Fluvoxamine in combination with one other drug was 100% successful in preventing hospitalization for COVID in this multi-drug trial in Thailand. Those on standard of care: 37.5% hospitalized!
I've been reading Anthony Colpo's work for close to fifteen years, starting with The Great Cholesterol Con. He is one of the most impartial, honest and discerning independent researchers you can find. There are few people's whose work I trust as much as his, or whose writings would cause me to rethink my own premises and positions as much as his on matters of health and nutrition.
Your refusal to engage with his critique very much calls into question your good faith, particularly given the conflicts of interest he called out in some of the people you are citing. If there is no response to Colpo on this, I will be unsubscribing to your Substack.
As an Ob/gyn physician assistant for over 27 years, I too saw the red flags in early 2020 and started researching myself, provided studies, FLCCC papers and articles to my department heads, only to be fired for "non compliance". How easily the public was gaslighted and lined up for a quick cure-all. Like others, I have stocked up on the off label drugs, prepared for what is to come.
Fluvoxamine has 654 Deaths recorded in the US FDA Adverse Events Reporting System from 7,151 Reports - a very High Death to Report Ratio. So I am surprised you claim it is "safe and effective".
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.
The "mainstream" will claim the data was misrepresented, have the paper retracted, then publish news articles claiming Fluvoxamine has been debunked as a cure for covid.
The premeditated and deliberate commission of a criminal act with knowledge of its harmfulness or reckless indifference to its harmfulness and without justification or excuse.
The criminal intent which precedes a crime, especially murder.
The article's Fig 2 is very communicative, but the colours are weird. My article contains these three charts individually and together as in the original Fig 2, with more appropriate colours - green for those patients who did not need to go to hospital.
The treatments would have been even more effective if they had used bolus vitamin D3 (such as 10 mg 400,000 IU, single dose) or better still a single oral dose of ~1mg of calcifediol, to raise the circulating level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (as measured in "vitamin D" blood tests) to at least the 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L = 1 part in 20,000,000 by mass) which the immune system needs to function properly.
Calcifediol *is* 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This 0.014 mg / kg body weight protocol, from New Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997, takes only a few hours to achieve this since it goes straight into circulation. Bolus vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) takes several days, due to the need for it to be hydroxylated, primarily in the liver.
Please see the research articles on 25-hydroxyvitamin D (made in the liver from vitamin D3) and the immune system, cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/.
If everyone supplemented vitamin D3 properly, as Prof Wimalawansa recommends (based on body weight and obesity status) then there would be no COVID-19 pandemic, less influenza and severe symptoms from this, much less COVID, Kawasaki disease and MISC, less cancer and numerous other diseases. Please read the research!
For 70 kg (154 lb) without obesity about 0.125 mg vitamin D3 is a good amount to supplement, on average, per day. This is also known as "5000 IU" a day. This is a gram every 22 years - and pharma grade vitamin D3 costs about USD$2.50 a gram, ex-factory.
Governments and many doctors recommend much smaller amounts, such as 0.015 mg (15 millionths of a gram) AKA "600 IU" a day.
You have to wonder how this will all end. I hope we all grow and this resolves over time but history suggests it may not. It may need to be resolved via more primitive methods, time will tell.
Is 37.5% hospitalisation normal? Seems excessive. Why so high? Old population? Alpha variant? What was in the standard care that may have contributed to the high rate?
Regardless, I think the study could have proven the drugs cured all cancers, raised IQ, and solved the climate change catastrophe in addition to not just treating but eliminating the transmission of covid and none of the alphabet agencies would give a rat's backside. It's not been about public health for these agencies for a long time now.
Fluvxamine as ALL the SSRI/SNRI is SHIT. Stop.
I've been reading Anthony Colpo's work for close to fifteen years, starting with The Great Cholesterol Con. He is one of the most impartial, honest and discerning independent researchers you can find. There are few people's whose work I trust as much as his, or whose writings would cause me to rethink my own premises and positions as much as his on matters of health and nutrition.
Your refusal to engage with his critique very much calls into question your good faith, particularly given the conflicts of interest he called out in some of the people you are citing. If there is no response to Colpo on this, I will be unsubscribing to your Substack.
