If worrying about the global pandemic has left you clinically depressed, there may now be good news.
Maybe now you can treat two diseases with one drug.
Early results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) begun in June were so robust that the Brazilian, Canadian, U.S. and Australian doctors involved in the study decided to stop it early so that patients being administered placebos as a control on the experiment could instead be given the drug.
If you’re struggling with a mood disorder, this might give you one more reason to see your doctor. Along these lines, it is worth noting that some of the symptoms of depression – notably fatigue and lack of energy – are similar to those of Covid-19.
And then there is this from Dr. Anne Fabiny at the Harvard Medical School:
“Older men are more likely to present with irritability or grumpiness as a symptom of depression than women. So the stereotype of the grumpy old man could be a sign of a depressed old man.”
If that’s you – and you’ve found yourself obsessing over how old men are the prime target for Covid-19 – fluvoxamine might prove helpful.
Old drug
Fluvoxamine is a drug developed in Switzerland in 1983 and approved for the use of the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the U.S. in 1994.
It is probably best known by the brand name Luvox. The National Alliance on Mental Illness says it is now often ” prescribed “off-label” for major depressive disorder (MDD), social phobia (also known as social anxiety disorder), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, and eating disorders including bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder. ‘Off-label’ means that it hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this condition.”
The drug is generally considered safe but comes with a long list of common side effects NAMI lists as “headache, nausea, diarrhea, dry mouth, dizziness, increased sweating, feeling nervous, restless, fatigued, or having trouble sleeping (insomnia).”
There are some other serious, potentially even deadly, side effects, but they are rare.
Why the drug would prove effective against the Covid-19 causing SARS-CoV-2 virus is unclear. The drugs inflammatory properties could help reduce the cytokine storms that have proven so dangerous in Covid-19 patients, the study said.
Other possibilities include antiplatelet effects that are cardioprotective or “action might be related to the effect of fluvoxamine in increasing plasma levels of melatonin,” the study said.
Melatonin is a naturally produced hormone most closely linked to human sleep cycles, but it is also a strong antioxidant. Its antioxidant properties have in the past been linked to slowing the inevitable physical decay associated with aging and metabolic disorders.
Age and/or metabolic disorders, the most visible of which is obesity, have characterized the majority of those killed by Covid-19.
Sadly, the pandemic has only added to the already high risks of early death for those whose weight spins out of control.
That old, fat problem
“Abdominal obesity is the most frequently observed component of metabolic syndrome,” researchers reported in Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology in 2017. “The metabolic syndrome – clustering of abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia and hypertension – is a major public health challenge. The average prevalence of metabolic syndrome is 31 percent, and is associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and a one and a half-fold increase in the risk of all-cause mortality.”
A better understanding of how and why fluvoxamine works to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus might provide information that could prove helpful in treating metabolic disorders on a larger level in a world full of people with ever-expanding waist lines.
“In vitro and animal studies are needed to help clarify the most probable mechanism(s),” the researchers wrote.
But they also offered some words of caution about their study – words of caution that should be applied to most studies of Covid-19.
“Major limitations of our trial are related to the challenges of doing a trial in a disease that is not well characterized,” they wrote. “There is no standard of care that exists for early treatment of COVID-19 and various advocacy groups promote different interventions, including some of those evaluated in this and our previous trials.
“Furthermore, there is little understanding of who is at greatest risk of disease progression from this disease as some patients with numerous risk factors do recover quickly whereas some others with less established risk factors might not.”
Still, they said, at the end of the day – given all these qualifiers – the cheap treatment they studied “compares favorably with the treatment effects of more expensive treatments including monoclonal antibodies for outpatient treatment.”
A 10-day course of fluvoxamine costs under $5. Monoclonal antibodies infusions cost over $2,000, although they really cost nothing at the moment in this country because the government is paying for them.
The pandemic has been a goldmine for the biotech company.
