I haven't really looked at Ivermectin because everyone else was, and it just seemed like a good way to jump into a pit of snakes.
I did cover Fluvoxamine, and Fluvoxamine has many different MoAs from lysosomotropism similar to Hydroxychloroquine and to reducing ER Stress by serving as a sigma-1 agonist.
It has many of the hallmarks of Ivermectin: cheap, widely available (SSRI), etc. However, it is not without some side effects. I think our culture is becoming more conscientious of things that alter mental function and with all of this talk about mass shooters I wouldn't be surprised if these concepts are related.
Why does it relate to Fluvoxamine? One of the Columbine shooters was found to have been on Fluvoxamine and so the manufacturer fell under a lot of heat and there was national outcry. I think at a time where people are both concerned about mass shootings and the mental health of our nation I suppose that could (note, COULD) be a big factor in a mass administration of an SSRI?
Or, it could really just be the old adage: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained through incompetency.
I think it could very well be that these trials, and really many of the trials we are seeing, are just suffering from poor methodology and having many people examine these trials with a magnifying glass may really just be picking up on these errors.
Thank you for all of your hard work. It is much appreciated. I was thinking the other day that the results of clinical trials should be transparent and written for the average patient to read. In other words, it should be easy to determine the particular patient (age/sex/comorbidity) for which a drug's benefits outweigh the risks. Critical information shouldn't be buried in a paragraph or in an appendix. Perhaps a change similar to that of mortgage closing documents in the Obama era.
Also, clinical trials should be run by independent companies and trial design should be heavily scrutinized and agreed to beforehand with valuable societal endpoints (i.e. not Covid vaccine endpoints), and with regular monitoring for compliance with design.
I haven't really looked at Ivermectin because everyone else was, and it just seemed like a good way to jump into a pit of snakes.
I did cover Fluvoxamine, and Fluvoxamine has many different MoAs from lysosomotropism similar to Hydroxychloroquine and to reducing ER Stress by serving as a sigma-1 agonist.
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/the-fluvoxamine-anthology-series?s=w
It has many of the hallmarks of Ivermectin: cheap, widely available (SSRI), etc. However, it is not without some side effects. I think our culture is becoming more conscientious of things that alter mental function and with all of this talk about mass shooters I wouldn't be surprised if these concepts are related.
Why does it relate to Fluvoxamine? One of the Columbine shooters was found to have been on Fluvoxamine and so the manufacturer fell under a lot of heat and there was national outcry. I think at a time where people are both concerned about mass shootings and the mental health of our nation I suppose that could (note, COULD) be a big factor in a mass administration of an SSRI?
Or, it could really just be the old adage: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained through incompetency.
I think it could very well be that these trials, and really many of the trials we are seeing, are just suffering from poor methodology and having many people examine these trials with a magnifying glass may really just be picking up on these errors.
Thank you for all of your hard work. It is much appreciated. I was thinking the other day that the results of clinical trials should be transparent and written for the average patient to read. In other words, it should be easy to determine the particular patient (age/sex/comorbidity) for which a drug's benefits outweigh the risks. Critical information shouldn't be buried in a paragraph or in an appendix. Perhaps a change similar to that of mortgage closing documents in the Obama era.
Also, clinical trials should be run by independent companies and trial design should be heavily scrutinized and agreed to beforehand with valuable societal endpoints (i.e. not Covid vaccine endpoints), and with regular monitoring for compliance with design.
The award money comes from vaccine makers, as expected.
https://www.sctweb.org/sponsors.cfm
In case they flew under your Twitter radar, I’m linking my unanswered comments/questions that I think are relevant on this article as well:
https://twitter.com/millenamos/status/1526771079112323072
https://twitter.com/millenamos/status/1526782630322089984
https://twitter.com/millenamos/status/1526785109734481921
Keep up the good detective work
Surely people must have recognised by now that TOGETHER is actually working together with big pharma?