Reason Roundup

Ohio Hospital Allowed To Stop Treating COVID-19 Patient With Ivermectin

Plus: Student-professor relationships and Title IX, web hosts reject abortion snitch website, and more...

|

An Ohio hospital will no longer be legally compelled to treat a COVID-19 patient with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. While the drug has recently become popular on the right as a remedy for COVID-19, such use is discouraged by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. ("The bottom line is that while ivermectin might have some marginal efficacy, it is certainly not a 'miracle drug' when it comes to treating COVID-19," writes Reason's Ron Bailey after reviewing the evidence.)

The case involves Ohio resident Jeffrey Smith, who was admitted to the West Chester Hospital, near Cincinnati, back in July. After his condition continued to worsen, wife Julie Smith obtained an ivermectin prescription for her husband from Fred Wagshul, a doctor unaffiliated with the hospital. When the hospital said it wouldn't treat Jeffrey Smith with ivermectin—which is used as a deworming drug in animals and also used to treat some parasitic infections in humans—Julie Smith sued, seeking an injunction against the hospital to make it administer ivermectin.

In an August 23 ruling, a judge held that the hospital must try the treatment. "West Chester Hospital shall immediately administer Ivermectin to Jeffrey Smith," Butler County Judge J. Gregory Howard wrote, issuing a 14-day temporary injunction.

But a new decision—from Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr.—reverses course. Oster said West Chester Hospital does not have to continue treating Smith with ivermectin.

"This Court is not making a decision on the effectiveness of ivermectin. Rather, the question is" whether Smith had "met her burden to be entitled to a preliminary injunction under Ohio law," wrote Oster in a decision issued yesterday. He didn't think Smith had.

"After Judge Howard's ruling, but before a hearing could be held before Judge Oster, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists 'Association (APhA) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) all issued statements or advisories against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19," the judge pointed out. And "while there are some doctors and studies that tend to lend support to ivermectin…the studies that tend to give support to ivermectin have had inconsistent results, limitations to the studies, were open label studies, were of low quality or low certainty, included small sample sizes, various dosing regimens, or have been so riddled with issues that the study was withdrawn." It's clear "the medical community does not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 at this time."

"What is more, at the hearing, Plaintiff's own witness, Dr. Wagshul was only able to say that Jeff Smith 'seems to be' getting better after receiving ivermectin," noted Oster. "Wagshul further testified that 'I honestly don't know' if continued use of ivermectin will benefit Jeff Smith."

"If it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction," the judge concluded. "What is more, based upon the testimony, Jeff Smith is capable of being safely and medically appropriately moved to a hospital where Dr. Wagshul has privileges. If continued use of ivermectin under Dr. Wagshul's treatment regimen is desired, Plaintiff has this as an available option without the need of intervention by a court."

Kelly Martin, a spokesperson for the hospital, called the ruling "positive." She told The Cincinnati Enquirer. "We do not believe that hospitals or clinicians should be ordered to administer medications and/or therapies, especially unproven medications and/or therapies, against medical advice."


FREE MINDS

On Title IX and student-professor relationships. Amia Srinivasan, a professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, has penned an interesting essay on student-faculty relationships for The New York Times. Srinivasan delves into the history of prohibitions on such relationships and the cases for and against such prohibitions. Her own opinion:

The problem, I think, with many teacher-student relationships is not that they don't involve consent — or even real romantic love. Sometimes, no doubt, students agree to have sex with their professors, as Ms. Vinson said she did with her boss, because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't. But there are also many students who consent to sex with their professors out of genuine desire. As defenders of teacher-student relationships like to remind us, many professors are married to former students (as if we were in a Shakespearean comedy, in which all that ends in marriage ends well). The question, I want to suggest, isn't whether genuine consent or real romantic love is possible between teachers and students. Rather, it is whether, when professors sleep with or date their students, real teaching is possible.

Srinivasan notes that "there is a case to be made that even genuinely consensual professor-student relationships, while not instances of sexual harassment, can constitute sexual discrimination, outlawed by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972." But she rejects this solution:

To say that a case can be made is not to say that we should necessarily make it. In the United States especially, feminists have often reached to the law as an instrument of social transformation. The ability of women today to sue employers who harbor abusive bosses or to report domestic partners to the police is a result of the feminist mobilization of the law in service of gender justice. But that mobilization has sometimes had unintended, and worrying, consequences….

The law has its limits on campus, too. The Office for Civil Rights, which administers Title IX, does not publish racial statistics for allegations of Title IX violations. Title IX requires schools to appoint officers to protect students from discrimination on the basis of sex but not from discrimination on the basis of race, sexuality, immigration status or class. Thus, as a matter of Title IX law, it is of no concern that, during at least two recent academic years, the small minority of Black students at Colgate University, an elite liberal arts college in upstate New York, have been disproportionately targeted for sexual violation complaints and that no notes are kept on where else this might be happening.

Given the lack of data, we cannot know for certain that Title IX disproportionately affects marginalized groups, but there is good reason to think that it might.

More here.


FREE MARKETS

Abortion snitching site can't find web host. Web hosting companies GoDaddy and Epik have both booted a website designed to help people snitch on Texas women who get abortions. The website—prolifewhistleblower.com—was maintained by Texas Right to Life. "After hosting provider GoDaddy booted the group from its platform last week, the site's registration changed to list Epik, a Web hosting company that has supported other websites that tech companies have rejected, such as Gab and 8chan," notes The Washington Post:

The site went offline Saturday, however, after the domain registrar told the Texas organization that lobbied for the abortion ban that it had violated the company's terms of service. After speaking with Epik, which never hosted the site, Texas Right to Life agreed to remove the form, Epik general counsel Daniel Prince said Monday. By late Saturday, the website had redirected to Texas Right to Life's main page.…Prince said Epik would no longer offer its services if the group continues to collect private information about third parties through its digital tip line.


QUICK HITS

• Buckle up: President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk on Wednesday about the next phase of the government's pandemic response.

• How 9/11 changed the Democratic Party.

• "The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, led policy makers to embark on one of the largest spending binges in federal government history," writes Byron Tau for The Wall Street Journal.  A look, two decades on, at what this spending has fueled.

• After the Supreme Court rejected the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's eviction moratorium, New York state's government has extended its own eviction ban through January 15, 2022. "The new ban raises fresh constitutional issues, so the Justices may get another bite at this big apple," suggests the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

• See Cathy Reisenwitz's full thread for a rundown of why Catharine A. MacKinnon is wrong about OnlyFans and online porn:

• Meanwhile, in France:

• The proposed spending bill that Democrats want would be "a cradle-to-grave reweaving" of the U.S. social safety net, notes The New York Times. "To critics, the legislation represents a fundamental upending of American-style governance and a shift toward social democracy. With it, they worry, would come European-style endemic unemployment and depressed economic dynamism."

• El Salvador is adopting bitcoin as a legal tender. "El Salvador has just bought it's [sic] first 200 coins," tweeted President Nayib Bukele on Monday, adding that the country's brokers would "be buying a lot more."

• "Maria Kolesnikova, one of the leaders of mass street protests against Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko last year, was sentenced on Monday to 11 years in prison," reports Reuters. "Kolesnikova and another senior opposition figure, Maxim Znak, were charged with extremism and trying to seize power illegally. Both denied wrongdoing and Kolesnikova called the charges absurd."

• In Richmond, Virginia, a six-story-tall, 12-ton statue of Robert E. Lee is set to come down this week.

• A billionaire is hoping to create an American city from scratch in the desert.

NEXT: Forget Classroom Battles: Homeschooling Is Easier Than Ever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A billionaire is hoping to create an American city from scratch in the desert.

    NEAR A GULCH?

    1. I just want to know one thing, which the linked article didn’t go into at all: where is this city going to get its water from?

      1. How cute. Mike thinks deserts don’t have water.

        1. Dee’s quite ignorant.

          1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Access To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.TGj Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match……

            Start now……………. VISIT HERE

        2. Deserts have water, but not a lot of it. 5 million people, plus lots of water intensive greenery needs a LOT of water.

          1. True, but most of the water use in the West still goes to agriculture (farming/ranching). Depending on the year and drought conditions, farmers will often lease their water rights to the nearest urban area since they won’t have enough to grow crops or sustain a herd.

            Aquifer drawdown IS a big concern as well, but this would be mitigated by cities buying water rights, and mandating desert landscaping in parks and residential developments.

