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

 

[Statistical]

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?

1) The dose prescribed is not safe for humans it is far above the safe limit.

2) His health is poor. Someone is poor health is more susceptible to complications from toxic compounds. Compared to some stupid but health individual who could survive guzzling horse dewormer. The safe dose for someone in his condition is 0 mg. The recommended treatment regimen for severe covid is 0 mg.

3) There is a huge moral hazard for Dr "playing along" with "treatments" that are little more than injest random chemicals and hope something happens. Do you think it will stop here if the hospital bows to the unlawful court order? Or do you think it will energize every facebook kook all making demands to their hospitals all overwhelmed already due to people not getting their damn vaccines.

4) It isn't the job of a hospital to placate family members and feed them false hope. Compassion should be grounded in reality. Any additional complications requires additional resources from hospitals already stretched to the damn breaking point because of idiots who proud in their ignorance have refused to do the singular thing which would have a massive impact on case levels and hospitalizations.

If the spouse wants this unrecommended treatment she can check him out of the ICU. That option remains open to her. No court order required.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

Again, was explicitly and clearly stated that the unsafe doses should not be given and I merely was ASKING about whether compassionate use qualified or not in this case for SAFE doses, even if that is not what is in play here. If that is not the case then fine.

There is no known safe dose for someone in a coma on a ventilator.

This case fails to meet every criteria at your link.

ETA: Let's take your link seriously:

These programmes are only put in place if the medicine is expected to help patients with life-threatening, long-lasting or seriously debilitating illnesses, which cannot be treated satisfactorily with any currently authorised medicine.

The medicine must be undergoing clinical trials or have entered the marketing-authorisation application process and while early studies will generally have been completed, its safety profile and dosage guidelines may not be fully established.

"These programmes are only put in place if the medicine is expected to help patients with life-threatening, long-lasting or seriously debilitating illnesses"

This medicine is not seriously expected to help.

"which cannot be treated satisfactorily with any currently authorised medicine."

He is receiving the best know treatment.

"The medicine must be undergoing clinical trials or have entered the marketing-authorisation application process and while early studies will generally have been completed, its safety profile and dosage guidelines may not be fully established."

This is also absolutely not met. No early studies of any quality show promise.

 

[Statistical]

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.

"I didn't advocate it, I am just grossly ignorant on all the facts and blurt out random things. It makes me mad when you people point out my ignorance. You guys should be more inclusive. My ignorance has equal value to your knowledge. #MericaFirst"

 

[Lansow]

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.

At least this court order will also kill said worms.

 

[Kirsu]

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.

I don't generally like the phrase "no evidence". Usually there is evidence, just no proof - to whatever standard of proof is required. Even when there is no direct evidence, there are usually relevant priors that we can and should consider when judging probabilities that something will or will not work.

But.. Isn't that the language of science? A thing had been extensively studied and there's "no evidence" to support a hypothesis? I know it's often mangled to "tH3y dOn'T kN0W!!11" but that's not what it means.

 

[Desaix]

"But people have clung to the idea that ivermectin can treat COVID after a study early in the pandemic suggested that it disrupted SARS-CoV-2’s ability to infect cells. What’s often overlooked is that study was limited to cells in Petri dishes."

You know what else would probably kill coronavirus in a Petri dish? Lots of things, like gasoline, hot lava, dish soap, sulphuric acid, molten lead, disinfectants, etc. Will this judge also recommend using these "treatments" because, you know, what do you have to lose? Will people start gulping gas cans or disinfectants becau... oh wait.

You know what, I should shut up before I give this crowd any ideas.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

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.

I don't generally like the phrase "no evidence". Usually there is evidence, just no proof - to whatever standard of proof is required. Even when there is no direct evidence, there are usually relevant priors that we can and should consider when judging probabilities that something will or will not work.

But.. Isn't that the language of science? A thing had been extensively studied and there's "no evidence" to support a hypothesis? I know it's often mangled to "tH3y dOn'T kN0W!!11" but that's not what it means.

Correct. "No evidence" is the language used in science in these cases.

Given that they did also experiment and try to find evidence, the interpretation is that the drug does not work. There is "no evidence" that it is effective.

There is evidence that it is not effective or not very effective. It's hard, scientifically, to say that something has zero effect compared to having a very small effect.