Categories: Commentary, News
Steve o , the only reason you are partially correct on the terminology is because there is no current hard and solid rule by a world wide body . It’s been left up to individual groups to determine how they want to classify mutation versus variants. Aprx 1 + year ago a large group decided to go with a method using pango in atempt to simplify and univeralize catagorazion methods for easier communication and information dissemination . Which changed it to being acceptable to call mutations as variants or visa versa and other related catalog issues . In many countries its done this way . You happen to be incorrect if you stick strictly to biology or older virology methods that have been used . Is this transitory change? Unknown. . Currently its left to individual groups to determine terminology on this . So technically you are equally wrong and right .
If you had actually done your research you would know this and stop pretending your answer is definitive. As its not . Its just one of many methods currently in use .
Your over the top pretending you are the master of analyzing studies and pretending you have the final word on which ones are acceptable or not is shameful.
People with equal or greater education than yourself – medical doctors and scientists have determined ivermectin is helpful when given early. Many doctors who are attempting to save lives accept it as a life saving drug. They see the same studies as you and have a far more educated opinion than yourself. Both scholasticly and hands on experience.
As for me and my opinion of ivermectin- I won’t hazard a guess as far as efficacy. I have seen definitive studies that say it works in vitro at high doses. I have seen studies that say if given to people at specific dosages it works given early to reduce viral loads and and reduce odds of hospitalization. I have Freinds and doctors who swear by it who have seen it in action besides their educational studied analysis.
Like i said before. You have a bad case of cognitive dissonance. ( only taking in the information that supports your bias)
Are you right on terminology of mutations versus variants ? In my opinion close enough because it can be classified either way by certain groups. Are you wrong to believe your answer is definitive? Yes you are wrong. Are you wrong to pretend your opinion is definitive in regards to ivermectin? Yes you are wrong. As you may have noticed- phyzer is utilizing the same method of anti viral action that ivermectin uses against cov2 in the development of their recent name brand drug to treat early stages of covid.
Broadly dismissing all ivermectin studies as ineffective is clear evidence of your cognitive dissonance.
Yes it is ok . – Your opinion has no bearing on reality.
It only has bearing on opinion 😉
Steve-O, as we always say and agree on – “follow the money”. Because there is none in Ivermectin or Hydroquinone. I know one thing, Covid is much more rampant now than before everybody got the “jab”. Oh, I know, we need more boosters, that ought to do it. Funny watching Democrats/Globalists clinging to their “”pandemic of the unvaccinated” nonsense.
.
Steve o ,
Thanks for polite reply!
So if you use duck duck go and look up 5 day course of ivermectin double blind study you should be able to find the study and several discussions of it and its viral clearance averages . Also a further discussion by pub med basically saying it works and it reduces hospitalization but there are further studies needed. It also discusses its anti viral activity.
The study looks decent but small .
I saw a study showing a statistical reduction in hospitalization from using it but i will have to look further to find it .
Personal disclosure is I haven’t used it despite contracting covid and personally I would be leary of using it because its a pretty harsh drug despite hundreds of millions of technically safe doses given to humans.
Thats just me though. I pretty much stay away from all medications unless im on my last legs😉
A lot of my health compromised friends ( multiple comorbities) took it under American doctor supervision to great success!
DPR,
Nowhere did I dismiss all Ivermectin studies, nowhere.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic. Pfizers new pill is an antiviral. SARS-CoV-2 is a virus.
As I said previously, if you know of a reliable and well done study that shows the efficacy of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and doesn’t run afoul of the basic standards required I’d be interested in seeing it. If you don’t know of one that’s ok, there’s no reason to get upset at me over it.
Also look up – ivermectin reduces hospitalization percentages. ( duck duck go ) there was a bunch positive of write ups and mention how American doctors turned around the covid epidemic in parts of india with ivermectin. ( that part was mostly anecdotal) there were multiple documented studies suggesting it works to reduce hospitalization and death.
Steve-o
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
Bryan,
Thanks for the link. That goes to a meta analysis of 25 small studies, some that I’ve seen before at least one of which was completely withdrawn due to serious issues with the study. It’s also worth noting in the Summary of Findings that the “quality of evidence” for outcomes were overwhelmingly listed as “Very low” quality evidence, followed by “Low” quality evidence, and a singular “Moderate” quality evidence, and that was before at least one of the studies was withdrawn…
Are you aware of a reliable and well done study that shows the efficacy of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and doesn’t run afoul of the basic standards? Seems like it shouldn’t be so hard to find but I’m not having much luck finding a single one. I know that there have been over 70 studies and some might still be going on, but it just doesn’t make much sense that there’s not one good study out there to rally behind.
