Judge’s order requiring hospital to give COVID patient ivermectin called “unethical”

“If I were these doctors, I simply wouldn’t do it.”

Read the whole story

 

[mhalpern]

This is the FLCCC's propaganda site. https://covid19criticalcare.com/

I am not saying that people with a certain set of skills arsians are likely to have should do anything to it. But I wouldn't be upset if they did.

Who do you think we are? John Oliver?

 

[SixDegrees]

I said that a controlled, blinded, properly reported study would be the appropriate next step after an initial study suggests the possibility, in a lab setting, that a drug may have some efficacy.

I then described jumping to prescribing it directly to hospitalized patients as "insane".

Does this count?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

Not really, since that study was too small for the authors to draw any solid conclusions. From the article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/

Although the study sample was too small (n = 72) to draw any solid conclusions...

Additionally, while the authors of that study claim no conflict of interest, the study was funded by Beximco Pharmaceutical, who manufacture, you guessed it, Ivermectin.
https://www.beximcopharma.com/products/ ... tives.html

Note, also, that n=75 is divided into 3 separate arms: placebo, ivermectin plus doxycycline, and ivermectin alone. So the improvement claimed was only in 24 patients.

The authors themselves state no conclusions can be drawn from this study due to its extremely small size.

There's also the matter of the conflicting ivermectin plus doxycycline arm producing no results, a further indication that what's being measured is are noise fluctuations.

 

[BradTheGeek]

Waiting for the right-wing folks to come in here yelling about "activist judges..."

Remember, it's only "activism" when the ruling is not the way the right-wingers approve.

And it is not death panels when an insurance corporation is making the decision.

 

[marsilies]

While I agree with you on some points, the bolded one is not how the legal system works in the US.

Judges make medical decisions every day in the US. Usually after being advised by multiple medical experts and hearing different parts of the story.

That doesn't seem to have happened in this case

But -at the end of the day- when there is a dispute between patients, hospitals, caregivers, and the state a Judge is usually petitioned to hear and judge the case on its merits. There are many judgements I have read that I absolutely disagree with, but this is how the system works in the US.

Some Examples:
Pregnant Florida woman held as hospital prisoner against her will, loses baby. Burton v. Florida

This doesn't seem applicable, as it's more about a woman being held against her will, and whether she was able to opt out of medical care, with the added complication of the health of the child. The hospital wasn't forced to give a particular treatment, and if Jeffrey Smith's wife wants to remove him from the hospital, she may be free to do so.

When can the government override a parent's medical decision in the U.S.?

Again, about a person, a parent this time, refusing medical care, instead of trying to force a doctor/hospital to enact a particular form of care.

Baker Act

Again about refusing medical care, this time involuntary examination, not forcing the doctor/hospital to enact a particular form of care.

The role of the courts in clinical decision making

This has probably the closest to an example supporting this case, but it's about a doctor refusing furthering an approved treatment, not enacting a new, unproven, treatment, and the decisions all went on the side of the doctor.

There's nothing in there about forcing a hospital and/or doctors to treat a patient using a treatment they don't agree with.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Yet more political/medical porn from Ars. Holy shit this site is turning into clickbait dumpster. Beth I could stand, this Tim dude’s articles are complete emotional outrage bait.
Poorly researched news item with moralistic headline. So gross.

Go take your horse meds hoss.

The content of the OP's post suggests that he or she is taking horse meds: probably high does of PCP or ketamine.

 

[Cthel]

Yet more political/medical porn from Ars. Holy shit this site is turning into clickbait dumpster. Beth I could stand, this Tim dude’s articles are complete emotional outrage bait.
Poorly researched news item with moralistic headline. So gross.

Go take your horse meds hoss.

The content of the OP's post suggests that he or she is taking horse meds: probably high does of PCP or ketamine.

They've also gone back and editted their comment to now read, and I quote:

Thread

 

[Haas Bioroid]

Why take an unproven drug when you can take...an unproven drug?

Well, if death is almost certain, I'll take the proven and unproven drug, plus a witch doctor, some faith healing, and some Goop, all for good measure.

Beware, witch doctor and faith healing may cancel each other.