It's also useless to do that in medicine. A medicine isn't useful if the effect is tiny and hard to distinguish from zero.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

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?

Yeah, again, I'm not the ars audience. I don't feel like I need to qualify what I believe for you. It is what it is. You guys do your thing.

It's a closed system that you guys are making even better.

Come now. I asked a simple question.

Do you support the top known measures to end the pandemic or not. To repeat, the best measures we know about are vaccine mandates and mask mandates.

Or do you support useless measures and not ones that work?

I only want to broaden the scope of debate.

 

[Deleted member 807857]

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.

What victim?
He made the choice not to get vaccinated, as is his personal and legal right to do, then he died will likely die from that choice and now earth and human civilization are slightly safer.

Edited for accuracy

 

[Kirsu]

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...

The next step is to recognize where you went wrong!

 

[Lendorien]

The crazy thing about all of this to me is the same people touting a horse deformed to treat covid are the same people who refused to get vaccinated because the vaccines were experimental. This dewormer isn't even 1/100th as tested and reviewed as the vaccines. Logic apparently is on extended vacation.

I feel for this woman. It's such a sad situation, but this judgement is just unconscionable. If I were the doctors at this hospital, I would defy the order. Consequences be damned. Take a stand and do the right thing. Meanwhile, fight the order because no GOOD judge would have ever issued it ifirst place. place.

 

[blackhawk887]

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.

I don't generally like the phrase "no evidence". Usually there is evidence, just no proof - to whatever standard of proof is required. Even when there is no direct evidence, there are usually relevant priors that we can and should consider when judging probabilities that something will or will not work.

But.. Isn't that the language of science? A thing had been extensively studied and there's "no evidence" to support a hypothesis? I know it's often mangled to "tH3y dOn'T kN0W!!11" but that's not what it means.

No. Science is always based on the existence of evidence, not the absence of evidence. "There's no evidence that X is true" is not science - it's just an observation that something hasn't been studied. "We have Y evidence showing that X is not true" is science.

If you have extensively studied something and your results support the null hypotheses, then you do have evidence. The conclusiveness of that evidence depends on how good your experiments were, but it is evidence.

Medical studies are often inconclusive because there are so many confounding factors. You can have evidence that supports multiple mutually incompatible hypotheses. This is why the gold standard is a very large, double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

I’ve read enough, the article, several of the comments, surely not all of them.

You really find yourselves ignorant. Which I’m positive you misunderstand the word ignorant. Ivermectin is a safely proven anti-parasitic drug. The pure definition of a parasite is an organism that survives from a host. The definition seems to be evolving these days. A virus requires a host thus making it a parasite. Ivermectin’s use is broad based parasitic control. From a purely common sense approach to the control of a parasite, Ivermectin should have been the first go to treatment for COVID 19. Ivermectin is being used to successfully treat COVID in many countries worldwide.

Problems occur when ignorant speaks. The knowledge can be found but the lack of seeking the truth and being closed minded prevails. Knowledge is powerful but understanding and wisdom win.

COVID numbers were dropping drastically before the first vaccines were given. The vaccines had upper 90% effectiveness. We are told the vaccines are still effective in keeping severe COVID under control. Studies are showing the viral loads of the vaccinated are up to four times that of unvaccinated. For the ignorant, the vaccinated are super spreaders. The vaccines have serious current side effects. The toxic spike proteins are leaving the injection site and are surviving. Autoimmune diseases are the future of the vaccinated.

Read this and realize this is not an opinion or hate yourself more for your dependency and ignorance:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... _of.7.aspx

Facts seem to always get in the way

Go take your horse medicine. If you get sick, lay down in the hay. Don't bring that shit to the people hospital.

 

[SixDegrees]

I smell socks. Puppet socks.

 

[blackhawk887]

A virus requires a host thus making it a parasite.

That's not what that word means.

Problems occur when ignorant speaks.

Case in point: you.

 

[blackhawk887]

Correct. "No evidence" is the language used in science in these cases.

Given that they did also experiment and try to find evidence, the interpretation is that the drug does not work. There is "no evidence" that it is effective.

That is indefinite framing and should not be used, because while it's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) it is often misinterpreted.

"There IS evidence that this is NOT effective" is the conclusive framing.

Or, if something hasn't been studied, just say "This hasn't been studied". But even then, it's good to assess relevant but indirect evidence.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

 

[Kirsu]

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?

You're so full of shit I tagged your post as abusive
Edit. Also, why do you people (?) (yes, I'm questioning your humanity based on your posts) keep posting after promising to leave? I guess it just emphasizes the fact that you can't stop lying?

 

[sc99]

FWIW, I checked on an actual ivermectin dosing.
Human dosage is 150mcg/kg of body weight.
Horse dosage is 200mcg/kg of body weight.

So the 100x approved dosage to disrupt SARS-Cov-2 would be 75x the horse dosage. People are having problems at the regular horse dosage. But at 75x?! Wow.

 

[Snark218]

I’ve read enough, the article, several of the comments, surely not all of them.

You really find yourselves ignorant. Which I’m positive you misunderstand the word ignorant. Ivermectin is a safely proven anti-parasitic drug. The pure definition of a parasite is an organism that survives from a host. The definition seems to be evolving these days. A virus requires a host thus making it a parasite. Ivermectin’s use is broad based parasitic control. From a purely common sense approach to the control of a parasite, Ivermectin should have been the first go to treatment for COVID 19. Ivermectin is being used to successfully treat COVID in many countries worldwide.

Then try this fact on for size: ivermectin is only effective against insect and roundworm nervous systems. It works by binding to gated chloride channels in the synapses of such nervous systems, which hyperpolarizes them and paralyzes every muscle in the parasite's body. This kills them in short order.

A virus is not a cell, is only debatably alive, is composed of genetic material in a protein and lipid protective structure, and has no chloride channels, synapses, or nervous system of any kind or description. There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion. Results showing ivermectin affecting viruses in a petri dish are clinically irrelevant and the "studies" you cherry pick rely on spurious correlations and contaminated data.

All parasites are not biologically, pharmacologically, or ecologically equivalent. A mite or a roundworm is not the same as a virus. This would be obvious if you weren't as offensively dumb as a flaming bag of dog shit on my front porch. And everything you wrote in that post was just as ignorant, just as stupid, and just as utterly divorced from even a basic understanding of the facts at hand. Spike proteins are not toxic. Viral loads are not higher in the vaccinated. You are simply not equipped to critically evaluate any part of this.

 

[CoffeeFoo]

On the "plus" side, things are looking pretty shiny for whoever wrote the life insurance policy on this guy. Easy way to avoid payout of death for not going with actual medical advice.

 

[Celery Man]

While obviously a tragedy for those involved, I find it all ironic.

So, thousands of patients in a study showing real efficacy of a vaccine, not good enough.

*no* supporting data, let me force you to give it to me.

The article didn't explicitly say he wasn't vaccinated, so it's possible it's a breakthrough case.

Could be, but it also sounds like it's not covid-19 that's causing most of his problems, but rather the infection he caused himself by trying to yank out his respirator and feeding tubes.

Which is another thing I don't understand. I've known people who've been intubated to that extent, and they were fully conscious and able to communicate via writing; it definitely wasn't pleasant for them, but none of them tried de-intubating themselves. There are lots of pieces missing from this story.

To be fair, some people just do not respond well to being in the hospital. They get completely disoriented and do weird things like pull out IVs and breathing tubes etc. Sometimes they abuse staff. Sometimes it's the early signs of dementia and sometimes it's just being in a hospital.

When I was in college (years ago) I used to get paid to sit in rooms and make sure people didn't pull out their IVs. They'd be 100% normal during the day and just lose it at night. (Sundowners).

Also, sedatives don't merely put you to sleep, they fuck you up right good. You can't take any decisions for a day after even a short dose of sedation. The patient wasn't in his right mind when the sedatives wore off.

A couple of years ago, my leg got splintered and they put me under to piece it back together...
When I came out of the anesthesia I was very adamant to the ICU nurse that I had to get into my spaceship to fight off the alien invasion. I was trashing around pretty good for a couple minutes before my brain sufficiently kicked in. If I'd had an intubation instead of a nasal cannula, I probably would have messed it up.

I got put under less than a week ago to have a cyst removed from my scalp and all I can remember about coming out of it was having dreamed about something and thinking it was the best high I'd ever had. (Of course, I have very few other drugs to compare it to.)

Heh... I'm a fan of Ye Olde Cannabis, and I remember coming out of various surgeries and procedures (including a few w/a Fentanyl drip) thinking... huh, that was fun, but kind of underwhelming. A fat blunt will get you pretty damn close.

 

[Celery Man]

I’ve read enough, the article, several of the comments, surely not all of them.

You really find yourselves ignorant. Which I’m positive you misunderstand the word ignorant. Ivermectin is a safely proven anti-parasitic drug. The pure definition of a parasite is an organism that survives from a host. The definition seems to be evolving these days. A virus requires a host thus making it a parasite. Ivermectin’s use is broad based parasitic control. From a purely common sense approach to the control of a parasite, Ivermectin should have been the first go to treatment for COVID 19. Ivermectin is being used to successfully treat COVID in many countries worldwide.

Then try this fact on for size: ivermectin is only effective against insect and roundworm nervous systems. It works by binding to gated chloride channels in the synapses of such nervous systems, which hyperpolarizes them and paralyzes every muscle in the parasite's body. This kills them in short order.

A virus is not a cell, is only debatably alive, is composed of genetic material in a protein and lipid protective structure, and has no chloride channels, synapses, or nervous system of any kind or description. There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion. Results showing ivermectin affecting viruses in a petri dish are clinically irrelevant and the "studies" you cherry pick rely on spurious correlations and contaminated data.

All parasites are not biologically, pharmacologically, or ecologically equivalent. A mite or a roundworm is not the same as a virus. This would be obvious if you weren't as offensively dumb as a flaming bag of dog shit on my front porch. And everything you wrote in that post was just as ignorant, just as stupid, and just as utterly divorced from even a basic understanding of the facts at hand. Spike proteins are not toxic. Viral loads are not higher in the vaccinated. You are simply not equipped to critically evaluate any part of this.

To some people, parasites = viruses = bacteria => "Toxins"...

 

[blackhawk887]

There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

I don't think that's strictly true. Several molecular binding simulations have shown binding affinities for both ivermectin and remdesivir to docking sites that potentially could prevent viral entry to a cell.

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 92908/full

This is hardly conclusive, but along with other evidence supports doing a larger clinical trial. Which is being done.

 

[Statistical]

A virus is not a cell, is only debatably alive, is composed of genetic material in a protein and lipid protective structure, and has no chloride channels, synapses, or nervous system of any kind or description. There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

These kind of claims go too far and just lead to strawmen for people to latch onto. There is a stage 3 clinical trial for ivermectin. It however hasn't concluded and is only being used at the onset of infection.

It is more prudent to say ivermectin is not proven and a longshot then wait for science to do its thing. You can also point out that the only place it is even being considered is at infection onset not for severely diseased persons reduced to being kept alive by a ventilator like the patient in this article.

 

[Snark218]

There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

I don't think that's strictly true. Several molecular binding simulations have shown binding affinities for both ivermectin and remdesivir to docking sites that potentially could prevent viral entry to a cell.

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 92908/full

This is hardly conclusive, but along with other evidence supports doing a larger clinical trial. Which is being done.

To say it's not conclusive is a magnificent understatement, and in any case potentially blocking a binding site in certain simulations is not a direct interaction between Ivermectin and the virus. This whole eruption of bullshit about ivermectin is predicated on exposing cultured virus to the drug in vitro and purportedly inactivating it.

 

[Socks Mingus]

...


I saw Brett Weinstein (who has been on the vanguard of "Ivermectin prevents covid!") speak once, a few years back, and he seemed to a be a reasonable, decent guy. He's obviously completely lost his mind over the course of the pandemic. It's depressing.

Maybe he's reasonable or decent, but he's also one of those people who got "cancelled" (possibly unjustly or ill-liberally) and parlayed it into a grievance media JAQ-off grift as "heterodox liberals" with podcasts and guest spots on Fox or Rogan where they can say things like "YouTube is censoring my COVID misinformation!", or "Trump is bad but Antifa are a just as bad!", or "I'm ok with trans people but what about the bathroom molesters!".

Perhaps these people don't know exactly what they are doing and it's not out of sheer self interest that they happily play their role in the far right media construct but even as someone who appreciates a bit of contrarianism I am so, so far past giving them the benefit of the doubt when they volunteer to do so.

 

[Snark218]

Next time those of you who have responded "foul!" - or someone close to you - gets some uniquely challenging disease for which standard treatments aren't working, I hope YOU get a judge who upholds YOUR right to an "off label" medication or treatment, rules as such, and YOUR hospital allows a doctor willing to administer it to do so when you or someone close to you requests it.
"

I surely hope that doesn't happen, personally, because I don't want my loved ones being duped by carny barkers into the false hope of cures for which there's no actual evidence or evaluation. This is not a good thing you're hoping for. Frantically prescribing whatever the grieving family members demand is not how medicine is done, not safe, not ethical, and not prudent.

 

[Statistical]

BTW the drug under discussion is FDA approved, has been prescribed for humans for 30 years, is safer than aspirin

It is not. It is a quite powerful and toxic substance. Yes in limited situations a drug that toxic is better than the alternative but it is far from harmless and I would point out the quack prescription was far higher than the recommended safe dose for treating parasites in humans.

is routinely used off-label (ie not for parasites but for other medical conditions), and is currently saving millions in central Africa (who take it weekly) not only from river blindness, for which it is prescribed,

Not at all surprising a toxic drug which kills parasites would be used to treat river blindness a condition caused by parasites. In related news antibiotics have been known to kill bacteria.

also from the worst effects of Covid as well, demonstrated by stunning statistics available online.

and false. Its effectiveness is inconclusive at best and even that limited inconclusive effect is only seen when administered at the onset of infection not for someone on a ventilator 45 days after the virus has reproduced unchecked and the disease has already ravaged his body.

You know what is far far far far more effective at reducing disease severity, hospitalization, and death rates? The various covid vaccines. That is the sheer irony. All these covidiots looking for a magical protection spell when one already exists. The vaccine reduces the likelihood of hospitalization by over 95% and death by 97%. That is beyond amazing and magnitudes better than one could hope for from some magic drug even if they did work.

 

[Snark218]

A virus is not a cell, is only debatably alive, is composed of genetic material in a protein and lipid protective structure, and has no chloride channels, synapses, or nervous system of any kind or description. There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

These kind of claims go too far and just lead to strawmen for people to latch onto. There is a stage 3 clinical trial for ivermectin. It however hasn't concluded and is only being used at the onset of infection.

It is more prudent to say ivermectin is not proven and a longshot then wait for science to do its thing. You can also point out that the only place it is even being considered is at infection onset not for severely diseased persons reduced to being kept alive by a ventilator like the patient in this article.

It's a response to the original claims and methodology that inspired the ivermectin furor - that it directly affects the virus in vitro.

 

[Grayhappyness]

Correct. "No evidence" is the language used in science in these cases.

Given that they did also experiment and try to find evidence, the interpretation is that the drug does not work. There is "no evidence" that it is effective.

That is indefinite framing and should not be used, because while it's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) it is often misinterpreted.

"There IS evidence that this is NOT effective" is the conclusive framing.

Or, if something hasn't been studied, just say "This hasn't been studied". But even then, it's good to assess relevant but indirect evidence.

You are absolutely right.

But, the language has changed. Students are taught to use the phrase “absence of evidence” to indicate negative evidence. It drives me absolutely crazy. It’s as if something that has been extensively studied and shown to not be effective, and something that has never been studied, have the same evidentiary weight.

 

[blackhawk887]

There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

I don't think that's strictly true. Several molecular binding simulations have shown binding affinities for both ivermectin and remdesivir to docking sites that potentially could prevent viral entry to a cell.

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 92908/full

This is hardly conclusive, but along with other evidence supports doing a larger clinical trial. Which is being done.

To say it's not conclusive is a magnificent understatement, and in any case potentially blocking a binding site in certain simulations is not a direct interaction between Ivermectin and the virus. This whole eruption of bullshit about ivermectin is predicated on exposing cultured virus to the drug in vitro and purportedly inactivating it.

I'm not a microbiologist or a virologist, but my understanding is that inactivating cell entry will "kill" a virus in vitro just as well as in vivo, since in either case the virus requires cell entry to reproduce.

Without reproduction, the virus is eventually decomposed by other things that chew on viruses, like UV, oxidants, or the immune system. The job of the drug is simply to gum up the works until that happens, not to cleave up the virus.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

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.

At least we now have a good idea of what the stolen Ars accounts are being used for.

 

[DarthSlack]

There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

I don't think that's strictly true. Several molecular binding simulations have shown binding affinities for both ivermectin and remdesivir to docking sites that potentially could prevent viral entry to a cell.

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 92908/full

This is hardly conclusive, but along with other evidence supports doing a larger clinical trial. Which is being done.

To say it's not conclusive is a magnificent understatement, and in any case potentially blocking a binding site in certain simulations is not a direct interaction between Ivermectin and the virus. This whole eruption of bullshit about ivermectin is predicated on exposing cultured virus to the drug in vitro and purportedly inactivating it.

I'm not a microbiologist or a virologist, but my understanding is that inactivating cell entry will "kill" a virus in vitro just as well as in vivo, since in either case the virus requires cell entry to reproduce.

There is a subtle line that needs to be recognized. If ivermectin binds to a receptor, it has to bind ALL of the receptors (or some horribly high percentage) in order to prevent the live virus from entering into the cell. If it binds to the virus, that virus isn't going anywhere and is effectively dead.

<edit> Boy did that response end up in the wrong place. Fixed.

 

[blackhawk887]

There is no mechanism, whether theoretical or observed, by which an ivermectin molecule can possibly interact with a SARs-CoV-2 virion.

I don't think that's strictly true. Several molecular binding simulations have shown binding affinities for both ivermectin and remdesivir to docking sites that potentially could prevent viral entry to a cell.

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 92908/full

This is hardly conclusive, but along with other evidence supports doing a larger clinical trial. Which is being done.

To say it's not conclusive is a magnificent understatement, and in any case potentially blocking a binding site in certain simulations is not a direct interaction between Ivermectin and the virus. This whole eruption of bullshit about ivermectin is predicated on exposing cultured virus to the drug in vitro and purportedly inactivating it.

I'm not a microbiologist or a virologist, but my understanding is that inactivating cell entry will "kill" a virus in vitro just as well as in vivo, since in either case the virus requires cell entry to reproduce.

There is a subtle line that needs to be recognized. If ivermectin binds to a receptor, it has to bind ALL of the receptors (or some horribly high percentage) in order to prevent the live virus from entering into the cell. If it binds to the virus, that virus isn't going anywhere and is effectively dead.

<edit> Boy did that response end up in the wrong place. Fixed.

Which could explain why in vitro effectiveness requires toxicly high doses...

 

[sc99]

There's a lot of first stage thinking going on here (see Thomas Sowell if you're not familiar with the concept.) Let's say your position rules the day. Then what?
Next time those of you who have responded "foul!" - or someone close to you - gets some uniquely challenging disease for which standard treatments aren't working, I hope YOU get a judge who upholds YOUR right to an "off label" medication or treatment, rules as such, and YOUR hospital allows a doctor willing to administer it to do so when you or someone close to you requests it.
BTW the drug under discussion is FDA approved, has been prescribed for humans for 30 years, is safer than aspirin, is routinely used off-label (ie not for parasites but for other medical conditions), and is currently saving millions in central Africa (who take it weekly) not only from river blindness, for which it is prescribed, but also from the worst effects of Covid as well, demonstrated by stunning statistics available online. Same with the many Indian states who have chosen to use it. Unfortunately, these facts seem not to be "news fit to print."

Doctors routinely prescribe off label already. But it doesn't mean they don't pay attention to what works, what doesn't, dosage, side effects, etc...

Yes, ivermectin treats river blindness. The dosage is 150mcg/kg. The horse dosage people are taking is 200mcg/kg, which is already causing severe side effects. The article referenced needing 100x the human dosage to possibly cause disruption. You don't just give someone 100 pills when the approved dosage is 1.

You mentioned aspirin, but let's use acetaminophen as an example. That's considered safe. An extra strength dose is 2 x500mg tablets, or 1g. But 12g is toxic. So we don't even have to get to 100x the dose before it will kill you.

 

[watermeloncup]

The pure definition of a parasite is an organism that survives from a host. The definition seems to be evolving these days. A virus requires a host thus making it a parasite. Ivermectin’s use is broad based parasitic control. From a purely common sense approach to the control of a parasite, Ivermectin should have been the first go to treatment for COVID 19. Ivermectin is being used to successfully treat COVID in many countries worldwide.

Coronaviruses are parasites because they rely on resources of the host, good one!

edit: This comment really takes the cake, I've heard some dumb arguments in favor of horse paste, but this one is dumber than all of them combined