It's always got to be a drug. Under patent and expensive is optimal, but off-label use of any drug is great because it keeps people in the mind-set that drugs and only drugs can manage symptoms.
In this case, we have fluvoxamine, due to the claim that it acts a mast cell stabilizer. Why not just use a freaking mast cell stabilzer like cromolyn then? Profit in the wrong place? Then again, why does it need to be a drug as opposed to . . . I don't know . . . a common supplement that was found to be superior to cromolyn for mast cell stabilization over 10 years ago?
Quercetin Is More Effective than Cromolyn in Blocking Human Mast Cell Cytokine Release and Inhibits Contact Dermatitis and Photosensitivity in Humans
The Journal of the British Pharmacological Society even gave us a handy reference for "Twenty-first century mast cell stabilizers" that includes a section on "Mast cell stabilizing agents from natural sources" that comes complete with a list of supplements that we can take that don't "necessitate" additional medications to deal with the side effects of the mast cell stabilizing medications, or the nutrient depletions that are caused by the medications, which are ignored by the medical community. Just a little side note about that: my medical cynicism tells me that the reason why it isn't a standard practice in medicine to recommend replacing the nutrients that are depleted by medications is because a) patients might start to wonder how safe these drugs really are, and b) patients might start to question the claim that "supplements don't work". People might also start to understand that without nutrients we would die, so yeah: of course they fucking work.
You know who knows that nutraceuticals and "nature-ceuticals" work? Pharma. Because also on that site is one of pharma's dirty little secrets that puts the lie to the claim that "supplements are useless" or that "the only thing they're good for is to make expensive urine":
"Nature has provided us with the basis of many medicines in clinical use today".
Thank you for this! And hmm, I've had that same thing happen when trying to comment on an article... being asked to create a profile when I'm already logged in. It only happens on certain substacks and creeps me out.
Hi, I asked Substack about that and they gave me this information. If that doesn't work go to https://substack.com/support and they will discuss it further with you.
What complete and utter rubbish - most of those studies weren't even clinical trials!
Of the ones that were:
Farahani et al - Listed under "Early treatment" but did not even examine effect of fluvoxamine in preventing or treating COVID. Outcomes were effects on alleged post-COVID "neuropsychiatric" symptoms. No statistically significant difference in any outcome except for fatigue, which could easily be explained by fluvoxamine's stimulant effect. Twice as many fluvoxamine subjects discontinued treatment than placebo subjects (6 vs 3), with no explanation as to why.
Reis atl/TOGETHER was an absolute shitshow, and https://c19early.org/reis10.html actually admits it. I discussed TOGETHER and the shady characters behind it here:
Bramante et al examined metformin, fluvoxamine and ivermection: "None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19."
That page you link to falsely claims Stewart/ACTIV-6 showed 31% "improvement" in "progression" which is bollocks. Here's what the study actually found: :Fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, does not shorten the duration of symptoms in outpatient adults with mild to moderate COVID-19." I also discuss the results here:
From this overwhelming mass of failure, c19early.org egregiously claims "the most serious outcome reported shows 39% [22‑53%] lower risk. Results are similar for Randomized Controlled Trials."
This is total bullshit. Whoever put that page together has no business commenting on health matters, because their idiocy is dangerous.
I passed along the list of studies with no comment as I haven't looked too deep into them. I was curious if these were what Kirsch based his opinions on. Based on these “pooled studies”, whatever the hell that means, Fluvoxamine showed little effect compared to alternative therapies that are also listed and ranked on the site. Thanks for your thorough reply.
I very much appreciate your deep dives Anthony. I have learned so much from your work. You do the heavy lifting so I don't have to. Thank you.
It's always got to be a drug. Under patent and expensive is optimal, but off-label use of any drug is great because it keeps people in the mind-set that drugs and only drugs can manage symptoms.
In this case, we have fluvoxamine, due to the claim that it acts a mast cell stabilizer. Why not just use a freaking mast cell stabilzer like cromolyn then? Profit in the wrong place? Then again, why does it need to be a drug as opposed to . . . I don't know . . . a common supplement that was found to be superior to cromolyn for mast cell stabilization over 10 years ago?
