From my own investigation, it seems like any anti-viral properties that Ivermectin might have are at dosages higher than are is safe to use in a human. Those dosages aren’t human dosages. So a proper human dosage of Ivermectin is, in essence, equivalent to taking a perfectly good medication and throwing it down the toilet since it’s not going to do anything.
I’m guessing that you’d agree with me that pushing ivermectin while making the vaccine sound problematic, which is what the FLCCC is doing, wouldn’t be something you’re a fan of.
I’m not Quadgop, but this is my point. What you’ve said in that quote is the valid criticism of that doctor.
That they prescribed something off label, or a drug that is also a veterinary medicine, is not valid criticism, because those same practices can be medically sound, not-harmful actions taken by competent medical professionals.
But in this particular case, the doctor doing the prescribing is a grifting quack and I’m assuming the hospital would be happy to inform the judge of that fact. Sometimes grifting quacks end up being right (broken clock and all that), but that shouldn’t be the default position for judgement. I don’t fault the woman for wanting to try everything, but I think judge should be wary of forcing a hospital to use a treatment that they are uncomfortable using due to an unknown risk/reward balance (i.e. the science behind it), just because some quack wants to try it.
It’s one thing to prescribe off-label when there’s a reason to believe that that off-label use will be beneficial. But here, there isn’t. There is literally no reason to believe that ivermectin would be at all effective against covid.
Of course. Again, though, it isn’t the act of prescribing off label that is the problem. This is the problem, as you say:
There is literally no reason to believe that ivermectin would be at all effective against covid.
Plus ivermectin can cause harm. So risk/benefit says this is major quackery.
A quack could also write a prescription for someone to take 10,000 mg of ibuprofen for their Covid aches and pains. The fact that treatment for aches and pains is an on-label use for ibuprofen wouldn’t make the quack’s prescription OK.
And a doctor prescribing something off label is a routine and unremarkable thing.
What is remarkable is when whatever the medication is has no likely benefit, and there are potential harms, such that a competent doctor would not prescribe the treatment.
Agreed.
Seinfeld anticipates the ivermectin craze.
I think we need a second opinion. Any horse dopers around?
I once spent about a month on a working ranch. The rancher regularly used livestock medicine on himself and his children.
Not good enough. We need a real horse. Advice straight from the horse’s mouth. Mister Ed, where are you?
Didn’t you know? Mr. Ed was actually a zebra.
Mr. Ed was an actor. Good actors can play any part.
I used it on parakeets to treat rapidly spreading mites. Vet prescribed. She mentioned how difficult it was to get dosage right for small animals. Really the only practical solution, as the DIY treatment is to catch birds and slather beaks, and feet with vasoline. Much trouble ensued! Went to vet. Thank you science.
No, we wanted the judge to not force medical personnel to give medicine they did not deem appropriate simply because some unrelated doctor had given a prescription when asked to do so by the patient’s next of kin. By forcing them to give said medication, the judge is acting as an attending physician, which is not their role.
You have admitted to not reading the thread you describe. So it is impossible for you to have an informed opinion of it. We could have better discussion over whether there was any misunderstanding if you would read the thread. I personally don’t think there was, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
Personally, I welcome the headlines calling it de-wormer or veterinary medicine.
I oft times forget to give my dogs their heartworm pills every month, and as long as these people taking Ivermectin are in the news, it’s a good reminder.
I read the thread to a certain point, and was commenting on what had been written in it to that point.
I actually don’t know what the law is regarding whether hospital personnel are supposed to, or generally have discretion not to, carry out an outside physician’s orders. I may return to the thread to see whether there’s a discussion of that now, with citation to the relevant laws. But that’s not what I saw there at the outset.
Oral doses for systemic treatment.