 

[SixDegrees]

Why take an unproven drug when you can take...an unproven drug?

Well, if death is almost certain, I'll take the proven and unproven drug, plus a witch doctor, some faith healing, and some Goop, all for good measure.

Beware, witch doctor and faith healing may cancel each other.

It's like the matter and antimatter of supernatural healing.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Why take an unproven drug when you can take...an unproven drug?

Well, if death is almost certain, I'll take the proven and unproven drug, plus a witch doctor, some faith healing, and some Goop, all for good measure.

Beware, witch doctor and faith healing may cancel each other.

Damn it! Contraindication gets me every time!

 

[wondering22334455]

The judge should be asked to sign a personal direct waiver for full liability if the patient is sick or dies, on the grounds that the judge is effectively ordering an assisted suicide.

The judge should also be the one to apply the horse dewormer.

Betcha he'd refuse flat-out, because the widow would be able to sue him for everything he owns.

 

[Haas Bioroid]

Why take an unproven drug when you can take...an unproven drug?

Well, if death is almost certain, I'll take the proven and unproven drug, plus a witch doctor, some faith healing, and some Goop, all for good measure.

Beware, witch doctor and faith healing may cancel each other.

It's like the matter and antimatter of supernatural healing.

OTOH, with the amount of energy released, you'll be opening your chakra like never before.

 

[blackhawk887]

This event is a parable for "Be careful what you wish for".

If it's OK to chase people down the street and force a needle-full of Covid vaccine into their arm then it's also OK to jam a needle-full of Ivermectin into their arm.

Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum in the USA want a dictatorship because they assume their guy will be charge.

And, when you assume...

Nobody is promoting forced vaccinations (and no, "you need to take the vaccine to fully participate in society" is not force).

And even if they were, they wouldn't be comparable situations because we have proof that the vaccines work, and they are approved for this use by the regulatory bodies we created to scientifically evaluate medications. There is NO such proof or approval for ivermectin.

 

[Kara19]

There's nothing in there about forcing a hospital and/or doctors to treat a patient using a treatment they don't agree with.

I did not say anywhere that I supported the Judges decision or post those examples as supporting evidence for that decision.

They are supporting evidence refuting this statement:

That judge also needs to stay out of medical decisions.

Every single one of those examples deals with Judges deciding on medical treatments or interventions. Not specific to this case.

 

[Thorzdad]

Why do people keep encouraging this crap?

We're living the logical end-game, beginning with Reagan's declaration "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Decades of ever-expanding "mah-freedumz" anti-government insanity followed, leading straight to today's GQP death cult.

 

[mhalpern]

[

Note, also, that n=75 is divided into 3 separate arms: placebo, ivermectin plus doxycycline, and ivermectin alone. So the improvement claimed was only in 24 patients.

The authors themselves state no conclusions can be drawn from this study due to its extremely small size.

There's also the matter of the conflicting ivermectin plus doxycycline arm producing no results, a further indication that what's being measured is are noise fluctuations.

this is one of the truly insidious parts of medical quackery, they can use misleading data from extremely small sample sizes even with legitimate studies, just by translating it to fractions or percentages, that's why there are collage level courses that are about understanding statistics, scientific papers on the higher level, and now they are putting emphasis on understanding them at a basic level for media courses, which are now lumped in with academics as part of the core classes, not necessarily prerequisites where im at, though it is for some, but a highly recommended optional for filling out credit hours to reach a full load.

 

[MizDivah]

One question is the Judge and the wife planning on living happily ever after. I understand trying to help your love one but leave medical care to those trained in that profession. Can’t speak for the legal aspect because apparently it was NOT a ethical thought process.

That’s like throwing gas instead of lighter fluid and telling people it’s a new flavor that you was trying to get.

 

[SixDegrees]

[

Note, also, that n=75 is divided into 3 separate arms: placebo, ivermectin plus doxycycline, and ivermectin alone. So the improvement claimed was only in 24 patients.

The authors themselves state no conclusions can be drawn from this study due to its extremely small size.

There's also the matter of the conflicting ivermectin plus doxycycline arm producing no results, a further indication that what's being measured is are noise fluctuations.

this is one of the truly insidious parts of medical quackery, they can use misleading data from extremely small sample sizes even with legitimate studies, just by translating it to fractions or percentages, that's why there are collage level courses that are about understanding statistics, scientific papers on the higher level, and now they are putting emphasis on understanding them at a basic level for media courses, which are now lumped in with academics as part of the core classes, not necessarily prerequisites where im at, though it is for some, but a highly recommended optional for filling out credit hours to reach a full load.

Studies with tiny sample sizes are a pet peeve of mine. I wish that studies with less than some significant sample size - maybe around a hundred, but more is always better - would either be rejected for peer review or accepted with the proviso that they carry a warning that their results are very likely meaningless. I see this a lot in dietary studies, too, and once a study involving 11 people with 6 of them showing some illusory improvement from Food X is published, it'll be flogged on Nutriblogs for eternity.

 

[mhalpern]

This event is a parable for "Be careful what you wish for".

If it's OK to chase people down the street and force a needle-full of Covid vaccine into their arm then it's also OK to jam a needle-full of Ivermectin into their arm.

Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum in the USA want a dictatorship because they assume their guy will be charge.

And, when you assume...

Nobody is promoting forced vaccinations (and no, "you need to take the vaccine to fully participate in society" is not force).

And even if they were, they wouldn't be comparable situations because we have proof that the vaccines work, and they are approved for this use by the regulatory bodies we created to scientifically evaluate medications. There is no such proof or approval for ivermectin.

FTFY (bold mine)
There's also the fact that government and society at large is a social contract, we surrender certain freedoms and follow laws and guidance, pay taxes, in exchange for protection and safety,

in this case by surrendering freedoms im including "not doing anything illegal". Vaccine mandates are a means to protect citizens.

 

[oxbow]

Oh what a way to go, Ohio...

 

[blackhawk887]

People have to do their own research. I am tired of mainstream media cherry picking data to decide what may or may not have efficacy. For ivermectin I see one study referenced continually that says the doses required would be too high, so it just can’t work. That is simply a hypothesis…. If no actual study was performed, then that is all it is.

In many third world countries without access to some of our very expensive treatment options, ivermectin is being used with success. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Second a family member should be able to ask a treatment to be given if they promise to waive liability. Even if it might be somewhat dangerous, especially since the person has maybe a 20% chance of survival once intubated.

I personally am fully vaccinated so I do believe in conventional treatments but I don't blindly follow every mainstream opinion. It is disappointing to see so many on here just parroting the mainstream news position without researching further.

Waiting for the downvotes as the readers on here don't even look at my referenced link….

Most of the RCT data in that review comes from Elgazzar, who had to retract an RCT paper on this subject due to plagiarism and (probably) faked data. Most of the other studies were either small, poorly controlled, or showed statistically questionable benefit.

NIH is doing a large, well-funded, properly controlled, double-blind RCT on the subject. Let's see what the data form that study show before proclaiming effectiveness.
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/m ... cal-trials
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

 

[mhalpern]

[

Note, also, that n=75 is divided into 3 separate arms: placebo, ivermectin plus doxycycline, and ivermectin alone. So the improvement claimed was only in 24 patients.

The authors themselves state no conclusions can be drawn from this study due to its extremely small size.

There's also the matter of the conflicting ivermectin plus doxycycline arm producing no results, a further indication that what's being measured is are noise fluctuations.

this is one of the truly insidious parts of medical quackery, they can use misleading data from extremely small sample sizes even with legitimate studies, just by translating it to fractions or percentages, that's why there are collage level courses that are about understanding statistics, scientific papers on the higher level, and now they are putting emphasis on understanding them at a basic level for media courses, which are now lumped in with academics as part of the core classes, not necessarily prerequisites where im at, though it is for some, but a highly recommended optional for filling out credit hours to reach a full load.

Studies with tiny sample sizes are a pet peeve of mine. I wish that studies with less than some significant sample size - maybe around a hundred, but more is always better - would either be rejected for peer review or accepted with the proviso that they carry a warning that their results are very likely meaningless. I see this a lot in dietary studies, too, and once a study involving 11 people with 6 of them showing some illusory improvement from Food X is published, it'll be flogged on Nutriblogs for eternity.

a lot of times the studies themselves expressly mention the sample size, its when they get out of the hands of researchers where there are problems.

It not like there isn't value in studies with small sample sizes, some rare cancers for example may only have a dozen or so diagnosed cases in a state, sometimes you lump them in with other orphan cancers in a larger study, but that still dilutes the data.

 

[SixDegrees]

[

Note, also, that n=75 is divided into 3 separate arms: placebo, ivermectin plus doxycycline, and ivermectin alone. So the improvement claimed was only in 24 patients.

The authors themselves state no conclusions can be drawn from this study due to its extremely small size.

There's also the matter of the conflicting ivermectin plus doxycycline arm producing no results, a further indication that what's being measured is are noise fluctuations.

this is one of the truly insidious parts of medical quackery, they can use misleading data from extremely small sample sizes even with legitimate studies, just by translating it to fractions or percentages, that's why there are collage level courses that are about understanding statistics, scientific papers on the higher level, and now they are putting emphasis on understanding them at a basic level for media courses, which are now lumped in with academics as part of the core classes, not necessarily prerequisites where im at, though it is for some, but a highly recommended optional for filling out credit hours to reach a full load.

Studies with tiny sample sizes are a pet peeve of mine. I wish that studies with less than some significant sample size - maybe around a hundred, but more is always better - would either be rejected for peer review or accepted with the proviso that they carry a warning that their results are very likely meaningless. I see this a lot in dietary studies, too, and once a study involving 11 people with 6 of them showing some illusory improvement from Food X is published, it'll be flogged on Nutriblogs for eternity.

a lot of times the studies themselves expressly mention the sample size, its when they get out of the hands of researchers where there are problems.

It not like there isn't value in studies with small sample sizes, some rare cancers for example may only have a dozen or so diagnosed cases in a state, sometimes you lump them in with other orphan cancers in a larger study, but that still dilutes the data.

I agree, and I've yet to see any peer reviewed study that didn't explicitly list the sample size. It just makes the results really wobbly, and people aren't aware of it. The world is a very messy place, full of noise, and it's really hard to disentangle effects from that noise even with a decent sample size in many cases; a small sample size very often just swamps whatever signal might be there.

 

[Rosyna]

"...when the NIH looked into it, the agency found that to achieve the ivermectin’s reported disruptive effects, the dose would have to be 100-times greater than what’s currently approved in humans. At those levels, the side-effects would likely be serious."

So, the data indicates that there is some slight possibility of this drug disrupting the cellular infection of covid.

No, it shows the result that in high-enough doses, anything is fatal to everything. But the point is to kill that virus (that no longer exists in this patient) without killing the patient.

 

[mhalpern]

[

I agree, and I've yet to see any peer reviewed study that didn't explicitly list the sample size. It just makes the results really wobbly, and people aren't aware of it. The world is a very messy place, full of noise, and it's really hard to disentangle effects from that noise even with a decent sample size in many cases; a small sample size very often just swamps whatever signal might be there.

yeah ive gotten a bit of a crash exposure as my dad has clear cell annimea, and apparently there are about a dozen known cases of it across all of Ohio.

 

[bravo369]

If this is really what the patient wants then can't they be transferred to the hospital/clinic/wherever that this doctor is so that this doctor can administer it? Don't patients get transferred all the time between hospitals to receive specific treatments?

 

[jebrick]

To be fair, Ivermectin has been in use for decades and has been deemed very safe. The issue is people taking Ivermectin paste meant for horses which is where this becomes poison. In some countries, to combat malaria, Ivermectin is provided to the general population as a prophylactic.

Uhm.. NO.

The issue is that ivermectin is killing SARS-CoV2 at three times the established safe exposure limit for use as a deworming/delousing agent. This three times overdose results in neural damage in short to medium time, and prolonged exposure to a 300% overdose will result in death due neural damage, low blood pressure or heart rhythm anomalies.

And the Judge ordered the dose at 5x-10x the normal dosage of 3mg-6mg

 

[blackhawk887]

This event is a parable for "Be careful what you wish for".

If it's OK to chase people down the street and force a needle-full of Covid vaccine into their arm then it's also OK to jam a needle-full of Ivermectin into their arm.

Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum in the USA want a dictatorship because they assume their guy will be charge.

And, when you assume...

Nobody is promoting forced vaccinations (and no, "you need to take the vaccine to fully participate in society" is not force).

And even if they were, they wouldn't be comparable situations because we have proof that the vaccines work, and they are approved for this use by the regulatory bodies we created to scientifically evaluate medications. There is no such proof or approval for ivermectin.

FTFY (bold mine)
There's also the fact that government and society at large is a social contract, we surrender certain freedoms and follow laws and guidance, pay taxes, in exchange for protection and safety,

in this case by surrendering freedoms im including "not doing anything illegal". Vaccine mandates are a means to protect citizens.

Thanks, I had missed the "no" in there. Fixed now.

 

[blackhawk887]

"...when the NIH looked into it, the agency found that to achieve the ivermectin’s reported disruptive effects, the dose would have to be 100-times greater than what’s currently approved in humans. At those levels, the side-effects would likely be serious."

So, the data indicates that there is some slight possibility of this drug disrupting the cellular infection of covid.

"The judge in the case likely feels that, because Jeffrey Smith is dying, that doctors should 'try anything,' Caplan said. 'Well, that’s false, because you can still kill him faster.'"

Well, if I'm the patient and the prognosis is death, and if ivermectin might have a 0.0005-percent chance of helping, then fucking load me up. If it indeed helps in my desperate condition, then great! If it's a 50-pound weight that sinks me faster while I'm already sinking, then fine--euthanasia that had some potentiality to help.

There is a fair amount of uncertainty in most medical prognoses. Someone who is "dying" might still have a 5 or 10% chance of pulling through, so there's no reason to assume that they have exactly 0% chance of surviving and throwing drugs at them can only improve that chance. It can make them still less likely to survive.

 

[BradTheGeek]

Yet more political/medical porn from Ars. Holy shit this site is turning into clickbait dumpster. Beth I could stand, this Tim dude’s articles are complete emotional outrage bait.
Poorly researched news item with moralistic headline. So gross.

Go take your horse meds hoss.

The content of the OP's post suggests that he or she is taking horse meds: probably high does of PCP or ketamine.

They've also gone back and editted their comment to now read, and I quote:

Thread

Wow. Haha. Because I posted in the wrong thread by mistake. Keep replying amongst yourselves. The feedback loop can be comforting.

No you didn't my quote of your reply shows you were commenting on this article specifically. Then you edited your comment to hide it. Bigly fail.

 

[Gnewton]

Weird that people who insist COVID is only the flu and not that bad and probably fearmongering and definitely not reason for them to be told what to do or inconvenienced in any way, and bleating that the vaccine is dangerous or untested or might have unspecified side effects in 30 years because "it messes with your DNA and stuff"....are also the ones frantically clearing the shelves of horse dewormer and taking it in doses so high they're shitting down their pant legs at Target.

These are Walmart people not Target.

 

[Statistical]

Why take an unproven drug when you can take...an unproven drug?

Well, if death is almost certain, I'll take the proven and unproven drug, plus a witch doctor, some faith healing, and some Goop, all for good measure.

and you are free to do that. Check yourself out of the ICU and do whatever you want. You aren't free to demand the hospital perform some witch doctor chant because you saw in facebook it might help.

 

[Statistical]

To be fair, Ivermectin has been in use for decades and has been deemed very safe. The issue is people taking Ivermectin paste meant for horses which is where this becomes poison. In some countries, to combat malaria, Ivermectin is provided to the general population as a prophylactic.

Uhm.. NO.

The issue is that ivermectin is killing SARS-CoV2 at three times the established safe exposure limit for use as a deworming/delousing agent. This three times overdose results in neural damage in short to medium time, and prolonged exposure to a 300% overdose will result in death due neural damage, low blood pressure or heart rhythm anomalies.

and that is before we consider the condition of the patient.

ivermectin at lower doses might be useful to reduce severity if taken EARLY. In fact there is a clinical trial in the US for that right now. It is not indicated for this patient given the severe progression of the disease and his current poor physical condition.

Attention Covidiots - emphasis on the word 'might'. Most clinical trials fail. Just because something is in a clinical trial doesn't mean it will be effective. The overwhelming majority of clinical trials fail.

 

[Peevester]

Doctors are obligated to follow the Hippocratic Oath and that includes doing the best for their patient DESPITE what the patient *thinks* they need.

The oath is to do no harm. Not to override the patient. If a teenager wants a gender confirmation surgery, the doctor doesn't get to have a say in that.

Stop making up shit.

The correct standard is the law. The relevant law is that it's malpractice to fail to provide the standard of care for the situation. Ivermectin is not in the standard of care for covid-19.

The judge is in the wrong, the hospital is right.

A person has the right to choose their doctor. Their licensed doctor prescribed a medication, and the hospital can be compelled to administer it, against their recommendations. If there was no licensed doctor writing the prescription, then the hospital would be ok to refuse.

Is that a US thing? Because at least in NZ, if a licensed doctor prescribes something for another to administer, and the administering doctor thinks it's just downright wrong, the administering doctor will firstly call the prescribing doctor to find out if the prescription is correct. If the prescription was correct and the administering doctor can refuse to administer and tell the patient to go somewhere else.

I don't think it's a US thing either. A nurse or doctor can't willy-nilly refuse to give a medication (though the previous administration tried and failed to change the rules to allow personal belief refusals), but if they have a medical reason to believe it's illegal, or would do harm to the patient, they can absolutely refuse. There will almost certainly be a review if that happens though.

I don't imagine that review will be particularly problematic in this case should it happen - "I won't give livestock dewormers to people" kind of says everything that needs to be said.

 

[SixDegrees]

Independent studies show promise for Ivermectin, if we look at actual data (a summarized site pooling all studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/)...

I don't disagree that courts should stay out of healthcare but what do you do when evidence shows a pretty strong correlation to this treatment actually working? We are told to be our own advocates for our health.

I suspect this is way too politicized to even be a fruitful dialogue anymore but seems like it's an inconvenient truth that frontline medicine might not be the best course of treatment for everyone but seems like the Ivermectin well is to poisoned to visit right now.

How many new accounts are you going to create to post this bilge?

Asked, answered, refuted many times above the last several times you've dropped this turd.

 

[PhaseShifter]

Now THIS is a battle worthy of the Thunder Dome.

Coming this SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! In one corner, it's Ivermectin being given out much to the chagrin of those darn libs! On the other hand, it was ordered by a judge, like people said would happen with Obamacare!

Tickets only $12 prepaid, $15 at the door! BE THERE!

And right there you hit on why this is win/win for the right-wing pundits.

If the guy lives, they'll brag "Ivermectin works! Libs PWNED!"

If the guy dies, they'll just say "This is more proof that Obamacare doesn't work and should be scrapped!"

Waiting for the right-wing folks to come in here yelling about "activist judges..."

I suspect you'll have to wait about as long for them to make those complaints against this guy as we've been waiting for them to make the same complaints against Roy Moore down here.


Funny how that works.

 

[balthazarr]

Independent studies show promise for Ivermectin, if we look at actual data (a summarized site pooling all studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/)...

I don't disagree that courts should stay out of healthcare but what do you do when evidence shows a pretty strong correlation to this treatment actually working? We are told to be our own advocates for our health.

I suspect this is way too politicized to even be a fruitful dialogue anymore but seems like it's an inconvenient truth that frontline medicine might not be the best course of treatment for everyone but seems like the Ivermectin well is to poisoned to visit right now.

What do you do? She already had a prescription. If she wanted that treatment for her husband - she could get it by having her husband treated by the doctor who wrote the prescription.

Why didn't she do that? Let's take an educated guess - the doctor who prescribed the Ivermectin has no hospital privileges, and I'd wager no hospital in the country would actually administer it, prescribed or not.

So, she decided she'd try to get a court order, rather than get the "better" treatment by the other doctor... I wonder why that was?

Of course, all of that doesn't excuse the judge ordering it in the first place. It's absolutely a terrible Order, and should never had been made in that form.