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

51–60 of 127 posts

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

#51

Post by defaultname »

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.

"What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein."

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-...

To be clear, the researchers kept doing research and progressing. Whether some layman could tout it, mixing their advocacy with a myriad of disproved cures (along with anti-vax disinformation), had positively zero bearing on what they were doing, and if anything is a massive distraction.

Talking about something by sharing a Facebook post or posting a YouTube video or even HN comment has a negligible to negative effect on actual efforts.

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

#52

Post by api »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #29
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…

>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 hospitaliza…

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

Medicine is perhaps the field least amenable to this.

It's so hard to figure out what drugs and therapies even work that full-time Ph.D and MD level experts in biology and medicine very often get things very wrong. Look at fat, cholesterol, sugar, and how certain foods like eggs have been classified as healthy or unhealthy multiple times. These people are not idiots nor are they all involved in some conspiracy. It's just unbelievably hard to disambiguate all the confounding factors and see actual cause and effect with a system as complex as the human body.

Even highly educated highly intelligent laypeople don't stand a chance against quacks. Anything can be made to sound plausible in medicine.

You might say "well then couldn't they be wrong about the vaccines?" The answer is that yes, they could. It's just that medical experts have maybe a 60-70% chance of getting everything wrong vs a 99.9% chance for the general public.

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

#53

Post by AnthonBerg »

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.

Kirsch happened to spoon a lot of, well, BS and absolutely unwarranted conclusions and certainty. This is always harmful, and is probably what was banned.

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

#54

Post by cheaprentalyeti »

javagram wrote: post #40
bananapear wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.

If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?

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

#55

Post by inside65 »

javagram wrote: post #40
bananapear wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.

That's clearly not what the original post was suggesting and yet someone went out of their way to change the focus to the political narrative of taking animal dosages.

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

#56

Post by didibus »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #31
didibus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

>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? This is mostly a self imposed US problem. In many parts of Europe, you can get a ra…

Is that their actual cost or are they subsidized?

Also, I thought that even with symptoms the false positive rate was about 30% for rapid tests. If so, just that would possibly offset the effect of the best currently known treatment which based on the OPs website is fluvoxamine and the study here says a 32% reduction. But if about 30% of people who have Covid think they don't because of the false positive rate of the rapid test, they won't take the drug early enough and that could offset the effects.

And there's all the other issues I brought up too. I still feel even with cheap rapid tests, I'm not sure those are effective and practical enough to bet on them over vaccines.

I absolutely think it's great as a complimentary and multi-targeted strategy to fight Covid though. And in some countries without access to vaccines, if fluvoxamine is available, it definitely seems like it can help save some lives, and that's a great thing. It just seems far from a panacea, while vaccines honestly are feeling very close to be a panacea.

I think what's more interesting to me with these, is that they can possibly lead to an understanding of the mechanisms at play that create or mitigate hospitalization, and maybe with that understanding we could pin point some new drugs that targets those more aggressively. Definitely hoping to see more research there.

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

#57

Post by AnthonBerg »

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…

People have indeed been saying that this might work, how it would work, that it appeared that it did work, and that it urgently needed studying for a quite some time.

There was also indeed a French observational study that showed that people on SSRIs did notably better among those hospitalized for COVID. And a few other smaller studies.

I’d suggest looking towards Dr. Angela Reiersen and Dr. Farid Jalali and see if their words haven’t been making consistent sense for a while now.

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

#58

Post by cheaprentalyeti »

mikeho1999 wrote: post #28
Factorium wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Welcome to the Circular Logic Merry Go Round, where we need to ban people because they're wrong because of course they're wrong, they were banned on twitter....

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

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #54
javagram wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.

If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?

Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though.

The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.

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

#60

Post by AnthonBerg »

walterbell wrote: post #25
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

Indeed. It’s good at this point to trace why fluvoxamine has been part of those recommendations – it’s based on theory and studies, the same previous work as this current, larger, and better powered study is based on.

(The criticism of the protocols is warranted however, and is partly a separate matter.)

Post reply on HN