“I do not judge a doctor who has a dying patient before him and, desperate, tries anything [to save her],” says Carlos Chaccour, a Venezuelan researcher at the Barcelona Institute of Global Health in Spain. “The problem is when non-evidence-based public policies are made.”
I think the current scare stories are about the use of veterinary medication in horse size doses. Ivermectin has been given to humans billions of times over the years with very low incidences of minor, transient side effects.
FWIW: My small town country doctor in Pennsylvania treats his Covid patients with Ivermectin. None of his patients who received the treatment early in their diagnosis have been hospitalized, only those who were already very ill on their first visit and were taken to the Emergency Room.
Promoting unproven medicines has the side effect of giving cover to those who want to avoid the actual proven method of fighting this virus. Is your small town doctor giving vaccinations as well, or just relying on ivermectin after the fact? Many of the current ivermectin hoarders are using it in lieu of a vaccine and are using anecdotal shit like this as their justification.
But since most people who get covid aren’t hospitalized, there’s no way to know if the ivermectin had any effect, unless it’s tested in a double-blind study.
A lot of patients “early in their diagnosis” are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms, and will not progress to serious disease with or without ivermectin (being vaccinated helps). It’s easy for physicians to deceive themselves about treatment effectiveness, in part due to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
I have a relative whose months-long Long Covid finally began to improve a few weeks after taking ivermectin. So she’s convinced that’s what cured it, not that it had just run its course.
Facebook won’t let her proselytize about it anymore unless she breaks “iver mectin” up into 2 words.
For the record, ivermectin is currently being studied properly and I’m perfectly fine with doctors utilizing it if the study ends up showing positive results. The problem is that a lot of the current pro-ivermectin research is just regurgitating the original utter shit of a study that really started this thing, as eviscerated below:
Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021 due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation.
Promoting is different from using. And I see no reason to assume that a doctor who tries unproven treatments is also avoiding proven treatments. It’s fairly common for doctors to do both. Also, once someone actually has covid, they shouldn’t get vaccinated until their symptoms resolve, and sometimes rather longer, depending on how sick they were and how they were treated.
It’s irrelevant to this particular story, yes, but meanwhile livestock stores can’t keep it on the shelves because humans are buying it with the intention of using it on themselves. If Ivermectin couldn’t be purchased over the counter, this would be a lot more like HCQ where the anger is directed at doctors that are writing scripts for it, not people hoarding it. At least that’s how I’m understanding the situation.
That’s kinda how I feel about this guy. He’s almost certainly not going to live so giving him Ivermictin is going to, at the worst, do what? Shave a day or two off of his life if it hurts him (or is done in place of other therapies)? At best, maybe some good will come of it. Is there a chance that it’ll actually show some promise? (Or kill him and maybe a few people will jump off the Ivermictin bandwagon?). But I’d think the hospital and his insurance company should require his wife to sign whatever ‘experimental therapy’ paperwork is required when they do these kinds of things. It seems he perfectly fits the status to be an eligible “right to try” patient, though I’m not sure Ivermectin (for covid, in humans) would be eligible drug without the FDA making some sort of changes or special exception for it.
When you live in a world that allows you to blatantly lie and call it “alternative facts”, where there’s no logic, no consequences, and you can literally say ‘fuck your feelings’ when you win and sue people when you lose, there’s not a lot of point in arguing with these people. Let them believe what they want to believe. If/when they change their mind and want the correct treatments that give them the best chances, it’s here for them.
Remember, no matter what the talking heads on Fox tell you, most of them got the vaccine and internal emails have proven that they [Fox News] are taking it somewhat seriously behind the scenes.
I prefer to look at it from the point of view of all the people that have spent the last 18 months calling people sheep are suddenly taking sheep medication. Of course, they’re also unironically saying ‘my body my choice’ WRT getting vaccinated. So they’re not too bright.
Absolutely. And those people can be fully excoriated separately. This woman is not trying to give her husband horse medicine, and for the article to imply that is what she is doing is just as bad as when Fox News breathlessly reports
The accompanying picture shows him outdoors and alone, so there is none of the implied hypocracy. So while every word is true, the effect is ultimately a lie.
I’m not saying USA Today is as bad as Fox, or anything like that. I’m merely equating these two specific examples of lies in the guise of truth. I detest it in both cases.
The doctor who did the prescription in the OP is absolutely promoting. In fact, his organization will tell you the bad things about vaccines, although they’re careful to still say that they are useful. Straight from their website, they talk about the downsides of options other than ivermectin and somehow have the gall to claim that there is no scientific data available for review on the vaccines:
Making a risk/benefit decision at this time, with the currently available data showing consistent high efficacy and safety with mortality benefits from 24 controlled trials, would far exceed the strength and validity of the rationales used to adopt the entirety of currently employed therapeutics in COVID-19 given all were adopted in the setting of either
absence of even pre-print study data available for wider scientific review (vaccines).
This is the kind of shit that drives the anti-vaxxers running down to Bob’s Feed and Seed (or to donate to ivermectin shills such as Quack Wagshul).
I have no reason to assume that people who live in the town of some country doctor would know that he treats his patients with ivermectin and that none of them were hospitalized unless he’s promoting it. From there, it’s not a stretch to imagine he’s not pushing vaccines super hard. If he is, there are others who are not.
I’m troubled by the courts ordering doctors to provide treatments that are medically unjustified. It’s one thing if a doctor won’t acquiesce to the wishes of a patient or the patient’s representative on moral grounds, or on the basis of a rogue medical opinion (i.e. if they refuse to give an accepted medical treatment.) But if you want a drug no hospital will give you, then leave the hospital and go get it from your quack practitioner.
That said, I do actually kind of sympathize with the desire to try something as crazy as an unproven off-label use of this drug, under the circumstances. I generally go to regular doctors and use conventional treatments and follow all the standard medical advice that isn’t too inconvenient. (I eat and drink more, and exercise less, than is recommended, but it’s not because I disagree with the recommendations.) But when the standard procedure isn’t working for me, I seek out a second opinion, and sometimes experiment on my own. I’m generally in favor of the freedom to do that, even when it’s objectively unwise, though I favor limits designed to protect others. (Go ahead and shove crystals in your orifices; just get vaccinated or stay home.) But the right to seek out alternative treatments should not extend to compelling a physician to provide them.