Cheap Antidepressant Shows Promise Treating Early COVID-19 (apnews.com) 218
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Associated Press: A cheap antidepressant reduced the need for hospitalization among high-risk adults with COVID-19 in a study hunting for existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat coronavirus. Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder because it was known to reduce inflammation and looked promising in smaller studies. They've shared the results with the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which publishes treatment guidelines, and they hope for a World Health Organization recommendation. The pill, called fluvoxamine, would cost $4 for a course of COVID-19 treatment. By comparison, antibody IV treatments cost about $2,000 and Merck's experimental antiviral pill for COVID-19 is about $700 per course.
Researchers tested the antidepressant in nearly 1,500 Brazilians recently infected with coronavirus who were at risk of severe illness because of other health problems, such as diabetes. About half took the antidepressant at home for 10 days, the rest got dummy pills. They were tracked for four weeks to see who landed in the hospital or spent extended time in an emergency room when hospitals were full. In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. The results, published Wednesday in the journal Lancet Global Health, were so strong that independent experts monitoring the study recommended stopping it early because the results were clear. Questions remain about the best dosing, whether lower risk patients might also benefit and whether the pill should be combined with other treatments.
Researchers tested the antidepressant in nearly 1,500 Brazilians recently infected with coronavirus who were at risk of severe illness because of other health problems, such as diabetes. About half took the antidepressant at home for 10 days, the rest got dummy pills. They were tracked for four weeks to see who landed in the hospital or spent extended time in an emergency room when hospitals were full. In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. The results, published Wednesday in the journal Lancet Global Health, were so strong that independent experts monitoring the study recommended stopping it early because the results were clear. Questions remain about the best dosing, whether lower risk patients might also benefit and whether the pill should be combined with other treatments.
So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it seems to be true in a large number of cases, and it's not all selection bias. But that doesn't have much to do with anti-depressants.
Also, note that this is about one particular anti-depressant, and there's no implication that it's true for any others. (Personally, if I wanted an antidepressant, I'd probably pick marijuana. But that doesn't mean it's a treatment against COVID. There are some studies that suggest the opposite, but I suspect, without evidence, that they may be contaminated by met
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Insightful)
> Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder
So literally ANY response other than vaccines has been not only frowned upon but literally lambasted by the MSM including Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Both of which are known to be safely administered for years for other purposes, so there is little reason not to try.
But now that it is an anti-depressant, they're like: Why not, we should try different avenues.
It wouldn't have anything to do with an actual promising study, with a theorized method of actually working could it?
Na it's a MSM / Liberal conspiracy to make you specifically NFN_NLN very angry.
Is it working?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure... All the governments of the world who are paying out the wazoo to treat covid patients are all secretly trying to prevent evidence of a cheap drug's effectiveness from becoming public so that they can pay hundreds of millions (if not billions) more to companies like Pfizer and Moderna to distribute vaccines to people at no cost. Do you even hear how batshit crazy you sound anymore?
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one thought off the top of my head: The medications are for treating the disease, the vaccinations are for helping prevent both infection and spread. They serve two very different purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe the anti-depressants will help your TDS.
You may be on to something. They riled up non-political people into hating political figures. Now the masses are chanting "Let's Go Brandon" and "Bryan Grayson / Let's Go Brandon" is even topping the iTunes charts. They were hoping it would go away when 45 did.
TDS is the monster that got away and slipping millions of people like Admiral Krunch mood stabilizers may be the solution of last resort.
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydroxychloroquine can be dangerous when self administered and not knowing the right dosage and not understanding the interaction with other drugs. The only reason people were gungho with hydroxychloroquine is because Trump felt the need to speak over the top of the experts and proclaim that it was great for covid even though studies weren't completed yet. Only an idiot would self medicate on this based upon the advice of a politician. There have been no studies showing hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for covid-19. Even though it is generally safe when used properly and under the advice of a health care professional, you should never take it without it being prescribed.
I just don't understand the dynamics here either. First, we're told that covid-19 is a fraud, but at the same time we're told should all panic and take random medicines otherwise we will die... This is all coming from a conspiracy theory focused crowd, and it feeds into the "the powers that be are trying to harm you and supress inexpensive cures" mindset, but at the same time "please trust the powers that be who are on our side and take these unproven cures!"
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Covid vaccines are safe, and tested, and approved by the slow moving governmental administrations. Covid vaccines are safer than some over the counter medications.
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So literally ANY response other than vaccines has been not only frowned upon but literally lambasted by the MSM including Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
If Donald Trump came out and said, "Brushing your teeth is good for you!", 40% of the population would stop brushing their teeth.
And the vaccine started out great! Until some of us said, "Hey, I got my shot. Do I have to keep wearing this scarf over my face? Can my kids go back to school?".. Whoa!! Hold it!! Breakthrough infections!! Waning immunity!! Variants!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whoa!! Hold it!! Breakthrough infections!! Waning immunity!! Variants!!
Only "whoa" for those that don't understand how vaccines work. No vaccine is 100% effective, most (all?) have some waning effectiveness over time and of course they may not work, or be as effective on variants, which is why there's no universal Flu vaccine. Five minutes reading information about how vaccines work, from a reputable science or news source, would have provided valuable perspective.
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the story being pushed in the anti-vax political community. We really had to encourage my mother to get the vaccine because she kept saying nonsense like "it's not 100% effective". Eventually she got it, but we had to keep hammering at her since she was ot listening to normal health advice from doctors.
Heck, people are taking ivermectin when the got the sniffles despite not being proven even 0% effective. So what the hell is the "not 100% effective" supposed to mean? It's sheer idiocy. I am totally baffled about how this anti-vax conspiracy nonsense has just gone nuts and is being swallowed whole by so many people. It used to be the anti-vax crowd were just rich liberal moms in Marin county, but with covid it's being accepted as an article of faith in many conservative circles. You can't even say "this is the vaccine that Trump worked very hard to get made in short order" because they don't seem to connect the "Trump is vaccinated" with their "the vaccine is a hoax" beliefs. Shit, even Trump was booed at one of his own rallies for asking people to get vaccinated. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, Trump got his COVID shots. He has even come out and said others should too. But because Biden also got his covid shots, there's a percentage of the population refusing to do so.
As for the rest, I have seat belts and air bags in my car. That does NOT mean it's OK to go 100 MPH in my neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a valid criticism IF this time it wasn't the results of a clinical study, not just some rando doctor or researcher who noticed a correlation between random drug X and Covid. The horse paste needed concentrations that would be well in excess of lethal doses for humans to be effective and clinical trials of the malaria drug found it did jack shit, so it would be unethical to even attempt a human study. This is the first time an older generic drug has been found to be effective in a CLINICAL STUD
The MSM (Score:2)
Fox is now the MSM. They are the number one cable news channel. https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder
So literally ANY response other than vaccines has been not only frowned upon but literally lambasted by the MSM including Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
Both of which are known to be safely administered for years for other purposes, so there is little reason not to try.
Which is why researchers did try them. Unfortunately, they did not turn out to be effective treatments for COVID-19.
But now that it is an anti-depressant, they're like: Why not, we should try different avenues.
Not that no one is saying "everyone take fluvoxamine!!". Rather, some doctors will start prescribing it and more importantly, other researchers will start their own studies.
If, like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, these results cannot be replicated, then they'll also fall out of favour. If the results hold up then they'll be added to the list of standard treatments for COVID-19.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Molnupiravir. It's nearing approval and has a much better outcome than this antidepressant anyway. No one is instantly dismissing these new treatments, especially if they have some backing to their effectiveness. The problem here is that the initial reports are coming out of Brazil, so some pinch of healthy skepticism is necessary. But cautious optimism at the same time.
