Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
“People are going to animal feed stores and getting a formulation that’s highly concentrated because it’s for 1,000-pound animals,” Dr. Varney said. “They’re opening themselves to great potential harm.”
Ivermectin was introduced as a veterinary drug in the late 1970s, and the discovery of its effectiveness in combating certain parasitic diseases in humans won the 2015 Nobel Prize for medicine.
Though it has not been shown to be effective in treating Covid, people are now clamoring to get the drug, trading tips in Facebook groups and on Reddit. Some physicians have compared the phenomenon to last year’s surge of interest in hydroxychloroquine, though there are more clinical trials evaluating ivermectin.
The Food and Drug Administration weighed in last week. “You are not a horse,” the agency tweeted, with a warning explaining that ivermectin is not F.D.A.-approved for treating or preventing Covid-19 and that taking large doses can cause serious harm.
A recent review of 14 ivermectin studies, with more than 1,600 participants, concluded that none provided evidence of the drug’s ability to prevent Covid, improve patient conditions or reduce mortality. Another 31 studies are still underway to test the drug.
“There is great interest in repurposing well-known inexpensive drugs such as ivermectin that are readily available as an oral tablet,” Maria-Inti Metzendorf and Stephanie Weibel, the authors of the review, said in an email to The Times. “Even if these circumstances seem ideal, the results from the available clinical studies carried out so far cannot confirm the widely advertised benefits.”
One of the largest trials studying ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment, called the Together Trial, was halted by the data safety monitoring board on Aug. 6 because the drug had been shown to be no better than a placebo at preventing hospitalization or prolonged stay in the emergency room. Dr. Edward Mills, a professor at McMaster University who led the study, which enrolled more than 1,300 patients, said the team would have discontinued it earlier were it not for the level of public interest in ivermectin.
“The data safety person said, ‘This is now futile and you’re offering no benefit to patients involved in the trial,’” Dr. Mills said.
Read it all at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/heal ... tions.html
“Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19,” the authors write in their report, posted last week (July 28). “The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. . . . Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.”
“The hype around ivermectin is driven by some studies where the effect size for ivermectin is frankly not credible,” Paul Garner, the coordinating editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, says in a statement. “Careful appraisal is the cornerstone of Cochrane’s work, and with such extreme public demands for a drug to work during the pandemic, it remains vital that we hold onto our scientific principles to guide care.”
The Cochrane review notes an “urgent need” for good quality randomized controlled trials of the drug.
The team’s final analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,678 adults. Six of the studies were double-blinded and placebo-controlled—factors considered to improve the quality of evidence in drug trials. Nine of the 14 studies focused on moderate COVID-19 cases in hospital settings, four on mild cases in outpatients, and one on the use of ivermectin as a preventive medicine.
The team identified an additional 38 studies that failed to meet the review’s inclusion criteria, mainly because they contained problematic comparisons or data, or otherwise didn’t meet scientific standards for strong evidence. For example, nearly a third of the studies evaluated ivermectin alongside other treatments that varied between different groups of patients, making it difficult to extract the effect of ivermectin, specifically, from the data. Several studies classified people as COVID-19 patients without testing to make sure they had the disease with a PCR or antigen test.
More at https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... drug-69049
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that a meeting with constituents in Cold Spring, Kentucky, on Friday, Paul said: “The hatred for Trump deranged these people so much, they’re unwilling to objectively study it.
“So someone like me that’s in the middle on it, I can’t tell you because they will not study ivermectin. They will not study hydroxychloroquine without the taint of their hatred for Donald Trump.”
He’s actually not certified. He made his own board at one point to certify himself, but even that is lapsed now. You don’t have to be certified to be an eye doctor in KY though, so freedumb?Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:23 pm Talk about doctors who need their licenses suspended...
I think the patient *should* be allowed to try ivermectin, but he should also do it at home instead of wasting a valuable bed at a hospital.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:40 pm
Wondering how long it takes until the state medical licensing forum revokes this doctors licence.
At the same time I donder if the supervisory board over judges will remove this judge for mis-applying law. On second reading I note that the order does not reference any law that would enable the judge to make this order, far from the plaintiffs basing their request on a law.