JUST BREAKING: https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/wefs-guru-who-advocated-for-less?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=581065&post_id=142809067&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1l2rck&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Pro Vax guru collapsed with brain bleed after advocating jab....Millions took his advice.
As an Ob/gyn physician assistant for over 27 years, I too saw the red flags in early 2020 and started researching myself, provided studies, FLCCC papers and articles to my department heads, only to be fired for "non compliance". How easily the public was gaslighted and lined up for a quick cure-all. Like others, I have stocked up on the off label drugs, prepared for what is to come.
Fluvoxamine and what other drug was 100% effective...article does not say?
Fluvoxamine has 654 Deaths recorded in the US FDA Adverse Events Reporting System from 7,151 Reports - a very High Death to Report Ratio. So I am surprised you claim it is "safe and effective".
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.
The "mainstream" will claim the data was misrepresented, have the paper retracted, then publish news articles claiming Fluvoxamine has been debunked as a cure for covid.
How about using serotonin supplements instead of fluvoxamine? I can't tolerate fluorinated pharmaceuticals.
"but they said that the benefits didn’t outweigh the risks and denied our EUA."
FDA translation - the benefits of early treatment for covid for billions of people do not outweigh the "risks" to our "vaccine" program.
malice aforethought
noun
The premeditated and deliberate commission of a criminal act with knowledge of its harmfulness or reckless indifference to its harmfulness and without justification or excuse.
The criminal intent which precedes a crime, especially murder.
Hi Steve, Thanks very much for reporting this. I wrote about it in greater detail, including descriptions of the four drugs, at: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/early-treatment-with-uvoxamine-bromhexine .
The article's Fig 2 is very communicative, but the colours are weird. My article contains these three charts individually and together as in the original Fig 2, with more appropriate colours - green for those patients who did not need to go to hospital.
The treatments would have been even more effective if they had used bolus vitamin D3 (such as 10 mg 400,000 IU, single dose) or better still a single oral dose of ~1mg of calcifediol, to raise the circulating level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (as measured in "vitamin D" blood tests) to at least the 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L = 1 part in 20,000,000 by mass) which the immune system needs to function properly.
Calcifediol *is* 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This 0.014 mg / kg body weight protocol, from New Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997, takes only a few hours to achieve this since it goes straight into circulation. Bolus vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) takes several days, due to the need for it to be hydroxylated, primarily in the liver.
Please see the research articles on 25-hydroxyvitamin D (made in the liver from vitamin D3) and the immune system, cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/.
If everyone supplemented vitamin D3 properly, as Prof Wimalawansa recommends (based on body weight and obesity status) then there would be no COVID-19 pandemic, less influenza and severe symptoms from this, much less COVID, Kawasaki disease and MISC, less cancer and numerous other diseases. Please read the research!
For how much vitamin D3 to take, according to his recommendations: https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/how-much-vitamin-d3-to-take. This takes two months or so to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels safely over 50 ng/mL.
For 70 kg (154 lb) without obesity about 0.125 mg vitamin D3 is a good amount to supplement, on average, per day. This is also known as "5000 IU" a day. This is a gram every 22 years - and pharma grade vitamin D3 costs about USD$2.50 a gram, ex-factory.
Governments and many doctors recommend much smaller amounts, such as 0.015 mg (15 millionths of a gram) AKA "600 IU" a day.
What virus
https://open.substack.com/pub/lionessofjudah/p/michel-chossudovsky-march-11-2020?r=xwnpw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
You have to wonder how this will all end. I hope we all grow and this resolves over time but history suggests it may not. It may need to be resolved via more primitive methods, time will tell.
Is 37.5% hospitalisation normal? Seems excessive. Why so high? Old population? Alpha variant? What was in the standard care that may have contributed to the high rate?
Regardless, I think the study could have proven the drugs cured all cancers, raised IQ, and solved the climate change catastrophe in addition to not just treating but eliminating the transmission of covid and none of the alphabet agencies would give a rat's backside. It's not been about public health for these agencies for a long time now.
They are totally corrupt and they know it, and now we know it.
For Sure, no if ands or buts about it