I know there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence and lots of people who have heard that there’s a study or many studies that show the efficacy, but finding anyone who has actually seen or can share the study supporting this belief makes me wonder if it exists at all…
The Elgazzar study that was used in this meta analysis and later withdrawn claimed that 4 out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19 but according to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In the ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the study claimed 2 patients died, but the number in their raw data is 4. There were other massive issues with that study including duplication of at least 79 patient records. Ouch…
Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz who is a chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Austrailia said “Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” and “If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
OUCH!!!
This Chinese driven psych op has been a real eye opener to the stupidity in America.
Sure there is a virus but the healthy were never vulnerable.
Everyone wants a drug to save their soul, but the reality is the majority of Americans are obese, drink too much alcohol and smoke too much.
If the CDC would ever recommend quitting drinking and exercise then the alcohol lobbyist would have a heart attack.
Eat healthy, exercise at least 30 mins a day, take vitamin D in Alaska and you will be fine….plus your mental health will also improve.
As for everyone taking the mRNA jab…who knows what’s ahead…
My greatest fear is watching the Democrats take advantage and abuse their powers during Covid to spread their communist agenda. Depressing without question. This sedition must be challenged.
It’s been quite strange to note that the Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine crowd has largely been silent about Fluvoxamine. Maybe it’s because unlike with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Fluvoxamine has an actual study showing its effectiveness? Also that same study further shows Ivermectin is not effective in treating covid. But who needs studies proving things when anecdotes and third world countries are there to support the beliefs of those who claim Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are the cure to covid.
Steve o ,
What’s strange is your cognitive dissonance.
There are studies indicating effectiveness of ivermectin all over the Internet.
Early treatment with ivermectin is shown to reduce viral loads of cov2. No analysis ive seen says ivermectin cures covid when used at a safe dose but apparently if used correctly it helps by interfering with the spike protein attachments. There is study after study. Some positive and some not so much. The key is early treatment. Late treatment apparently doesn’t help.
Start with checking out ncbi.nlm.nih.gov there is a huge line of studies for you to analyze. Many of them are positive.
As to your false logic smear – why has ivermectin crowd been silent on fluvixomine. Maybe just maybe because they hadn’t heard about it ?
An appropriate question is why do you malign “the crowd”? Being silent technically doesn’t indicate anything except- you are currently silent. Assuming that silence indicates a position is uninformed supposition. Just because you support one thing does not mean you are against another. Each item has it’s application. Or applications. Perhaps fluvoxamine is the new best thing. Perhaps there are many new or old drugs that outperform anything we have yet aplied . There are many studies yet to be done .
How about present evidence of what does help . Surely you can enlighten us with some immune boosters and health regimens.
I for one ,think it a great positive that Mr Medred presents positive health possibilities while showing what is clearly negative health choices.
Do I think chemical drugs are a good idea ? No . The first option should be positive lifestyle choices like exercise.
The greatest drug to reduce disease and depression is exercise combined with healthy life choices.
There is significant evidence grumpiness in old men can be reduced with a significant dose of outdoor activity.
Tree harvesting, hunting or just plain walking and enjoying outdoor forest activities especially with Freinds.
Thanks DPR,
Have you heard back from Nancy at Los Alamos yet?
Steve o ,
honestly im still waiting but i will give another holler in a few days for sure . Did get my last drift on that thread that it appeared you were as correct to current terms.
Well see though.
DPR,
It’s all good, I did my research and know that what I said was correct. Just like with this Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine deal, I’ve looked at many studies most aren’t very good studies and don’t pass the rigorous standards required. The bigger studies that were being lauded were withdrawn because they were so poorly done, most of the others have serious if not fatal flaws, and the studies that are reliable and done well show a mix of a little positive effect, no effect, or a little negative effect. If you know of a reliable and well done study that shows the efficacy of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and doesn’t run afoul of the basic standards required I’d be interested in seeing it, nobody has been able to produce such a study yet.