you've done a lot of good work in calling out the toxic COVID 'vaccines', so it's terribly sad to see you glorifying a truly garbage drug like fluvoxamine.
Your article ignores several key points:
1. The Thai study you cite in this article is not worth the paper it's written on. It's a completely unblinded, open-label study, meaning the researchers knew which group each subject was in. When one of those researchers, Angela M Reiersen, just happens to hold a patent for the use of fluvoxamine as a COVID treatment, that's a problem. A big problem. The potential for bias and misreporting of the results is obvious.
2. There clearly was misreporting in this study, because the withdrawal data stink like rotting fish on a 40C day. A la the Pfizer vaxxxine study, the treatment groups had a remarkably higher rate of 'withdrawals' than the standard care group, and the researchers don't explain why. This was a randomized trial, and the standard care group was included in the random allocation of subjects, so there should be similar withdrawal rates between groups. Looks to me like the researchers created more 'withdrawals' in the treatment groups to remove subjects with unfavourable data.
Also, zero clinical deterioration and hospitalizations in the combo groups, a mere 9 among the fluvoxamine-only group, yet a whopping 321 of 336 standard care subjects with "mild" 'COVID' experienced clinical deterioration, with many requiring hospitalization?
Yeah, sure.
If this slop was a COVID vaxxxine study, everyone here would be hurling rotten tomatoes at it. Because it's not a vaxxxine, we're supposed to pretend that it's unfairly suppressed research. Sorry, but unblinding, blatant conflicts of interest and extremely suspicious withdrawal and outcome data are not okay just because we're dealing with a non-vaxxxine.
3. The gold standard for drug testing is randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Something you don't mention here is that there have already been 5 double-blind trials and 1 single-blind trial of fluvoxamine against 'COVID.' Each and every one showed fluvoxamine to be a dud in the treatment of 'COVID.'
Three of those previous trials were conducted by Reiersen and fellow patent holder Eric Lenze, who has financial ties to Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which now holds the license for fluvoxamine.
In one of their trials, STOP COVID 2, fluvoxamine was such a flop that they didn't even bother publishing the results. The other two failed to show any benefit, so the authors chopped, changed and deleted original endpoints in an attempt to contrive something resembling a significant result. They then tried to word their papers as if fluvoxamine was effective. It wasn't, as I explain here:
Note that the other research groups around the world, who did not have a vested interest in fluvoxamine as a COVID treatment, did not attempt to re-frame their negative results as positive.
Bottom line is that the 3 of 7 trials claiming efficacy for fluvoxamine against COVID just happen to feature Reiersen on the author list, who holds a patent for the use of fluvoxamine against COVID.
4. Fluvoxamine is an SSRI antidepressant. This class of drugs is problematic at the best of times, and fluvoxamine stands out as an especially disagreeable drug. Someone else here wrote that it has a 'superior side effect profile'. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is notorious for causing nausea, agitation, psychiatric disturbances and suicidal behaviour.
The heightened risk of suicidality caused by fluvoxamine is a function of its penchant for causing stimulation and agitation. Depressed people often ideate about suicide, but thankfully most never act upon these thoughts. However, when someone is both depressed and agitated, you have a particularly dangerous state where they are more likely to act upon violent impulses and cause harm to themselves - and others.
The treatment period in the Thai study was 14 days. The peak suicide danger periods with SSRI use occur within the first 4 weeks of treatment, the first 4 weeks after cessation, and after a dosage change.
I've seen with my own eyes what this fluvoxamine junk can do to people, which prompted a 3-part deep dive that you can read at the following links (with plenty of links to the cited studies):
I strongly urge you to read my critiques and the research I have linked to, and reconsider your stance on fluvoxamine. It is an awful drug that should have been pulled a long time ago.
Oh, and one last tidbit. You seem to believe the FDA is 'suppressing' fluvoxamine. Here's the reality: Fluvoxamine's US approval in the US was achieved on the basis of a fraudulent application by then-owner Solvay:
I suspect this came to light because of the controversy caused when it was revealed Columbine shooter Eric Harris had been taking fluvoxamine at the time of the shootings.
Fluvoxamine was temporarily withdrawn from the US market in 2002. Despite Solvay's egregious dishonesty, and nothing having materially changed about fluvoxamine itself, the drug was quietly green-lighted again by the FDA in 2007.
Perhaps to assist this ruse, Solvay had licensed the right to market Luvox to Jazz Pharmaceuticals, pending FDA approval to reinstate the drug for sale in the US. While all this was going on, fluvoxamine remained available in the US in generic form.
Does that sound to you like a drug the FDA is trying to suppress?
The reason fluvoxamine has not been approved as a treatment for 'COVID' is simple: Repeated double-blind studies have shown it is useless as a treatment for 'COVID.' The data is so poor that there's no amount of statistical sorcery that can hide the fact this drug is useless for that purpose.
There are so many better options for dealing with respiratory and flu-like ailments that I can't fathom why people look to toxic drugs like fluvoxamine.
Hi Steve,
you've done a lot of good work in calling out the toxic COVID 'vaccines', so it's terribly sad to see you glorifying a truly garbage drug like fluvoxamine.
