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

21–30 of 127 posts

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

#21

Post by caymanjim »

Factorium wrote: post #14
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…

This is conspiracy dribble. Do you seriously think that there's a room full of executives at Google sitting in the dark rubbing their hands together and cackling as they draw up policies to block beneficial information from spreading so that the pandemic lasts longer and they bring in more revenue?

People don't think like this except in movies. Any effort to do so would be immediately obvious to the people tasked with implementing it. And people don't keep secrets.

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

#22

Post by bsaul »

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?

if you want youtube to get rid of any salesmen touting miracles anything you're going to have to get rid of commercials as well.

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

#23

Post by s1artibartfast »

walterbell wrote: post #20
s1artibartfast wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Most of the unvaccinated deaths are people with no vaccine whatsoever. The number of people who were vaccinated less than 14 days that falls into this category is small.

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

#24

Post by didibus »

Factorium wrote: post #14
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…

I'm with you, but the vaccine is like 32$ per dose, so 64$ total and completely blows out of the water all of those in their effectiveness. A lot of those drugs also have quite the side effects, I don't think it's clear to me they are more/less safe than vaccines.

And then there's the issue that look how many choices there are? And it's still pretty unclear which of all of those is most efficient and how efficient exactly are they, so if you get Covid what do you do? Take 35 different cheap and maybe slightly effective drugs together in a big cocktail?

The other issue is they all mention requiring early treatment, but tests and other ways to detect Covid early aren't readily available or cheap, so do you now take this giant cocktail of mixed drugs every time you have a cold in case it turns out to be early onset Covid? Do you just take them all on a regular basis as a preventative?

My current personal assessment is that the vaccine still absolutely outshines all of these in every single dimension. I really wouldn't say we've found an actual cheap treatment that is truly effective and realistically easy to implement quite yet. While it does seem that we've found multiple vaccines that are.

P.S.: Side note, that website you link is the most random thing, they don't divulge anything about who they are, what's funding it, what's behind them, I only found an FAQ saying: Trust us we're a bunch of smart PHDs not looking for fame and remaining anonymous. Now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are truly well meaning expert in the know, but I also find it sketchy as hell, why not actually disclose who you are and how the operation is financed?

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

#25

Post by walterbell »

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…

Fluvoxamine has been part of some (criticized) protocols

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus...

https://www.treatearly.org/fluvoxamine

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

#26

Post by walterbell »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #23
walterbell wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Most of the unvaccinated deaths are people with no vaccine whatsoever. The number of people who were vaccinated less than 14 days that falls into this category is small.

It means the CDC recognizes that the vaccine is not effective for 14 days, so other known treatments (e.g. fluvoxamine) during that period can be helpful.

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

#27

Post by nradov »

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…

Hardly anything is ever "proven" in medicine, or biology in general. The best we can do are varying levels of probability. So then it becomes a discussion about how to set the minimum acceptable level of confidence.

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

#28

Post by mikeho1999 »

Factorium wrote: post #14
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…

It's useful to note that c19early is backed/funded by FLCCC, which has been widely reported to be a "fringe doctor's" group.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fringe-doctors-gr...

It's also worth noting that the site/group has been banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation about treatment options.

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

#29

Post by loudtieblahblah »

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…

>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct

You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind.

>I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable

Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed.

Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitalizations.

The government could have spent the last 18 months encouraging people to lose weight, stop smoking, drinking, and eating fast food.

The ONLY tool silicon Valley, the msm, much of acamdeia, the DNC and their loyal sycophants care about is the vaccines and even the slightest discussion of any potential alternative gets promoted as inherently anti-vaxx even if it could be used in conjunction with vaccines

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

#30

Post by didibus »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #19
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.

Why does it say:

> We found a clinically important absolute risk reduction of 5·0%, and 32% RR reduction, on the primary outcome of hospitalisation

Why is the absolute 5% and the RR 32%? What's the difference?

Also why does it say:

> There were no significant differences between fluvoxamine and placebo for viral clearance at day 7 (p=0·090) and hospitalisations due to COVID (p=0·10), all-cause hospitalisations (p=0·09), time to hospitalisation (p=0·11), number of days in hospital (p=0·06), mortality (p=0·24), time to death (p=0·49), number of days on mechanical ventilation (p=0·90), time to recovery (p=0·79) or the PROMIS Global Physical (p=0·55) or Mental Scale (p=0·32)

And they say in the Interpretation section:

> Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital

Why wouldn't they mention anything else but the reduction in hospitalization in their Interpretation section? Is it because all the other effects were not statistically significant to count?

Post reply on HN