The problme with hydroxychloroquine was that while people were looking at it, it was not ready and still under investigation
Re: (Score:2)
fluvoxamine works by depressing a body's inflamation response to Covid. Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are quack medicine for Covid with no reputable studies or published mechanism. On the other hand hyrdroychloroquine is highly recommended by Your Favorite President and he's not likely to lie, is he?
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that an anti-depressant, which basically is designed to fix problems in your brain chemistry, aka hormones, has any influence on a virus infection: makes no sense at all.
The idea to try anti-depressants at all - from a medical point of view, for a trained doctor or nurse: is already completely idiotic. One would think you start with anti inflammation medicals, immune system strengthening medicals, known anti viral medicals etc.
If you bothered to read TFS you'd see that this medication for the very reasons you're ranting about:
Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder because it was known to reduce inflammation and looked promising in smaller studies.
Re: (Score:2)
Form that perspective, it's odd that a tea made from a flower that kills most people might help a serious heart condition is kinda weird too, but that medication is still in use.
Or that an IV of a blue dye can turn a blue person back to pink. Or that processed coal tar can clear up an infection.
Re: (Score:2)
The new mRNA vaccines have no side effects. They cause fever, chills, fatigue etc.
AND THAT IS DAMN IT THE EFFECT I EXPECT FROM A VACCINE. THAT IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!!!!
If that were truly the case, I'd be worried that mine didn't work. Moderna didn't give me fever, chills, fatigue, any of that. I had soreness at the injection site for a few days, and a deep hatred for people afterward, but the latter may have been a pre-existing condition.
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-Depressants can make suicidal tendencies much worse. In some cases, in people who don't have those tendencies, they suddenly develope when taking the medication. I don't know why you feel need to insert your opinion into medical fact. But stop it.
Fever, Chills, Fatigue, "etc", are all side effects. By definition. Take the drug, get the effect. So you clearly don't understand medical terminology either.
Re:So happy people didn't get as sick (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think antidepressants are making people suicidal who weren't already.
Some depressed people are suicidal but don't have the motivation, energy or ability to make and follow through with a plan. In other words, depression makes it difficult for the affected person to do anything about it, even suicide.
Once the antidepressant starts working they may finally have the gumption to finally go through with a suicide that they long ago convinced themselves was the only answer but haven't had the "confidence" to do.
They may have had unrealistic expectations about what the antidepressant would do (life sucks even for the un-depressed) and so impulsively go through with it at the first normal life setback.
It's important for a prescriber to regularly monitor the patient for some time until they adjust and not just send them on their way with a perscription.
Re: (Score:2)
The new mRNA vaccines have no side effects. They cause fever, chills, fatigue etc.
AND THAT IS DAMN IT THE EFFECT I EXPECT FROM A VACCINE. THAT IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!!!!
If/when you get your booster shot, opt for the decaffeinated version. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the suicidal thoughts come because those do go away but then come back in spades when they stop taking the anti-depressants, for reduce their dosages against doctors advice, for switching to a different anti-depressant, etc. Ignoring the doctor's advice when it comes to mental health is also a very common problem, and it does lead to people thinking that because they're feeling better that they don't have to continue taking the pills.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the flu vaccine. And I know some people, even elderly, who just don't want to take the flu vaccine because it makes them feel a little bit ill for a few days or they don't like the sore arm.
do you need a degree to grasp it's fake? (Score:2, Interesting)
Researchers tested the antidepressant in nearly 1,500 Brazilians
Is there a zero missing?
So, it is 1500, right? See below.
About half took the antidepressant at home for 10 days, the rest got dummy pills.
So, 750 got the "medical"? Let's call it group A.
So, 750 got a placebo, assuming "dummy pill" is a placebo. Let's call it Group B.
In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills.
So 82 from group A got hospitalized.
And 120 from grou
Re: (Score:2)
Among patients who took at least 80 percent of their doses, the benefits were even stronger. About three-fourths of patients fell into that group, with the most common reason for stopping the drug being gastrointestinal complaints. Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in that group by 66 percent and reduced mortality by 91 percent. In the placebo group, 12 patients died, compared with one who received the drug.
Definitely warrants further investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Among patients who took at least 80 percent of their doses, the benefits were even stronger. About three-fourths of patients fell into that group, with the most common reason for stopping the drug being gastrointestinal complaints. Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in that group by 66 percent and reduced mortality by 91 percent. In the placebo group, 12 patients died, compared with one who received the drug.
Definitely warrants further investigation.
This, the sources don't indicate that this is a fabrication.
But it's not proof of anything. Scientists have found a possible treatment of COVID in early cases, this warrants more tests and trials. If it works, great, if it doesn't then we at least know.
We already have several demonstrated therapies that cut COVID deaths down from 1 in 7 in the early days to 1 in 10 by the end of 2020, mostly treatments used in other severe reparatory illnesses such as steroids.
The difference between this and other
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd rather stick with the vaccine, thanks.
So would I.
This is a (potential) treatment though.
It's for people too stupid to take the vaccine. (or unable for some other sensible reason couldn't)
Or for those who got infected anyway. Vaccines aren't perfect, especially against variants they weren't designed for.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up and go buy those pills (horse version if they don't have it).
Re: (Score:3)
Researchers tested the antidepressant in nearly 1,500 Brazilians Is there a zero missing?
So, it is 1500, right? See below.
About half took the antidepressant at home for 10 days, the rest got dummy pills. So, 750 got the "medical"? Let's call it group A.
So, 750 got a placebo, assuming "dummy pill" is a placebo. Let's call it Group B.
In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills.
So 82 from group A got hospitalized. And 120 from group B got hospitalized.
Does not really look like sound research to me.
Interestingly, the deaths from both courses were 17/25 2%/3%. It would be interesting to see the ages and underlying conditions of those that died.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the deaths from both courses were 17/25 2%/3%. It would be interesting to see the ages and underlying conditions of those that died.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But isn't that including the people who didn't keep taking the pills?
Among patients who took at least 80 percent of their doses, the benefits were even stronger. About three-fourths of patients fell into that group, with the most common reason for stopping the drug being gastrointestinal complaints. Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in that group by 66 percent and reduced mortality by 91 percent. In the placebo group, 12 patients died, compared with one who received the drug.
Death, per protocol 1/548 (<1%) Fluvoxamine 12/618 (2%) placebo
Isn't that the numbers for the people who didn't stop taking pills early?
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
Re:do you need a degree to grasp it's fake? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a shot in the dark, but I would imagine the drug must have some properties/mechanism someone considered interesting. There's just too many drugs to just do shot in the dark trials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's an early trial to see if there is anything worth spending more time and money investigating, but the media treats it as click-bait for those anti-vaxxer eyeballs.
People dosed up on horse de-wormer with less.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not really look like sound research to me.
For a first pass? Absolutely. For FDA approval and formal policy? No. But fortunately for the world the process for medical testing is far more complex and detailed than the one off activity you dismiss.
Re:do you need a degree to grasp it's fake? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> So 82 from group A got hospitalized.
> And 120 from group B got hospitalized.
> Does not really look like sound research to me.
Who cares? That's why scientists have statisticians at their disposal - so random hunches aren't the basis for measurement.
Did you actually mean "I don't like that the result was a 30% reduction in hospitalizations"?
Sometimes the result of a scientific study is counterintuitive. That's how progress is made. Replication is next.
1500 brazilian?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:1500 brazilian?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: 1500 brazilian?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is, its the same as 50 simoleons.
oh good (Score:2)
Side effects include "Headache, nausea, diarrhea, dry mouth, dizziness, increased sweating, feeling nervous, restless, fatigued, or having trouble sleeping (insomnia)."