Your article ignores several key points:
1. The Thai study you cite in this article is not worth the paper it's written on. It's a completely unblinded, open-label study, meaning the researchers knew which group each subject was in. When one of those researchers, Angela M Reiersen, just happens to hold a patent for the use of fluvoxamine as a COVID treatment, that's a problem. A big problem. The potential for bias and misreporting of the results is obvious.
2. There clearly was misreporting in this study, because the withdrawal data stink like rotting fish on a 40C day. A la the Pfizer vaxxxine study, the treatment groups had a remarkably higher rate of 'withdrawals' than the standard care group, and the researchers don't explain why. This was a randomized trial, and the standard care group was included in the random allocation of subjects, so there should be similar withdrawal rates between groups. Looks to me like the researchers created more 'withdrawals' in the treatment groups to remove subjects with unfavourable data.
Also, zero clinical deterioration and hospitalizations in the combo groups, a mere 9 among the fluvoxamine-only group, yet a whopping 321 of 336 standard care subjects with "mild" 'COVID' experienced clinical deterioration, with many requiring hospitalization?
Yeah, sure.
If this slop was a COVID vaxxxine study, everyone here would be hurling rotten tomatoes at it. Because it's not a vaxxxine, we're supposed to pretend that it's unfairly suppressed research. Sorry, but unblinding, blatant conflicts of interest and extremely suspicious withdrawal and outcome data are not okay just because we're dealing with a non-vaxxxine.
I dismantle this farce of a trial here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/dear-steve-kirsch-fluvoxamine-is
3. The gold standard for drug testing is randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Something you don't mention here is that there have already been 5 double-blind trials and 1 single-blind trial of fluvoxamine against 'COVID.' Each and every one showed fluvoxamine to be a dud in the treatment of 'COVID.'
Three of those previous trials were conducted by Reiersen and fellow patent holder Eric Lenze, who has financial ties to Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which now holds the license for fluvoxamine.
In one of their trials, STOP COVID 2, fluvoxamine was such a flop that they didn't even bother publishing the results. The other two failed to show any benefit, so the authors chopped, changed and deleted original endpoints in an attempt to contrive something resembling a significant result. They then tried to word their papers as if fluvoxamine was effective. It wasn't, as I explain here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/fluvoxamine-a-toxic-and-potentially
Note that the other research groups around the world, who did not have a vested interest in fluvoxamine as a COVID treatment, did not attempt to re-frame their negative results as positive.
Bottom line is that the 3 of 7 trials claiming efficacy for fluvoxamine against COVID just happen to feature Reiersen on the author list, who holds a patent for the use of fluvoxamine against COVID.
4. Fluvoxamine is an SSRI antidepressant. This class of drugs is problematic at the best of times, and fluvoxamine stands out as an especially disagreeable drug. Someone else here wrote that it has a 'superior side effect profile'. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is notorious for causing nausea, agitation, psychiatric disturbances and suicidal behaviour.
The heightened risk of suicidality caused by fluvoxamine is a function of its penchant for causing stimulation and agitation. Depressed people often ideate about suicide, but thankfully most never act upon these thoughts. However, when someone is both depressed and agitated, you have a particularly dangerous state where they are more likely to act upon violent impulses and cause harm to themselves - and others.
The treatment period in the Thai study was 14 days. The peak suicide danger periods with SSRI use occur within the first 4 weeks of treatment, the first 4 weeks after cessation, and after a dosage change.
I've seen with my own eyes what this fluvoxamine junk can do to people, which prompted a 3-part deep dive that you can read at the following links (with plenty of links to the cited studies):
https://anthonycolpo.com/the-great-ssri-scam-how-taking-anti-depressant-drugs-can-kill-you-part-1/
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/the-great-ssri-scam-how-taking-anti-depressant-drugs-can-kill-you-part-2 (this installment contains the most research on fluvoxamine)
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/the-great-ssri-scam-how-taking-anti-depressant-drugs-can-kill-you-part-3
I strongly urge you to read my critiques and the research I have linked to, and reconsider your stance on fluvoxamine. It is an awful drug that should have been pulled a long time ago.
Oh, and one last tidbit. You seem to believe the FDA is 'suppressing' fluvoxamine. Here's the reality: Fluvoxamine's US approval in the US was achieved on the basis of a fraudulent application by then-owner Solvay:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2007/021519s000_MedR.pdf
I suspect this came to light because of the controversy caused when it was revealed Columbine shooter Eric Harris had been taking fluvoxamine at the time of the shootings.
Fluvoxamine was temporarily withdrawn from the US market in 2002. Despite Solvay's egregious dishonesty, and nothing having materially changed about fluvoxamine itself, the drug was quietly green-lighted again by the FDA in 2007.
Perhaps to assist this ruse, Solvay had licensed the right to market Luvox to Jazz Pharmaceuticals, pending FDA approval to reinstate the drug for sale in the US. While all this was going on, fluvoxamine remained available in the US in generic form.
Does that sound to you like a drug the FDA is trying to suppress?
The reason fluvoxamine has not been approved as a treatment for 'COVID' is simple: Repeated double-blind studies have shown it is useless as a treatment for 'COVID.' The data is so poor that there's no amount of statistical sorcery that can hide the fact this drug is useless for that purpose.
There are so many better options for dealing with respiratory and flu-like ailments that I can't fathom why people look to toxic drugs like fluvoxamine.
Kind regards,
Anthony Colpo.