          2. Last time I checked Phx was almost over 1 million people.

            1. Oh wait. No it isnt. You must be mistaken too matthew!

              1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                Try now……………… READ MORE

        3. They’ll have to make do with HO2.

      2. Probably an aquifer.

        1. He will shit himself if he learns about all the cities in Arizona and California classified as desert region.

          1. Ah, but those cities happened organically as people moved to those areas. They weren’t planned and built by a billionaire with a vision of spending 100x his own net worth of other people’s money.

            1. How does that impact the building of wells?

              1. Might be hard to obtain rights to enough water?

            2. You keep making stupid non sequitur to justify white mikes stupid ass comment… why?

        2. All the others seem to include the Colorado river in their water sourcing.

          I hope he has other plans.

      3. “Although planners are still scouting for locations, possible targets include Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and the Appalachian region, according to the project’s official website.”

        So… it depends.

      4. Brawndo, of course! It’s what plants crave!

    2. Best of luck to the guy in getting permission and purchasing the land from the federales. Once upon our time, our government welcomed the idea of people settling and developing the great wide open American interior, but those days ended quite a while ago.

      Today, their attitude is “Go fuck yourself, we only want you living west of I-5 or east of I-95.”

    3. Since the person building the city apparently hates on capitalism now that he’s already rich, I’m guessing no gulches are involved. Also, holy fuckballs that article was pretentious.

  2. An Ohio hospital will no longer be legally compelled to treat a COVID-19 patient with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.

    Nobel prize worthy discovery one day, piece of shit MAGA hoax the next.

    1. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the press so viciously opposed to any treatment besides what they like for any disease ever.

      1. Well, gee, imagine how awful it will be if doctors find an effective treatment for Covid! People will try to live normal lives; what will the poor Karens do? They won’t be able to huddle like sheep in their “bubbles”, or keep a lookout for mask scofflaws they can yell at.

        1. I’ve seen this said here a few times over the weekend. A treatment would be great (and there already are some), but…

          Treatments are the second line of defense. It’s better not to need to be treated. Vaccines are still the first line of defense.

          1. Vaccines that are useless after 8 months aren’t vaccines.

          2. The vaccines are a treatment dumbfuck. They aren’t preventing anything. The problem with coronaviruses is how quickly they mutate. This is why the joke about searching for the cure foe the common cold has lasted for decades. Not all of us are as anti science as you. Disease will always exist. Learn to live with that knowledge.

            1. the difficulty in curing the common cold has nothing to do with how fast anything mutates….. it is because the common cold and the flu are actually a collection of over 200 different viruses. and the immunity we gain when we catch them is typically 5yrs or less.

              this will become an endemic virus that is part of that collection…. but not because of mutations, but because of the number of people who will never get a vaccine…… many of them proudly stating that then don’t get a flu vaccine ever, either……. the inability to get enough people vaccinated in a timely manner is the only reason covid will be with us to stay….. and it is the only reason we can’t wipe out any of the other 200 viruses on that list too. we could pick any virus that exists, and if we could vaccinate 95% of the population in under 3yrs…. it would cease to exist.

              1. I might agree with you if these were sterilizing like smallpox or polio, but since the vaccinated can catch, carry, and pass on the virus, laying the endemicness of this particular virus at the feet of the unvaccinated is incredibly stupid.

                1. Ah, technically, if you could vaccinate enough people, even though it was still possible for people to catch and transmit the virus, they wouldn’t be doing so often enough for it to stick around; Give it a few years, and the last case would recover without having passed it on.

                  But while you were doing that you’d have to be distributing new vaccines quarterly to keep up with the mutations.

                  Meanwhile, once everybody’s gotten a variant or three already, covid is going to stop being a big deal anyway, on account of the fact that exposure to one strain gives you significant resistance to other strains.

                  1. Brett, aren’t there animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV2, sufficient for it to propagate and mutate therein, even without any intervening human transmission?

                    I genuinely don’t understand the hysteria behind insisting that everyone get vaccinated for a viral pneumonia that, unless you’re a tub o’ goo, 75+, or both, is about as lethal as other viral pneumonias.

                    Let people take their panacea against Global Worming, wash their filthy hands, and see about bringing this economy back before it crashes, and we really do then start seeing bodies litter the streets.