Can't wait to lay covid-like side effects on top of covid symptoms
Re: (Score:2)
They need to start reporting it as relative risk increase compared to the control group. As in, "headaches (12%)", meaning people in the experimental group were 12% more likely to report having experienced a headache during trial than the control group.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not exactly eager to list side effects, they had to be forced to do so. Consequently you can be sure if they mentioned a side effect, it was statistically significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No time for a deep dive now but this [vox.com] may be of some help.
Re: (Score:3)
Side effects include "Headache, nausea, diarrhea, dry mouth, dizziness, increased sweating, feeling nervous, restless, fatigued, or having trouble sleeping (insomnia)."
That's the exact list my wife uses when I ask her for sex.
Kaching! (Score:2)
When did anything in the US healthcare system ever cost $4? Add at least a couple of zeroes to that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't trust any numbers coming from Brazil. (Score:2, Insightful)
These days, anything coming from Brazil needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Especially because of their idiot president.
New rumors (Score:2)
I'm starting new rumors that elemental mercury and radium water are better cures. Let this problem take care of itself.
Wait for the articles about taking pet anxiety med (Score:2)
We've seen how CNN insists that Joe Rogan took horse dewormer.
Well, fluvoxamine can be prescribed by veterinarians for use in animals
https://www.plumbsveterinarydr... [plumbsvete...ydrugs.com]
How is this medication useful?
Veterinarians may prescribe fluvoxamine for treating behavior problems such as aggression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and
anxiety in dogs and cats. The FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration) has approved this drug for use in humans, but it is not officially
approved for use in animals. The FDA allows veterinar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Joe Rogan insisted that he took horse dewormer. He said he threw the kitchen sink at his covid including iver.
No, Joe Rogan said he was prescribed and took Ivermectin, a drug that has both human and animal usages and is frequently prescribed to humans.
CNN calling it "horse dewormer" was intended to defame him and depict him as some ignorant rube.
My point here is that many drugs and foods have both human and veterinary usages.
The clowns at CNN could just as easily call that cereal you ate for breakfast "animal feed", and that penicillin shot you took as "animal medicine".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait for the articles about taking pet anxiety (Score:4, Insightful)
Joe Rogan said he was prescribed and took Ivermectin
Indeed. That should be grounds for having the doctor's medical license suspended. I see no other logical reaction to the prescription of a drug for the purpose that both Merck and the FDA says it should not be used. I congratulate Joe Rogan though on finding a doctor that will help him with any alternative quackery he can come up with.
Mind you I don't hold it against CNN. Most people can't find a special doctor to prescribe bullshit to them, and as a result Ivermectin continues to be sold out at many animal food places.
And one of the reasons behind that is Joe fucking Rogan.
Take advice from FDA, not from comedians.
At least this time (Score:2)
There was a clinical study done and so there's actual scientific proof. I know that concept is a difficult one for people of certain political persuasions to understand, as can be seen by the predictable comments even on a site that caters to nerdy stuff like /. Now we can debate the strength of the study and some of the methodologies used, but this was at least conducted in line with the scientific method, not just random doctor/researcher X noticed a correlation and then everyone rushed to buy horse paste
Observation (Score:2)
At the risk of being pedantic, this study is outside the US, with a relatively small population, and using a drug with an unknown method of action.
We've been discussing another Covid treatment drug that checks those same boxes and it's been widely panned as a fraud. What makes this different?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's Unpossible! (Score:5, Informative)
I've been assured that only the vaccines can fix the problem (even though they don't stop people from getting sick, dying or passing COVID on to others).
Maybe it's time to stop getting you medical advice from TikTok then?
All other cures are right-wing conspiracy quackery.
Most have shown to be so far.
Let's hope further study doesn't show the same here.
Re:That's Unpossible! (Score:5, Informative)
This tells you all you need to know.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16... [npr.org]
This anti depressant might show some promise because its also an anti inflammatory agent, and covid causes damage from inflammation. Unlike some other drugs that are meant for parasites.