I'd like to see his scientific publications that make him "a foremost expert"Dr. Wagshulis one of the foremost experts on using Ivermectin in treating Covid-19 and a founding member of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance; he supports the use of Ivermectin to treat Jeffrey, and prescribed Ivermectin to him.
The FLCCC had their Ivermectin study pulled from publication because it was so flawed.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:16 pm A tweet reproduced a couple of posts above has a link to the law suit and mentions the quack
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -complaint
I'd like to see his scientific publications that make him "a foremost expert"Dr. Wagshulis one of the foremost experts on using Ivermectin in treating Covid-19 and a founding member of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance; he supports the use of Ivermectin to treat Jeffrey, and prescribed Ivermectin to him.
The Cincinatti Enquirer has the story: Butler County judge orders West Chester Hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite CDC warningsRTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:16 pm A tweet reproduced a couple of posts above has a link to the law suit and mentions the quack
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -complaint
I'd like to see his scientific publications that make him "a foremost expert"Dr. Wagshulis one of the foremost experts on using Ivermectin in treating Covid-19 and a founding member of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance; he supports the use of Ivermectin to treat Jeffrey, and prescribed Ivermectin to him.
Huh.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:16 pm A tweet reproduced a couple of posts above has a link to the law suit and mentions the quack
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -complaint
Licensing and board certification are two different things.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:49 pmHe’s actually not certified. He made his own board at one point to certify himself, but even that is lapsed now. You don’t have to be certified to be an eye doctor in KY though, so freedumb?Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:23 pm Talk about doctors who need their licenses suspended...
I haven't read through it yet, but newspaper clippings about other judge's orders are not proper evidence: the proper evidence would be certified copies of the actual (alleged) orders.neeneko wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:07 pmHuh.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:16 pm A tweet reproduced a couple of posts above has a link to the law suit and mentions the quack
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -complaint
I am a little unnerved that her exhibits include a lot of newspaper clippings of other judges ordering hospitals to administer the drug against the doctors wishes.. which means this has been going on for a while and this case just happened to get wider attention.
They wouldn't need any court order to try Ivermectin at home.Azastan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:57 pmI think the patient *should* be allowed to try ivermectin, but he should also do it at home instead of wasting a valuable bed at a hospital.RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:40 pm
Wondering how long it takes until the state medical licensing forum revokes this doctors licence.
At the same time I donder if the supervisory board over judges will remove this judge for mis-applying law. On second reading I note that the order does not reference any law that would enable the judge to make this order, far from the plaintiffs basing their request on a law.
In the lawsuit Smith's wife states:A judge in Ohio has ordered a hospital to use ivermectin to treat a man for COVID-19, despite warnings from federal regulators.
WXIX reports Judge Gregory Howard ordered West Chester Hospital to treat Jeffrey Smith, 51, with the anti-parasitic drug after his wife sued to force the hospital to use the treatment.
The judge’s ruling requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30 mg of ivermectin to Smith every day for three weeks. But the two-page order does not explain the reasoning behind his decision.
“I can’t comment on litigation or answer questions, and HIPAA patient privacy laws prevent me from commenting on any specifics of patient care,” said UC Health spokesperson Amanda Nageleisen of the ruling.
Smith has been in the hospital for several weeks fighting the virus, and his wife asked for an emergency order for the use of the drug.
In the complaint, the wife said she began researching COVID-treatment options and came across several articles where COVID-19 patients were given ivermectin. After treatment, she claims all of the patients left the hospital and are now home.
“With absolutely nothing to lose, with little to no risk, and with the defendant likely to begin palliative care, there is no basis for it to refuse Dr. Wagshul’s order and prescription to administer ivermectin. It is respectfully submitted that this court give my husband a fighting chance,” the complaint reads.
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration discouraged the drug from being used to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and from it being used as a preventative measure.
Please correct me if I'm wrong lawyers. I think the judge would have ruled that this is all moot if Smith was dead.Ms. Smith offered to sign a release, releasing the Defendant, its agents, assigns, any third parties acting on its behalf, and any doctors acting on its behalf, from any and all lability in administering the Ivermectin to her husband.
Au contraire, I am considering donating a pill crusher (ball peen hammer) and a turkey baster to this nearby hospital.Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:17 pm Gee, qbawl, it sounds like you just don't want ivermectin to help that poor feller.
