Science/Environment Covid-19 Treatments

Remove this Banner Ad

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham



Success against COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments.

What are the likely treatments that will be effective against Covid-19?
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
16,414
34,644
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs



Success against COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments.

What are the likely treatments that will be effective against Covid-19?
Doesn't look like it's ivermectin, it's a combination of others including Ritonovir which has been used to control HIV.
 

Chief

Shill
Dec 1, 1999
101,214
80,149
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Fluvoxamine reported as promising:


Hydroxychloroquine, enthusiastically endorsed by President Trump last year, has been shown to have no measurable benefits. New drugs like monoclonal antibodies — proteins meant to imitate the immune system’s response to the disease — have been approved by regulators but must be administered by a doctor through an IV or series of injections.

But scientists haven’t stopped searching, and the results of a new massive clinical trial suggest they’re getting somewhere. In a large, randomized clinical trial conducted with thousands of patients over the past six months, researchers at McMaster University tested eight different Covid-19 treatments against a control group to figure out what works.

One drug stood out: fluvoxamine, an antidepressant that the Food and Drug Administration has already found to be safe and that’s cheap to produce as a generic drug.


 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cluggage

shitposter
Jun 3, 2014
7,304
8,576
Noosa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Arsenal, Lions, Hugh McCluggage
Interim results from the Together trial show no benefit from Ivermectin as a prophylactic or treatment, much to the sadness of all the anti-vax idiots I know. The prices you pay for living in Queensland, eh.
 

Cluggage

shitposter
Jun 3, 2014
7,304
8,576
Noosa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Arsenal, Lions, Hugh McCluggage
Fluvoxamine reported as promising:


Hydroxychloroquine, enthusiastically endorsed by President Trump last year, has been shown to have no measurable benefits. New drugs like monoclonal antibodies — proteins meant to imitate the immune system’s response to the disease — have been approved by regulators but must be administered by a doctor through an IV or series of injections.

But scientists haven’t stopped searching, and the results of a new massive clinical trial suggest they’re getting somewhere. In a large, randomized clinical trial conducted with thousands of patients over the past six months, researchers at McMaster University tested eight different Covid-19 treatments against a control group to figure out what works.

One drug stood out: fluvoxamine, an antidepressant that the Food and Drug Administration has already found to be safe and that’s cheap to produce as a generic drug.


It baffles my (admittedly non-scientific) mind that an SSRI could treat any virus, let alone Covid.
 

Jibroni

Club Legend
Jun 14, 2017
2,019
2,636
Adelaide
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
Interim results from the Together trial show no benefit from Ivermectin as a prophylactic or treatment, much to the sadness of all the anti-vax idiots I know. The prices you pay for living in Queensland, eh.
Not so sure about that (Ivermectin), our government simply seems incompetent to understand its benefit as explained in this video.

 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
The FDA gave emergency use authorisation for Baricitinib, in combination with Remdesivir despite a World Health Organisation clinical trial finding that Remdesivir has "little or no effect" on a hospitalised Covid-19 patients' chances of survival.

As well as not being effective it costs $US 2,600 per person.

Australia's TGA has granted provisional approval to Remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 in adults and adolescent patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms who have been hospitalised.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Any other evidence?


Also, the trials showed that Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon beta-1a regimens seemed to have little or no effect on 28 day mortality. None of the drugs delayed the need for ventilation or shortened the stay of patients admitted to hospital.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Fluvoxamine reported as promising:


Hydroxychloroquine, enthusiastically endorsed by President Trump last year, has been shown to have no measurable benefits. New drugs like monoclonal antibodies — proteins meant to imitate the immune system’s response to the disease — have been approved by regulators but must be administered by a doctor through an IV or series of injections.

But scientists haven’t stopped searching, and the results of a new massive clinical trial suggest they’re getting somewhere. In a large, randomized clinical trial conducted with thousands of patients over the past six months, researchers at McMaster University tested eight different Covid-19 treatments against a control group to figure out what works.

One drug stood out: fluvoxamine, an antidepressant that the Food and Drug Administration has already found to be safe and that’s cheap to produce as a generic drug.