Re:That's Unpossible! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> A drug maker will only test a drug for a condition if they stand to make a profit
That's outright bullshit. Big pharma has always been looking out for the health of the little guy. It's true now... and if you don't search past 2020, it's always been true and we've never flip flipped on that stance.
Three cheers for big pharma and their life saving elixir. It cures what ails you... and since whenever you ail, a PCR test will show a COVID positive result, we're not lying.
Re: (Score:2)
They could always try patenting the delivery method? It worked for EpiPens.
How about coating a UV light with it and administering it rectally?
Just needs the right kind of celebrity endorsement [wikipedia.org] to really take off.
Re: (Score:2)
A drug maker will only test a drug for a condition if they stand to make a profit, and if a drug is out of patent it will cost just as much to run the tests as for a drug that's still in patent, but all generic drug makers will also be able to benefit from the test results, so not much opportunity for profit, so the tests don't get run.
This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Firstly it's not the CDC, it's the FDA who are responsible for approving drugs. The CDC is the Centre for Disease Control, and they're the government's agency for the public health and epidemiology.
Secondly and more importantly what OP seems not to know about is that the FDA already knew this could happen so they came up with a workaround. It's called orphan drug [wikipedia.org] designation, basically a 7 year exclusive marketing authorisation for just such a scenario.
Re:That's Unpossible! (Score:5, Informative)
All of those things are reduced with vaccination, including asymptomatic infection and transmission. (I don't know whether transmission is reduced if infection is set as a constant, but it's certainly reduced given the lesser chance and duration of infection.)
Re: (Score:3)
IMO metaphors aren't a sound way to reason about the world. The metaphor is only valid once you already know about the world.
For example, here are some metaphors that are opposite to yours: Every social scientist knows problems are best attacked from multiple angles. So doesn't it make sense for the body to learn to recognize various aspects of a virus? Everyone knows being too focused can cause you to miss the bigger picture.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought using "liar poo-poo face" in the first line was a dead give away that it was sarcasm. Then I realized, it isn't your fault, we're on Slashdot.
It's impossible to ridicule a position with sarcasm because AmiMojo literally does that daily while being serious.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been assured (by the inferences in your own post) that you're a moron, especially in light of Merck developing an antiviral pill that is effective for reducing the harm of COVID infection, and then open-licensing the manufacture so it can be produced all over the world. [nytimes.com]
Of course, there's actual science and study behind this medication, unlike any of the bullshit quack "cures" that "conservative" media digs up like antimalarials and dewormers that do nothing about inflammation.
An antidepressant that als
Re:That's Unpossible! (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody understands the long term consequences for the jab, and if it turns out horribly for everyone, don't complain that you didn't know. THAT is the point, nobody knows the long term consequences of playing god, because we're not. We think we're smarter than we are.
100% false as mRNA has been studied since the 1980s. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
When doctors talk about adverse vaccine reactions it's hours or days afterward not years.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody understands the long term consequences for the jab, and if it turns out horribly for everyone, don't complain that you didn't know. THAT is the point, nobody knows the long term consequences of playing god, because we're not. We think we're smarter than we are.
100% false as mRNA has been studied since the 1980s.
Normally I would say this is an example of inductive reasoning but in this case it isn't even that. The link you cite says nothing about the "long term consequences" of any mRNA jab.
Re: (Score:2)
Because mRNA is a delivery mechanism. It doesn't change your DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean where a few limited cases have appeared days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine [cdc.gov]? The days the OP said is when any side effects would show? You mean like that?
Or did you mean myocarditis from covid itself [cdc.gov]?
Re: (Score:2)
And there have been many studies to confirm that it's therapeutic as a blood thinner. But you know what cardiologists prescribe if they think there's a risk of clotting? Prescription blood thinners that are either purpose-specific, or far more effective than aspirin.
So sure, take an anti-parasitic drug for a viral infection with zero proof that it does anything, because that's exactly the same situation as having peer-reviewed double-blind studies that show actual results.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't? [yalemedicine.org] Oh, I see, you're demanding that they work perfectly against things like hospitalization.
This doesn't "stop" hospitalizations either. So do nothing. Wait, that doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
(Where are the studies for ivermectin?)
learn to internet pls [google.com]
Re:this will not be a apprved as therapeutic medic (Score:5, Informative)
because Big pharma cannot make money from this. Who is going to fund large scale double blind studies for this? (Where are the studies for ivermectin?)
From TFA: Interventions evaluated in the TOGETHER trial, thus far, include, hydroxychloroquine (protocol 1), lopinavir–ritonavir (protocol 1),10 metformin, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, doxasozin, and pegylated interferon lambda versus matching placebos (protocol 2).
Ivermectin (Score:5, Informative)
The company that makes ivermectin says you should not take it for covid. I'm pretty sure they know the scope and capabilities of their product.
https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com]
Most of the ivermectin studies have been debunked for using bad data and it all stems back to the Egypt study.
https://www.bbc.com/news/healt... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let me emphasize: I'm not saying anybody should take ivermectin for COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to jump to conclusions. My point was that doctors (and perhaps medical researchers) are the only ones you should be listening to. It doesn't make nearly as much sense to listen to the manufacturer, despite them being right in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about that. My point was not obvious at all! I was aiming for humor, not clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an argument against your phrasology.
That ivermectin cannot be used successfully against COVID hasn't actually been proven. It's been proven that lots of ways of taking ivermectin are harmful, and lots of other ways are useless against COVID, but there might be a way that was beneficial. It worked in a petri dish at a concentration that would be fatal within a bloodstream, but perhaps it could be encapsulated together with a target seeking molecule. Or something.
Of course, nobody's done that. And
Re: (Score:2)
They complain about giving money to 'Big-Pharma' but give them far more than what the vaccine costs with all these quack drugs (ivermectin etc) and monoclonal antibodies. Numpties
Hey now, let's not get all factual and shit. Reality doesn't sit well with those people. It's like that infamous interview Jake Tapper gave to Roy Moore during which Jake reminded Roy one does not have to swear on a bible when elected. Roy's look wh [youtube.com]
Re:this will not be a apprved as therapeutic medic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People with vaccinations are still getting sick and hospitalized, but at a significantly reduced rate. It does not make you immune. This drug will help that bucket too. What you are trolling about has nothing to do with the article. Why did you even bring up anti-vaxxers?
This isn't a preventative measure. It's medication in case you get sick - whether you've been vaccinated or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If ye buy yer drugs fae Big Pharma yer a dick. I buy ma drugs fae Big Tam, he's got a' the good yins - eccies, jellies, speed, smack, hash, K, fuckin invermectin. And yeh can owe him till yer dole money comes through. It aye fuckin natural 'n' that - none o' yer fuckin' chemicals 'n' man made shite. Yeh canny trust they fuckin big pharmas man. They'll fill yeh full a shite. Only deal weh people yeh know, ken?
Re: (Score:2)
If it works they should announce that its doesn't work. Not only will the nutters take it in their droves, but they will also have a real conspiracy to sink their teeth into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should check out the show Inside Job on Netflix. It does a good job of lampooning pretty much all of the whackadoodle conspiracy theories on the right. Also seems like Christian Slater is sort of reprising his role from Archer where he played a black ops CIA officer who was involved in drug smuggling and coup attempts with his character on the new show.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Take the safe and CDC approved vaccine so you don't contract it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Popcorn time! (Score:2)
You mean behavior and degree of mixing among the population matters and vaccines aren't a magic force field? Who knew!
Re: Popcorn time! (Score:2)
s/contract it/get sick from it/g