Help me understand the rationale of the NIH to not recommend Fluvoxamine for COVID treatment.
So the TOGETHER trial signal boosted by Scott of slate star codex found Fluvoxamine to be effective at reducing 30% of COVID hospitalisation and fatality. The NIH looked at the study and found it unconvicing, I am a bit confused as to the rationale. I'll list it out as I understand it: * the primary outcomes [retention in the emergency department for >6 hours or admission to a tertiary hospital] was chosen without rationale * There was no significant difference in mortality between study arms in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population [however, it's 2% in treatment arm and 3% in placebo arm as expected of the 30% reduction expectation] * significant difference was only found in patients who have persisted in taking >80% of fluvoxamine doses, however there were also improved outcome for patients who have persisted in taking >80% of placebo dose, suggesting that another mechanism [e.g. conscientiousness] to be resposible for [most? all?] the improvement in outcome. Is my understanding correct and does NIH's critiques of the study hold merrit?
?good timing,
by coincident, I had some changes to my living arrangement so I was able to carry out the experiment
1st day: less than 2 hours screen time, almost 0 screen time after 1200 [noon], dreamless, but I was quite exhaust that day
2nd day: even less screen time and almost 0 screen time after 1200 [noon], I had a dream, felt to me like any standard dream, I was even more exhaust than the 1st day
3rd day: ~3 hours of screen time and almost 0 screen time 2 hours before sleep, 2 phases sleep, 1 phase dreamless, woke up at 0300 , back to sleep, phase 2 I had a dream, felt to... (read more)