Fluvoxamine sounds promising though apparently a preprint like you quoted renders the study bogus.

$2,000 or more for a dose for a monoclonal antibody.

Fluvoxamine costs $4. It doesn't need to be kept in a freezer, it doesn’t expire quickly and has a long record of safety. Let's see which drugs gets approved.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,887
13,647
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Not so sure about that (Ivermectin), our government simply seems incompetent to understand its benefit as explained in this video.

He doesn't mention anything about any supposed efficacy. He is criticising the rationale of the government's approach (i.e. people won't listen to their doctors, they'll only follow social media, so let's ban doctors from prescribing because we don't trust people will listen to and follow their prescription anyway), not the government's understanding of Ivermectin.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HurleyHepsHird

Maximum Praxis
Oct 2, 2011
4,806
6,060
Annares
AFL Club
West Coast
Fluvoxamine reported as promising:


Hydroxychloroquine, enthusiastically endorsed by President Trump last year, has been shown to have no measurable benefits. New drugs like monoclonal antibodies — proteins meant to imitate the immune system’s response to the disease — have been approved by regulators but must be administered by a doctor through an IV or series of injections.

But scientists haven’t stopped searching, and the results of a new massive clinical trial suggest they’re getting somewhere. In a large, randomized clinical trial conducted with thousands of patients over the past six months, researchers at McMaster University tested eight different Covid-19 treatments against a control group to figure out what works.

One drug stood out: fluvoxamine, an antidepressant that the Food and Drug Administration has already found to be safe and that’s cheap to produce as a generic drug.


Yeah, a small group of SSRIs have the same utility/similar mechanism for combatting COVID symptoms as two corticosteroids, which is interrupting inflammatory pathways.

For the same reason Fluoxetine shows promise in tackling conditions that may lead to cognitive decline, it also may help limit pro-inflammatory cascades (cytokine storms) in other parts if the body.

Whilst this targeted at impeding some feature of the virus, like replication, but instead symptoms management, it still holds promise if it reduces COVID mortality. Much like paracetamol and viral induced fever.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
39,847
18,283
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Interim results from the Together trial show no benefit from Ivermectin as a prophylactic or treatment, much to the sadness of all the anti-vax idiots I know. The prices you pay for living in Queensland, eh.
Makes me laugh quite a bit that an anti vaxxer would rather have a cattle delouser than an actual vaccine.
Same type idiots who want the right to let their kids bleed out rather than have blood transfusions.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
He doesn't mention anything about any supposed efficacy. He is criticising the rationale of the government's approach (i.e. people won't listen to their doctors, they'll only follow social media, so let's ban doctors from prescribing because we don't trust people will listen to and follow their prescription anyway), not the government's understanding of Ivermectin.
The TGA did not say anything about efficacy either. The three reasons they cited for prohibiting GPs prescribing Ivermectin are :

i) people may not choose to get vaccinated or tested
ii) social media might lead to people taking incorrect dosages
iii) people using Ivermectin for Covid might lead to shortages for those who need it for scabies and parasite infections
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,576
14,181
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
On 20 August 2021 the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) granted provisional determination to Roche Products Pty Ltd in relation to the combination therapy casirivimab + imdevimab (Ronapreve).

It was famously used as part of the suite of experimental medicines given to US President Donald Trump last year. However, it is very expensive and likely to be reserved for those at greatest risk of becoming severely ill.

The drug costs between £1,000 to £2,000 for one course of treatment ($1,900 to $3,800).
 

Chief

Shill
Dec 1, 1999
101,214
80,149
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
The TGA did not say anything about efficacy either.
Because it's a given.

And your version of the TGA statement doesn't match the TGA statement:

The three reasons they cited for prohibiting GPs prescribing Ivermectin are :

i) people may not choose to get vaccinated or tested
ii) social media might lead to people taking incorrect dosages
iii) people using Ivermectin for Covid might lead to shortages for those who need it for scabies and parasite infections
Firstly, - Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms.

(Note: It's a good chance it's happening already.)

Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for COVID-19 are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment. These higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma.

(Note: No "might" at all)

Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections.

(Note: No "might" - shortages are happening.)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad