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

 

[Kirsu]

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.

I don't think he was saying those are analogous to situation, but rather that those kinds of medications decisions are indeed made on a daily basis in the US. I believe they even said they don't always agree with positions taken. Just giving examples.

 

[Kirsu]

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.

I see you’re relatively new here. If you can’t see how this site is changing over the years, feel free remain in your bubble. I miss the objective Ars, without the moral outrage. Or the ad hominem posters.

What a hot take!

 

[Kirsu]

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.

Which one? You got me all curious

 

[marsilies]

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 don't think he was saying those are analogous to situation, but rather that those kinds of medications decisions are indeed made on a daily basis in the US. I believe they even said they don't always agree with positions taken. Just giving examples.

In general, yes, a judge may rule on a medical issue when there's a conflict between the doctor, patient, and/or state. Specifically though, there doesn't seem to be a precedent for forcing a doctor or hospital to enact a third-party doctor's prescription, and more generally the legal precedents seem to revolve around when the patient or patient's guardian can refuse care, not about dictating to the doctor what the course of care should be.

 

[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.

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

Which one? You got me all curious

The thirteenth.

 

[junesxing]

they will give it to him.
he will die.
she will sue them because 'if they had given it to him earlier, he may have survived'

Since that is an unprovable assertion, the judge that ordered the hospital to provide it, will rule in her favor.

She will get rich.

Welcome to America.

 

[marsilies]

The prescribing doctor does not have any privileges at the hospital.

He has never seen the patient.

His business is that for $90 (I think), he will talk to you on the phone and then prescribe HCQ or Ivermectin (whichever you pick on their website).

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/tr ... edication/

To be clear, Dr. Fred Wagshul is a founding member of a different, but similar sounding group called Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Their site:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/

He offers an "Ivermectin Teleconference" on the site of his practice, Lung Center of America (he seems to be the only doctor at this practice):
https://www.lungcenterofamerica.org/ive ... contact-us

To be fair, it looks like neither Wagshul nor FLCCC are recommending HCQ at this time. April of last year is another matter though.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200424231 ... col.pdf?v3

They were also recommending Methylprednisolone, Heparin, and Vitamin C. So their regimen seems to change as various treatments get debunked.

 

[entropy_wins]

People, even scientists, go absolutely nuts when talking about drugs. How is it ok to consume dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco, but forbidden to take ivermectin? There are absolutely no studies that prove ivermectin does or does not work. Why is it your decision, that of the fda or anyone else to dictate whether this drug can be given? Sorry folks, but the fda has gotten it wrong many many times. Need I cite the opioid epidemic and the massive over-prescribing of narcotics in very recent times? It should be my decision, and mine alone, to decide what drugs I take in extremis. Although I concede ivermection is unproven, does that mean I should be forbidden to take it if there is any chance whatsoever that it might help?

There is no evidence ivermectin can help. Doctors aren't going to give you every random medicine you request just because you're desperate.

More to the point, this doctor is prescribing insane amounts of ivermectin, well beyond the accepted safe dosage.

To be strictly accurate - ivermectin is safe at a 80ng dose but the lab needed 100x that for the "5000-fold reduction". They mention this in a randomized controlled study which summarizes with:

This study did not find any significant effect of ivermectin on other evaluated measures of clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19.

TLDR; if it works in the lab, it might not work in the patient. If it doesn't work in the lab, don't try it on the patient...

S

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

As a nurse I've had to explain to residents that just because something is written as an order, doesn't mean I have to do it. If I think something is going to hurt my patient, my legal duty per my liscenceure is to not do it. If they want it done they either have to convince me it's safe or come down and do it themselves. ( Usually they are ordering something at 3am that would make sense for a lot of people, just not for people with leukemia with no WBC or PLT, like IM meds) I said to one "you can write an order for me to stab a guy, but I'm not going to stab a guy". I highly doubt that what ever court this ends up in is going to say the opinion of one rando judge trumps the legal requirements of a medical license. I'm going to assume that the judge in question has never even looked at the liscenceure language or scope of practice of any medical personnel. I mean that judge actually thinks that this one fiat can undo the whole set of regulations governing medical personnel. Does he have any clue as to how many people had to agree to those standards, debate them, ratify them? And we talk about surgeons having a God complex. Ppft. I hope someone puts him in his place soon.

This is worth emphasizing and repeating.

A doctor or nurse who administers random quack medicine with a prescription bought on the phone for $90 would risk their license and a malpractice suit.

The judge's opinion does not change that.

 

[l3v1]

There's a Hungarian saying which translated means something like "shoemaker, stick to making shoes" (the Spanish version is pretty close "Zapatero, a tus zapatos") which basically means you shouldn't get involved in issues you have no clue about.

There are some serious cases when a judge might need to get involved in making decisions related to someone's treatment, sure. But ordering basically to poison someone is closer to euthanasia (and a cruel form of that, since it wouldn't be painless at all) than any kind of serious treatment.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

The prescribing doctor does not have any privileges at the hospital.

He has never seen the patient.

His business is that for $90 (I think), he will talk to you on the phone and then prescribe HCQ or Ivermectin (whichever you pick on their website).

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/tr ... edication/

To be clear, Dr. Fred Wagshul is a founding member of a different, but similar sounding group called Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Their site:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/

He offers an "Ivermectin Teleconference" on the site of his practice, Lung Center of America (he seems to be the only doctor at this practice):
https://www.lungcenterofamerica.org/ive ... contact-us

To be fair, it looks like neither Wagshul nor FLCCC are recommending HCQ at this time. April of last year is another matter though.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200424231 ... col.pdf?v3

They were also recommending Methylprednisolone, Heparin, and Vitamin C. So their regimen seems to change as various treatments get debunked.

Thank you for the corrections. I hadn't even considered the possibility there are multiple competing quacks.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

"Just humor them" is not good medical practice.

Neither is "just try it out, maybe it won't hurt".

 

[DarthSlack]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

So you're in favor of experimenting on humans.


Just to be clear "maybe it'll have some effect" is piss poor science and Nazi level ethics. Might want to think on that a bit more.

 

[marsilies]

but to say "vaccination will save lives", while maybe true for the flu I don't even think that's provable for Covid-19 yet... And I'm not suggesting at all that vaccines for Covid shouldn't be taken I'm stating that it's not enough.

It is 100% absolutely provable that the covid vaccines are saving lives...

If that's what you took from my post then you win...

Well, you don't seem to have a coherent argument. "Vaccination saves lives" and "vaccines are saving lives" doesn't mean "vaccines save every life." You're arguing against something nobody is stating.

And while "vaccines are not enough" and "we should do everything we can" are agreeable in general principle, most people aren't going to extend that to "we should pump people with possibly unsafe levels of unproven drugs." Certainly there should be trials run and effectiveness and safety confirmed before just issuing prescriptions for random drugs willy-nilly, yes?

There's already a half dozen or so drugs recommended by the NIH for treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitals and doctors are not shying away from using drugs as treatment, provided there's evidence that they work:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines. ... anagement/

And the vaccines are the best prophylactic available, and are basically the gold standard for prophylactics for a disease.

 

[untraceablez]

I feel for Julie Smith. I really do. It's a horrible situation to find yourself in, watching a loved one suffer without end.

But this isn't the answer. Beyond the lack of medical efficacy, the can of worms this kind of court order can open is frightful in its own right.

There are so many ways in which misinformation is hurting, killing, bankrupting, and isolating people. I firmly believe that battling misinformation will be the challenge of the 21st century.

If we fail to do this, climate change, resource shortages, major diseases...will be out of our grasp to solve.

Too bad this is the one can of worms ivermectin can't deworm. Wholeheartedly understand why people are desperate for answers and agree we need to solve misinformation with the same level of desperation and drive.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

Thanks, I missed that in the article where the judge was ordering unsafe doses.

However, there is such a thing as experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below), so if low doses that were 100% sure to be safe were under discussion then could it be considered, especially if the woman signed a waiver? Or would that still open up the doctors to liability? I just feel very badly for this woman and I wish there was some harmless half-way measure that could be taken to mollify her. Her husband may or may not survive... but her mental anguish and desperation should not be ignored. It would be good if she could be harmlessly made to feel like everything was done and if people dealt with her in an empathetic a way as possible.

(https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.)

She should not feel good. Not everything was done.

If her husband was vaccinated, he would have been 99.5% less likely to be where he is.

If Ohio's Republican legislature hadn't outlawed mask mandates, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

The Republican Party, including the Republican Party in Ohio wants this pandemic to continue and to kill.

There's no feel-good human experimentation bullshit that's going to change that.

 

[ibad]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

So you're in favor of experimenting on humans.


Just to be clear "maybe it'll have some effect" is piss poor science and Nazi level ethics. Might want to think on that a bit more.

Nope you are misconstruing me blatantly. Shame on you.

Experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below) is an established thing.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.


Of course this only applies if you are sure that the drug is harmless (something to be determined at the known harmless doses under the circumstances) and if there is nothing else to be done. I am not sayng that those conditions have been met so far, but if they are, then such usage has been considered in the past in standard medical practice, outside of Nazi circles (again, shame on you for the trite Godwining, misconstruing and making a mockery of Nazi warcrimes in a context that is nowhere near that).

 

[blackhawk887]

but to say "vaccination will save lives", while maybe true for the flu I don't even think that's provable for Covid-19 yet as we see vaccinated individuals contracting it and dying (for one instance see the Massachusetts outbreak where 75% of those infected were vaccinated".) And I'm not suggesting at all that vaccines for Covid shouldn't be taken I'm stating that it's not enough.

It is 100% absolutely provable that the covid vaccines are saving lives. Every vaccine has breakthrough infections, and some of those will result in deaths, but definitely, absolutely, far fewer deaths than there would be in a 100% unvaccinated population. Anyone claiming otherwise is making several math or stats errors, because this isn't even close to a serious or supportable contention.

The flu vaccines also have a lot of breakthroughs and deaths. Other vaccines have far fewer, but still some. The difference is mainly the number of variants and the number of infections. Measles, for example, is very rare, so it causes very few deaths. Flu is very common and has more variants, so it sneaks around vaccines and causes far more deaths.

If that's what you took from my post then you win...

Covid vaccinations will save, are saving, and have always saved lives. Any post that claims or implies otherwise is not supported by facts or reality. Your other points are debatable, but this one is not.

 

[DarthSlack]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

Thanks, I missed that in the article where the judge was ordering unsafe doses.

However, there is such a thing as experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below), so if low doses that were 100% sure to be safe were under discussion then could it be considered, especially if the woman signed a waiver? Or would that still open up the doctors to liability? I just feel very badly for this woman and I wish there was some harmless half-way measure that could be taken to mollify her. Her husband may or may not survive... but her mental anguish and desperation should not be ignored. It would be good if she could be harmlessly made to feel like everything was done and if people dealt with her in an empathetic a way as possible.

(https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.)

Since you provided that link and this subject keeps coming up, let's talk about compassionate use a bit:

Compassionate use is a treatment option that allows the use of an unauthorised medicine. Under strict conditions, products in development can be made available to groups of patients who have a disease with no satisfactory authorised therapies and who cannot enter clinical trials.

So lets look at ivermectin in this light. First, the use of ivermectin is NOT being done under strict controls. In many cases, it's not being done under any control at all. Second, there's an assumption that Covid has no authorized therapies. That's wrong, Regeneron is available. Third, after a month in the ICU, it's highly unlikely this patient has an active covid infection, he seems to be dealing with the consequences of a covid infection and ivermectin is NOT a treatment option for lung damage.

So by every one of the compassionate use criteria, ivermectin fails to make the grade.

Why are you continuing to advocate for using it?

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

So you're in favor of experimenting on humans.


Just to be clear "maybe it'll have some effect" is piss poor science and Nazi level ethics. Might want to think on that a bit more.

Nope you are misconstruing me blatantly. Shame on you.

Experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below) is an established thing.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.


Of course this only applies if you are sure that the drug is harmless (something to be determined at the known harmless doses under the circumstances) and if there is nothing else to be done. I am not sayng that those conditions have been met so far, but if they are, then such usage has been considered in the past in standard medical practice, outside of Nazi circles (again, shame on you for the trite Godwining, misconstruing and making a mockery of Nazi warcrimes in a context that is nowhere near that).

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

You know (now) that the judge has ordered ridiculous doses.

You know that the man is being treated with best available known treatments for his condition (which is not anything that anyone thinks can be treated with dewormers).

Your attitude here is a callous and casual "let's fuck around and find out".

 

[blackhawk887]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

Thanks, I missed that in the article where the judge was ordering unsafe doses.

However, there is such a thing as experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below), so if low doses that were 100% sure to be safe were under discussion then could it be considered, especially if the woman signed a waiver? Or would that still open up the doctors to liability? I just feel very badly for this woman and I wish there was some harmless half-way measure that could be taken to mollify her. Her husband may or may not survive... but her mental anguish and desperation should not be ignored. It would be good if she could be harmlessly made to feel like everything was done and if people dealt with her in an empathetic a way as possible.

(https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.)

She should not feel good. Not everything was done.

If her husband was vaccinated, he would have been 99.5% less likely to be where he is.

If Ohio's Republican legislature hadn't outlawed mask mandates, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

The Republican Party, including the Republican Party in Ohio wants this pandemic to continue and to kill.

There's no feel-good human experimentation bullshit that's going to change that.

I am just talking about trying to be as compassionate to a suffering relative of a victim as possible, and trying to minimise her pain. You overtly say "she should not feel good". Sounds sadistic. Maybe you have never been in her position or know what it feels like.

I am not saying that the drug will have any effect at known safe doses, just considering the possibility of compassionate use, if only to mollify her. Maybe it should not be done...but nothing wrong with discussing it rather than bringing up nazis and mocking and foaming at the mouth while this poor woman suffers. She may be wrong... but that is what good faith discussion can lead to.

Looks like we're having an aggressive conformity enforcement party here today, trying to silence good faith discussion and questions. You guys can continue... bye.

Her mental anguish doesn't justify a judge ordering the hospital doctor to do something that, in that doctor's clinical opinion, will harm the patient.

 

[DarthSlack]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

Thanks, I missed that in the article where the judge was ordering unsafe doses.

However, there is such a thing as experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below), so if low doses that were 100% sure to be safe were under discussion then could it be considered, especially if the woman signed a waiver? Or would that still open up the doctors to liability? I just feel very badly for this woman and I wish there was some harmless half-way measure that could be taken to mollify her. Her husband may or may not survive... but her mental anguish and desperation should not be ignored. It would be good if she could be harmlessly made to feel like everything was done and if people dealt with her in an empathetic a way as possible.

(https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.)

Since you provided that link and this subject keeps coming up, let's talk about compassionate use a bit:

Compassionate use is a treatment option that allows the use of an unauthorised medicine. Under strict conditions, products in development can be made available to groups of patients who have a disease with no satisfactory authorised therapies and who cannot enter clinical trials.

So lets look at ivermectin in this light. First, the use of ivermectin is NOT being done under strict controls. In many cases, it's not being done under any control at all. Second, there's an assumption that Covid has no authorized therapies. That's wrong, Regeneron is available. Third, after a month in the ICU, it's highly unlikely this patient has an active covid infection, he seems to be dealing with the consequences of a covid infection and ivermectin is NOT a treatment option for lung damage.

So by every one of the compassionate use criteria, ivermectin fails to make the grade.

Why are you continuing to advocate for using it?

Your last sentence is a lie...I did not advocate using it. Stop the paranoid conformity enforcement and rude suppression of good faith discussion. I was merely discussing it and asking about the possibility.

The rest of what you said makes sense, maybe if you had led with that instead of the daft Godwinning.

But yeah..continue with the 2-minute hate and anyone that tries to ask or talk outside of that narrow lane is clearly the enemy and advocating this drug or a trumper, right?

What do you mean you're not advocating for it. YOU'RE the one bringing up compassionate use without apparently understanding what compassionate use actually means. The best case you can make for yourself is you're posting while ignorant.

 

[Alfonse]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

You don't give people medicine just because it won't do harm (though even that's questionable, as every medication has side-effects). You do it because it will help them.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

Ok, so since the drug is safe at certain doses for humans, is there any harm in giving it to the man at those doses, even if it is likely useless against the virus? Don't give it at the horse doses, give it at the dosages that are known to be safe with humans. Maybe it'll have some effect, though unlikely, but is there anything to lose?

I don't doubt that the drug is likely to be useless, but is there any harm if she's been clearly told that it's likely just going to add to her cost and not do anything?

So you're in favor of experimenting on humans.


Just to be clear "maybe it'll have some effect" is piss poor science and Nazi level ethics. Might want to think on that a bit more.

Nope you are misconstruing me blatantly. Shame on you.

Experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below) is an established thing.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.


Of course this only applies if you are sure that the drug is harmless (something to be determined at the known harmless doses under the circumstances) and if there is nothing else to be done. I am not sayng that those conditions have been met so far, but if they are, then such usage has been considered in the past in standard medical practice, outside of Nazi circles (again, shame on you for the trite Godwining, misconstruing and making a mockery of Nazi warcrimes in a context that is nowhere near that).

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

You know (now) that the judge has ordered ridiculous doses.

You know that the man is being treated with best available known treatments for his condition (which is not anything that anyone thinks can be treated with dewormers).

Your attitude here is a callous and casual "let's fuck around and find out".

More lies and misconstruance. Look clearly if anyone says anything slightly different or asks something rather than raging and repeating exactly the same pov you have a problem with. The link is relevant and when you took a break from frothing at the mouth and insulting people and actually discussed why it may not apply, that was interesting and relevant too, what you are doing now isn't. Also the article clearly states it's not just a dewormer, did you even bother to read it?

Again, in case you are tempted to lie again, I am NOT saying that it should be used, I was only asking and discussing about compassionate use and whether it should be or not.

But hey...enjoy.

Lol

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

but to say "vaccination will save lives", while maybe true for the flu I don't even think that's provable for Covid-19 yet... And I'm not suggesting at all that vaccines for Covid shouldn't be taken I'm stating that it's not enough.

It is 100% absolutely provable that the covid vaccines are saving lives...

If that's what you took from my post then you win...

Well, you don't seem to have a coherent argument. "Vaccination saves lives" and "vaccines are saving lives" doesn't mean "vaccines save every life." You're arguing against something nobody is stating.

And while "vaccines are not enough" and "we should do everything we can" are agreeable in general principle, most people aren't going to extend that to "we should pump people with possibly unsafe levels of unproven drugs." Certainly there should be trials run and effectiveness and safety confirmed before just issuing prescriptions for random drugs willy-nilly, yes?

There's already a half dozen or so drugs recommended by the NIH for treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitals and doctors are not shying away from using drugs as treatment, provided there's evidence that they work:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines. ... anagement/

And the vaccines are the best prophylactic available, and are basically the gold standard for prophylactics for a disease.

Well... I didn't say "you" win. Firstly my argument isn't against vaccines, I agree 100% percent that vaccines are the best course of action. It appears you aren't capable of reading a full argument without coming to a conclusion.

My argument is that we should be doing more than just vaccination and your assertion that I'm stating that I'm refuting an undeclared argument of "vaccines save every life" is incorrect but actually is precisely why I'm suggesting doing more than just vaccines... but again I'm not even arguing. But since you brought it up... just because we have the technology to do quadruple bypass surgeries doesn't mean that we don't advocate for eating healthier.

So my argument is perfectly coherent... we should explore more to save more lives.

Sadly the is seems the majority of posters here are just bullies and, again, that's ok. I'm clearly not the target audience for ars as it seems a lot of ars folks just want to pile on and "me too" which is fine, negative feedback loops can still be defined as positive depending on how's getting the reinforcement... and since I don't fall in line with the masses "vaccines will save us all" I guess I get to get beaten up, which again is fine. It's just sad that we can't dialogue cause we all have to try and win.

"Yay internet discourse!"

And again for the record... get vaccinated.

Your argument is nonsense.

You claim that you're just considering options by supporting the absolutely best measure and also a known-useless politicized quack treatment while skipping over known effective measures like vaccine mandates, mask requirements and limiting capacity at indoor venues.

We know masks work ok and that vaccine mandates work well. You choose to skip right past those to your politically correct horse paste. Why?

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

The judge has demanded it be given at unsafe doses.

The doses considered safe are evaluated for healthy adults, not people who have been in a coma for a month and dependent on a ventilator.

Giving treatment that is outside the standard of care, even if ordered by a judge or a quack doctor, opens the hospital and doctors or nurses up to losing their license or a malpractice suit.

Thanks, I missed that in the article where the judge was ordering unsafe doses.

However, there is such a thing as experimental or compassionate "last resort" use of drugs that are experimental or unproven to be effective (link below), so if low doses that were 100% sure to be safe were under discussion then could it be considered, especially if the woman signed a waiver? Or would that still open up the doctors to liability? I just feel very badly for this woman and I wish there was some harmless half-way measure that could be taken to mollify her. Her husband may or may not survive... but her mental anguish and desperation should not be ignored. It would be good if she could be harmlessly made to feel like everything was done and if people dealt with her in an empathetic a way as possible.

(https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regu ... l%20trials.)

She should not feel good. Not everything was done.

If her husband was vaccinated, he would have been 99.5% less likely to be where he is.

If Ohio's Republican legislature hadn't outlawed mask mandates, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

The Republican Party, including the Republican Party in Ohio wants this pandemic to continue and to kill.

There's no feel-good human experimentation bullshit that's going to change that.

I am just talking about trying to be as compassionate to a suffering relative of a victim as possible, and trying to minimise her pain. You overtly say "she should not feel good". Sounds sadistic. Maybe you have never been in her position or know what it feels like.

I am not saying that the drug will have any effect at known safe doses, just considering the possibility of compassionate use, if only to mollify her. Maybe it should not be done...but nothing wrong with discussing it rather than bringing up nazis and mocking and foaming at the mouth while this poor woman suffers. She may be wrong... but that is what good faith discussion can lead to.

Looks like we're having an aggressive conformity enforcement party here today, trying to silence good faith discussion and questions. You guys can continue... bye.

Her mental anguish doesn't justify a judge ordering the hospital doctor to do something that, in that doctor's clinical opinion, will harm the patient.

Valid point. That is why I would want to look at the circumstances and whether the criteria for compassionate use are met or not, if they aren't, they aren't. Find and good.

The criteria aren't met. You asked. We answered (many times). You kept asking.

You didn't look at the circumstances. You pretended they were somehow unknowable.

That's obvious bad faith and advocacy at that point. You're not gonna get away with "I was Just Asking Questions (that were answered again and again)".

 

[blackhawk887]

but to say "vaccination will save lives", while maybe true for the flu I don't even think that's provable for Covid-19 yet... And I'm not suggesting at all that vaccines for Covid shouldn't be taken I'm stating that it's not enough.

It is 100% absolutely provable that the covid vaccines are saving lives...

If that's what you took from my post then you win...

Well, you don't seem to have a coherent argument. "Vaccination saves lives" and "vaccines are saving lives" doesn't mean "vaccines save every life." You're arguing against something nobody is stating.

And while "vaccines are not enough" and "we should do everything we can" are agreeable in general principle, most people aren't going to extend that to "we should pump people with possibly unsafe levels of unproven drugs." Certainly there should be trials run and effectiveness and safety confirmed before just issuing prescriptions for random drugs willy-nilly, yes?

There's already a half dozen or so drugs recommended by the NIH for treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitals and doctors are not shying away from using drugs as treatment, provided there's evidence that they work:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines. ... anagement/

And the vaccines are the best prophylactic available, and are basically the gold standard for prophylactics for a disease.

Well... I didn't say "you" win. Firstly my argument isn't against vaccines, I agree 100% percent that vaccines are the best course of action. It appears you aren't capable of reading a full argument without coming to a conclusion.

My argument is that we should be doing more than just vaccination and your assertion that I'm stating that I'm refuting an undeclared argument of "vaccines save every life" is incorrect but actually is precisely why I'm suggesting doing more than just vaccines... but again I'm not even arguing. But since you brought it up... just because we have the technology to do quadruple bypass surgeries doesn't mean that we don't advocate for eating healthier.

So my argument is perfectly coherent... we should explore more to save more lives.

Sadly the is seems the majority of posters here are just bullies and, again, that's ok. I'm clearly not the target audience for ars as it seems a lot of ars folks just want to pile on and "me too" which is fine, negative feedback loops can still be defined as positive depending on how's getting the reinforcement... and since I don't fall in line with the masses "vaccines will save us all" I guess I get to get beaten up, which again is fine. It's just sad that we can't dialogue cause we all have to try and win.

"Yay internet discourse!"

And again for the record... get vaccinated.

You did say that we can't yet prove covid vaccines save lives. That's unsupportable.

That we should also research other treatments is both blatantly obvious and actively being done, not only for ivermectin but also for many other treatments. I don't see anyone arguing with that.

And vaccines could certainly would "save us all" (to the extent that we all can be saved, at least), if we could get them to everyone and if everyone would take them. There is a massive and overwhelmingly strong body of medical evidence to support this conclusion. That many people refuse to take them is a social problem, not a technical problem with the vaccines.

Breakthrough cases are a strong function of the size of the non-immune population. If you want to understand why, just ask. I'm sure there are people here that can explain it in good detail.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

It is 100% absolutely provable that the covid vaccines are saving lives...

If that's what you took from my post then you win...

Well, you don't seem to have a coherent argument. "Vaccination saves lives" and "vaccines are saving lives" doesn't mean "vaccines save every life." You're arguing against something nobody is stating.

And while "vaccines are not enough" and "we should do everything we can" are agreeable in general principle, most people aren't going to extend that to "we should pump people with possibly unsafe levels of unproven drugs." Certainly there should be trials run and effectiveness and safety confirmed before just issuing prescriptions for random drugs willy-nilly, yes?

There's already a half dozen or so drugs recommended by the NIH for treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Hospitals and doctors are not shying away from using drugs as treatment, provided there's evidence that they work:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines. ... anagement/

And the vaccines are the best prophylactic available, and are basically the gold standard for prophylactics for a disease.

Well... I didn't say "you" win. Firstly my argument isn't against vaccines, I agree 100% percent that vaccines are the best course of action. It appears you aren't capable of reading a full argument without coming to a conclusion.

My argument is that we should be doing more than just vaccination and your assertion that I'm stating that I'm refuting an undeclared argument of "vaccines save every life" is incorrect but actually is precisely why I'm suggesting doing more than just vaccines... but again I'm not even arguing. But since you brought it up... just because we have the technology to do quadruple bypass surgeries doesn't mean that we don't advocate for eating healthier.

So my argument is perfectly coherent... we should explore more to save more lives.

Sadly the is seems the majority of posters here are just bullies and, again, that's ok. I'm clearly not the target audience for ars as it seems a lot of ars folks just want to pile on and "me too" which is fine, negative feedback loops can still be defined as positive depending on how's getting the reinforcement... and since I don't fall in line with the masses "vaccines will save us all" I guess I get to get beaten up, which again is fine. It's just sad that we can't dialogue cause we all have to try and win.

"Yay internet discourse!"

And again for the record... get vaccinated.

Your argument is nonsense.

You claim that you're just considering options by supporting the absolutely best measure and also a known-useless politicized quack treatment while skipping over known effective measures like vaccine mandates, mask requirements and limiting capacity at indoor venues.

We know masks work ok and that vaccine mandates work well. You choose to skip right past those to your politically correct horse paste. Why?

ok... now you win. I have made zero mention of masks and social distancing. You assume way too much but cool... feel free to be a winner.

You "made zero mention" of them.

You mean like you skipped past them? As I said? You made zero mention of the things that we know work way better than what you advocate?

Did I miss you mentioning vaccine mandates or not?

 

[drachasor]

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.

The 'unproven drug' is proven to not help and will most likely be the final stressor on your body that kills you.

Congratulations! You've turned a 1% chance to live into a .01% chance to live!

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

When points were provided I accepted them, I was merely trying to discuss and I repeatedly made that clear that if the conditions are not met, then fine. I only advocated for civil discussion and provided a link for more detailed discussion. When points were provided I accepted.

Then why are you still posting?