Quercetin Is More Effective than Cromolyn in Blocking Human Mast Cell Cytokine Release and Inhibits Contact Dermatitis and Photosensitivity in Humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314669/
The Journal of the British Pharmacological Society even gave us a handy reference for "Twenty-first century mast cell stabilizers" that includes a section on "Mast cell stabilizing agents from natural sources" that comes complete with a list of supplements that we can take that don't "necessitate" additional medications to deal with the side effects of the mast cell stabilizing medications, or the nutrient depletions that are caused by the medications, which are ignored by the medical community. Just a little side note about that: my medical cynicism tells me that the reason why it isn't a standard practice in medicine to recommend replacing the nutrients that are depleted by medications is because a) patients might start to wonder how safe these drugs really are, and b) patients might start to question the claim that "supplements don't work". People might also start to understand that without nutrients we would die, so yeah: of course they fucking work.
You know who knows that nutraceuticals and "nature-ceuticals" work? Pharma. Because also on that site is one of pharma's dirty little secrets that puts the lie to the claim that "supplements are useless" or that "the only thing they're good for is to make expensive urine":
"Nature has provided us with the basis of many medicines in clinical use today".
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bph.12138
It's not just Steve pushing fluvoxamine. The FLCCC.net protocol added it to their ivermectin/HCQ COVID early treatment protocol.
If not tolerated due to nausea, they recommended fluoxetine, Prozac.
Thank you for this! And hmm, I've had that same thing happen when trying to comment on an article... being asked to create a profile when I'm already logged in. It only happens on certain substacks and creeps me out.
Hi, I asked Substack about that and they gave me this information. If that doesn't work go to https://substack.com/support and they will discuss it further with you.
https://imgur.com/loy0953.jpg
Obsession with toxic drugs and shots!
Another stupid highly toxic cure, like ivermectin https://open.substack.com/pub/chemtrails/p/ivermectin-and-population-control?r=2fqqz&utm_medium=ios
“COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 4,126 studies ” https://c19early.org/fmeta.html
What complete and utter rubbish - most of those studies weren't even clinical trials!
Of the ones that were:
Farahani et al - Listed under "Early treatment" but did not even examine effect of fluvoxamine in preventing or treating COVID. Outcomes were effects on alleged post-COVID "neuropsychiatric" symptoms. No statistically significant difference in any outcome except for fatigue, which could easily be explained by fluvoxamine's stimulant effect. Twice as many fluvoxamine subjects discontinued treatment than placebo subjects (6 vs 3), with no explanation as to why.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12879-023-08172-5.pdf
Wannigama et al was the unblinded farce I discussed here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/dear-steve-kirsch-fluvoxamine-is
Siripongboonsitti et al was another unblinded Thai study, this time showing no benefit to fluvoxamine:
https://www.ijidonline.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1201-9712%2823%2900641-0
Reis atl/TOGETHER was an absolute shitshow, and https://c19early.org/reis10.html actually admits it. I discussed TOGETHER and the shady characters behind it here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/fluvoxamine-a-toxic-and-potentially
Lenze et al 2020 - riddled with conflict of interest in dubious data, as explained here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/fluvoxamine-a-toxic-and-potentially
In Reierson/STOP-COVID 2, fluvoxamine was an out and out failure and the trial was aborted early.
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/8/ofad419/7238414
Bramante et al examined metformin, fluvoxamine and ivermection: "None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2201662
Seo et al was the Korean trial that found no benefit of fluvoxamine compared to placebo:
https://icjournal.org/pdf/10.3947/ic.2021.0142
That page you link to falsely claims Stewart/ACTIV-6 showed 31% "improvement" in "progression" which is bollocks. Here's what the study actually found: :Fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, does not shorten the duration of symptoms in outpatient adults with mild to moderate COVID-19." I also discuss the results here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/fluvoxamine-a-toxic-and-potentially
From this overwhelming mass of failure, c19early.org egregiously claims "the most serious outcome reported shows 39% [22‑53%] lower risk. Results are similar for Randomized Controlled Trials."
This is total bullshit. Whoever put that page together has no business commenting on health matters, because their idiocy is dangerous.
I passed along the list of studies with no comment as I haven't looked too deep into them. I was curious if these were what Kirsch based his opinions on. Based on these “pooled studies”, whatever the hell that means, Fluvoxamine showed little effect compared to alternative therapies that are also listed and ranked on the site. Thanks for your thorough reply.