyttenbach, then FM1.
Lou and I even had a brief discussion where he sarcastically denied the obvious Russian influence behind the antivax propaganda he was posting, following up with several links to Robert Kennedy Jr’s anti-vax propaganda site over the next few months, before ultimately going quiet.
So… The sad news is that I found Lou’s obituary online. He died aged 73. On the 30th of September, at the peak of the delta variant death toll in the USA… Which potentially means nothing at all, beyond the coincidence.
-
So posting an article by another scientist with a different viewpoint from yours
John Tierney is not a scientist, he’s a journalist who graduated in “American Studies”.
-
The together trials conclusions are fraud pure and simple.
They show a result, albeit weakly in favour of ivermectin, but that does not rise above significance.
Or other words… A null result.
Presumably you have repeated their Baysian credible interval calculations and found an error?
-
I would do it myself, but my interest in the pandemic is waning. Here in Florida where I live, it has been "normal" for almost 2 years. We never did another lockdown after the first. There were no vaccine mandates, and except for a brief period masks have been optional. Life has moved on.
Never heard of the Daily Expose BTW until reading the article. Just another article on the internet. Maybe you and THH can give me a list of sites I am authorized to read? You both seem fixated on where those with different opinions get their information. While you are at it, maybe you two can give us a list of your news sources?Yep the pandemics been over for ages here, I’ve been catching up on two years worth of holidays, and even my father, who currently has little immune system to speak of, managed to quickly shake off a bout of omicron. (With a little help from some paxlovid - a purposely targeted antiviral, which showed such obvious efficacy in trials, that it makes ivermectin research look like a ghost hunt in comparison). So yes… Little point in paying much attention now, other than for the circus act.
My list of news sources is whatever pops up on google news. Its easy to distinguish editorial from factual content with mainstream sources. And on blogs its easy to spot the cranks vs those who are able to present nuanced am complex arguments. Have a look at sciencebasedmedicine, or oracknows. The BBC is good too. Although the level of misinformation in the media is generally lower over here.
