Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#231

Post by ziml77 »

podgaj wrote: post #168
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #121

Like any SSRI, Fluvoxamine can cause permanent sexual dysfunction. SSRI should not be used unless their potential benefit is greater than the potential risk of permanent sexual dysfunction. Even short term SSRI administration can be very uncomfortable and lead to short term SSRI discontinuation syndrome. I know doctors treat SSRI like „let’s try, might help, can’t hurt“ candy, but they really shouldn‘t.

It is not permanent, the SD goes away after about a month of stopping prozac. It has a long half life so it can seem like forever though.

You don't even have to stop taking it for that side effect to wear off. The amount of time it took for me to relieve sexual tension when I started on SSRIs was crazy. Many times I just gave up and tried again later. But it got better over the course of a few weeks and eventually got back to how I was before I started the SSRI.

This isn't a guarantee that they will affect everyone the same way, but you can't judge SSRIs by the period when you're starting them.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#232

Post by weird-eye-issue »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #218
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you guys are talking about. It's just going to make you feel worse. You want to be sick and drunk/high? Sounds miserable

I grew up in the Soviet Russia. Vodka cures everything. Prove me wrong! Ok, I was making a joke in the original reply to begin with

Okay that makes sense, I was confused

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#233

Post by [deleted] »

twofornone wrote: post #56
onion2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this isn't attacked, because this isn't an "alternative" drug. Things move from "alternative medicine" to being "medicine" when people do good, peer-reviewed science to actually study the effects and find them to be effective. "Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used.

>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. Similarly the single trial that the media touted as "proof" that HCQ did not work administered what amounted to an overdose to terminally ill patients, in contrast to the recommended early/prophylactic regimen. Th…

[deleted]

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#234

Post by [deleted] »

twofornone wrote: post #196
nuerow wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not very helpful to just describe a study you simply recall based on memory. Actually it is. The whole point of that was to illustrate the importance of actually looking into what these papers actually said, if they exist at all, instead of pulling the appeal to authority card with numbers pulled out of thin air. The OP asserted that ivermectin worked. He proceeded to state that 60 papers report it. Well... Wh…

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I linked you a compendium of 60 papers. Surely you can cherry pick one or two and claim poor quality. >I couldn't help but notice your use of purposely vague and misleading weasel words such as "positive effect". This isn't a weasel word, this is exactly the correct term to capture the uncertainty considering that there has to my knowledge not been a large scale double blind RCT. B…

[deleted]

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#235

Post by [deleted] »

m0zg wrote: post #94
DantesKite wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you continue having issues, consider taking NAC. It's very commonly used to treat bronchitis and my asthmatic mother has had tremendous success with it.

FDA banned OTC NAC sales after it found out it might help with COVID [1]. Can't have that. And yeah, I know you're suggesting it for something else, but it's hard to get now. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7649937/

[deleted]

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#236

Post by jollybean »

timr wrote: post #214
jollybean wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and the rest of the evidence is mixed." That means it (probably) doesn't work. They've given Ivermectin to a lot of people by now - if it was a solution, then it would stand out. The Oxford trial will give us a better answer but I'm doubtful.

No, it doesn't. That's a leap to a conclusion. Why not just stop doing that, and wait for the data?

'Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand.

If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not.

We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes.

Here is Merk's statement:

" It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

    No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 
    No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 
    A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."
While it would be good if the Oxford trials showed something, they probably won't.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#237

Post by 6nf »

argonaut wrote: post #157
6nf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that it was approved in July and your source predates this but I could be wrong What do you say to the multitude of positive studies though? https://c19ivermectin.com/ Are all of them wrong?

This epidemiologist points out several major flaws with that website. For one, the website selectively picks the best result from each paper, which results in the website aggregating a bunch of unrelated measurements, including measurements that were not even each paper's main outcome/measurement. https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947

I'd like to see an alternative meta-study if one is available, do you know if a better meta-study exists?

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#238

Post by _huayra_ »

tinus_hn wrote: post #156
_huayra_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so strange how people are looking to truly foreign substances / drugs (from ivermectin to bleach to SSRIs now) compared to a vaccine, which is basically just a bunch of mRNA and a few preservatives. That is, a bunch of stuff that is basically already floating around in our bodies / cells.

One difference is that ivermectin has been safely used for many years while mRNA vaccines are rather new.

mRNA vaccines are not really new [0]. This article [1] specifically shows that we've used the mechanisms of mRNA vaccines since the 70s, and at least modern iterations of mRNA vaccines since ~10 years ago.

Even if they were new, they're just a bunch of the same sort of genetic material that is already floating around in our bodies, not some external foreign substance that interacts with our cells.

[0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-v... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#239

Post by timr »

jollybean wrote: post #236
timr wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. That's a leap to a conclusion. Why not just stop doing that, and wait for the data?

'Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand. If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not. We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes. Here is Merk's statement: " It is important to note…

> Non results' from 'not good studies' are negative indicators - not 'neutral' indicators. That's they key thing to understand.

No, that's a thing you made up. The biggest problem with the "not good studies" of Ivermectin is that they've been underpowered or poorly controlled. The efficacy signal ranges from neutral to strongly positive, but the neutral signal could be due to under-powered studies. The positive results could be due to confounders. Neither are "negative indicators". That's silly. It's like saying that having weak efficacy data for a drug in vitro is a "negative indicator" prior to trials. Any efficacy data is a positive indicator. Some positive indicators are stronger than others.

The Merck quote is an opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, but it's not definitive.

The point is: we'll see. You don't need to predict the future. You can just wait for the data. Science is great that way. Everything else is politics.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#240

Post by jokethrowaway »

nonomaybeyes wrote: post #139
lettergram wrote: post #46

Glad to see this being spoken about! I’ve been assisting with data analysis for an eclectic group of people (who funded this study). Been really disheartening to watch the politics around alternative treatments. Personally, I expect this to be attacked as well, but am hopeful! The stuff really does seem effective, particularly when combined with other drugs...

> Personally, I expect this to be attacked as well, but am hopeful! At least it can't be called a "horse dewormer".

CNN: "Joe Rogan cures COVID with medicines for the mentally ill"
Post reply on HN