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

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#11

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #6
londons_explore wrote: post #3

So... How was this not discovered 18 months ago? There are plenty of people taking fluvoxamine already, which acts as a natural experiment. After a few thousand hospitalizations, this effect size would have been obvious (ie. March 2020). At that point, a double-blind study could have been run, which (if done in a city with many infections) could have given results within weeks. What bit of health research dropped the…

Wouldn't this sort of "obvious" link require tracking every patients entire history? Couldn't it be lost in other confounding factors? This seems like it would require a lot of good data and then strong analysis chops to pull that pattern out.

But this is exactly where we should double our efforts, because the problem is technical: we do have lots of data to analyze already.

The influence of anti-histamine drugs was relatively quickly discovered because everybody expected asthma patients would get worse and the opposite was happening, so this was an obvious thing to examine. But many more drugs may play a role and these are hiding in plain sight - I hope researchers try to organize around it and make more meaningful discoveries.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#12

Post by bananapear »

bhouston wrote: post #8
hhw3h wrote: post #5

What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. That content got banned from YouTube. Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? In the desire to drive official therapeutics and vaccines was this potentially not surfaced as fast as it could have been? I'm not sure. It's good food for thought though.

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scien…

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud).

YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment.

Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses).

Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$).

Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#13

Post by didibus »

I'm not super familiar with how to interpret the statistics in the paper, am I correct in understanding that it showed a 5% reduction in hospitalizations?

And it seems there was no significant effect on death?

If someone knows how to read this, can you chime in?

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#14

Post by Factorium »

hhw3h wrote: post #5

What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. That content got banned from YouTube. Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? In the desire to drive official therapeutics and vaccines was this potentially not surfaced as fast as it could have been? I'm not sure. It's good food for thought though.

There's an entire suite of cheap drugs with proven positive effects when administered early:

https://c19early.com/

Alphabet profits are up 68% because people are forced online. If there is cheap and effective COVID treatment, the world goes back to normal. Its a huge conflict of interest. Same goes for Facebook and the other tech companies.

By contrast, look at Apple's muted COVID efforts. They want people out in the real world, mobile, taking photos, comparing expensive hardware and living life.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#15

Post by gzer0 »

bananapear wrote: post #12
bhouston wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scien…

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that…

> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud).

No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1].

[1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#16

Post by bananapear »

gzer0 wrote: post #15
bananapear wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that…

> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#17

Post by silverpepsi »

omegaworks wrote: post #10
hhw3h wrote: post #5

What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. That content got banned from YouTube. Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? In the desire to drive official therapeutics and vaccines was this potentially not surfaced as fast as it could have been? I'm not sure. It's good food for thought though.

American history is littered with medical salesmen touting miracle cures to desperate ill people. Would you prefer our modern communication mediums be saturated with their pitches or do we want to wait until there is a reasonable scientific consensus before unleashing re-engagement algorithms?

I want to see everyone's true face bright and clear so I don't lose my own ability to filter them accordingly.

It's like, do you want the friends you meet at church to be actual Christians? Well good then, stop having a damned society where atheism is so taboo that the church aisles are filled with atheists terrified of the consequences of not showing up on Sunday morning. This is still a real serious issue in the bible belt and Moslem world, etc..

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#18

Post by ahazred8ta »

didibus wrote: post #13

I'm not super familiar with how to interpret the statistics in the paper, am I correct in understanding that it showed a 5% reduction in hospitalizations? And it seems there was no significant effect on death? If someone knows how to read this, can you chime in?

A reduction from 16% to 11%, in a group that was high risk due to age or medical conditions. So that's a 1/3rd reduction.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#19

Post by s1artibartfast »

didibus wrote: post #13

I'm not super familiar with how to interpret the statistics in the paper, am I correct in understanding that it showed a 5% reduction in hospitalizations? And it seems there was no significant effect on death? If someone knows how to read this, can you chime in?

It showed a 32% reduction in hospitalization and approx 31% reduction in deaths.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#20

Post by walterbell »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #9
ericmay wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Combined with vaccines we should be able to save more people!

Hopefully it will also help with mortality in the unvaccinated, which is driving >90% of US deaths

Where the CDC definition of "unvaccinated" includes those who received a vaccine less than 14 days before an event.
Post reply on HN