And here is the ultimate embarrassment — drawing parallels between how ivermectin might work and how vaccines “don’t depend on their concentration in the body”. Seriously??
To hypothesize even for a microsecond a parallel between the mechanism of action of a small molecule and a vaccine betrays a glaring misunderstanding of biology.
Also, just because *you* don’t know the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin doesn’t mean I didn’t bother to read the papers on it.
It’s quite clear the drug is eliminated from the body in exponentially decaying fashion with the half life being approximately 18 hours.
But you don’t even need to know much biology to know that exponential decay is extremely precipitous. So if the patient last received a dose of IVM in the beginning of last week of treatment, in 3 weeks of follow up, he will have just 0.00000037% left.
Moreover, the patient will have only 15% of the initial concentration left in just TWO DAYS and by day 5 less than 1%.
And the idea that IVM somehow accumulates in fat tissue only to spring into action when needed? This is just comic book grade nonsense.
Why did infrequent IVM dosing work well as prophylaxis against worms? Well, possibly because it was shown to accumulate in worms or their larva inside patients. But this has nothing to do with potential effectiveness against Covid.
Finally, it’s not about falling way below the “Deigin threshold” of effectiveness, it’s about falling way below the minimal concentration which was shown to be associated with at least a SOME effect on inhibiting SARS2 replication in those in vitro studies you love so much.
Should I go on? Really, you’ve only embarrassed yourself so far. This is quite sad, actually.
Oh crap, I split that clip into two parts and uploaded the first part twice. Here is the relevant second part with the “Deigin Threshold” and the quote above:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this thread I will collect all of my responses to B&H's key counterarguments as I heard them on their podcast #87 today:
1⃣ *Bret thinks drugs are dangerous because telomeres*
This part set the stage very well for the festival of incompetence that the podcast turned out to be. Incompetence in drug development, pharmacology, data analysis, statistics, reading comprehension and even basic biology.
Here is the relevant clip and my analysis of Bret's telomere hypothesis:
Ah, the Carvallo Argentinian study that Bret and Heather still seem to trust.
Not sure where they see cowardice or unclear messaging. I have said many times that I don’t trust that study for a second.
And no, I don’t mistrust it because it was “too good to be true”, I don’t trust it because
(1) there’s a huge disparity between the control and treatment group infection rates (0% vs 92% for one hospital), while the background infection rate was 20% in hospital personnel.
(2) their findings are a huge outlier among the dozens of other studies assessing prophylactic efficacy of ivermectin.
Only a naïve person would think that this study must be true while all others must have had some methodological shortcomings.
So the Weinstein household is “a lot skeptical of pills”. Why? Based on Bret’s grad school “discovery” that lab mice have longer telomeres than wild type mice and so he made the leap that this somehow translates into a greatly improved capacity of tolerating toxic insults.
The next giant leap for Weinsteinkind is that this greatly improved capacity of tolerating toxic insults translates into toxicity being somehow underestimated for approved pharmaceuticals. Bret, even if lab mice *were* more tolerant of toxicity, have you heard of Phase I studies?
Phase I studies are clinical trials in healthy human volunteers designed to assess the drug safety in — wait for it — humans, precisely because animal testing does cannot guarantee human safety.
@SharriMarkson have you heard about Australian self-disseminating vaccine efforts mentioned in the above paper?
Also, doesn’t WIV long-time collaborator Linfa Wang work in Australia? Maybe you could talk to him.
I mean SARS2 already exhibits signs of cold adaptation which is a hallmark of vaccine attenuation (to make it prefer the upper respiratory tract, infection in which is less likely to be severe of fatal):