                    1. again…. mutations have nothing to do with what is going to keep this thing around.

                      the issue with this virus has never been how deadly it is, in and of itself. it is that, unlike the other 200 endemic viruses, there was no distributed immunity at all when this all started. common cold, flu, other endemic viruses…. we all caught those 2-3 times a year as children… we all have some immunity to some of those viruses, and there is some immunity to every one of those viruses within the population. that is why, despite the fact that the fatality rate is comparable to the flu, the actual death count stands at about 20X higher for a one year period. it is “only” as bad as the flu, but is killing 20X more people because nobody had any immunity to it.

                      i do agree that we need to get the economy open…. but i would add “get vaccinated” along with “washing your filthy hands.” if everyone got vaccinated, this whole discussion would go away.

                    2. Foo… how did 200 different major strains evolve? What happens when you put evolutionary pressure on an organism?

                      Stop woth the stupidity. Congrats on learning something, but you’re argument is straight juvenile.

              2. Wrong. These “vaccines” are leaky which means they don’t prevent infection in the way a traditional vaccine does. What these do is actually encourage mutations and what they are finding is that when the “vaccinated” get re-infected their viral loads are 2-3 times as high as the unvaccinated.

                1. Where are you getting this information about from? Can you share your source?

                2. literally nothing you just said is true.

                  1. “Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity.”

                    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0

                    1. ahhh…. an idiot distorting something they don’t understand to suggest something not actually true….. how surprising…..

                    2. Lol. Like Foo denying evolution exists for coronaviruses. Lol. God damn man.

              3. this will become an endemic virus that is part of that collection…. but not because of mutations, but because of the number of people who will never get a vaccine

                Funny how all these different variants didn’t become a problem until after the vaccines started getting rolled out–almost as if the vaccines don’t actually vaccinate, but provide a fertile environment for virus mutation by mitigating symptoms rather than preventing infection.

                1. the variants never were any problem, they are one part fear porn, one part idiots trying to convince other idiots to get vaccinated, and one part data overload without context.

                2. Funny how that worked.

              4. There does not exist a single non-sterilizing vaccine that can eradicate anything.

          3. “Vaccines are still the first line of defense.”

            If they work, why has Illinois gone back to wearing masks? Most of the sheep around here are vaccinated.

            1. Because Illinois is controlled by power hungry dipshits.

            2. Don’t know. I don’t live in Illinois, so I don’t follow what happens there. Most places having problems with surges are because of people not getting vaccinated, not because the vaccines don’t work.

              1. Like Isreal? How fucking ignorant are you?

                1. Or Iceland, or the UK, or Malta lol.

                  It’s amazing he pretends to be so knowledgeable at time copying Wikipedia results, but then plays dumb on things like this.

                  Almost like he’s paid to obfuscate

            3. laziness and knee jerks are why they are wearing masks….. you can’t look at a person and tell if the are vaccinated, so they just tell everyone to wear a mask.

              personally, i am over it. almost everyone going to the hospital with covid is unvaccinated….. that is your choice. i have no interest in protecting you if you don’t want to protect yourself.

              1. That’s false. The data from Israel and the UK are both showing about 59% unvaccinated. 40% vaccinated, 1% previously infected in the hospital.

                1. He’s like a sock of JFree, only dumber and more guided-by-Google. I’m done engaging with the disingenuous fuck.

                  Thanks again, Dizzle. I’ve appreciated the cites and knowledge you’ve brought to these threads.

        2. >> if doctors find an effective treatment for Covid

          never be allowed to happen.

        3. Tired of having to huddle with wormy sheep? Blast your way to a bubblefull of bot-free beasts with Tuckermectin, the economical endectocide from Pharmaphox Vermineutics

          Available in drench, dip and tabloid form

          1. That would be humorous if you had the slightest inkling as to what the fuck you’re saying.

      2. It might have something to do with the billions of dollars in advertising getting shoved in their faces from Big Pharma?

    2. While the drug has recently become popular on the right as a remedy for COVID-19…

      Fantastic journalism.

      https://reason.com/2021/09/06/ivermectin-overdoses-oklahoma-hospitals-rolling-stone-hoax/

      1. “While the drug has recently become popular on the right as a remedy for COVID-19…”

        Accurate statement. There aren’t a heck of a lot of people that don’t have right-wing views that are asking to be treated with ivermectin.

        Letting partisan politics affect one’s medical decisions is so astoundingly dumb.

        1. Your cite fell off, faggot.

        2. Miltiple studies exist. These times of drugs have been used for secondary effects for decades. Is your real issue people making their own decisions?

        3. It’s funny that Joe Rogan is a right-winger all the sudden.

          1. I laughed at that as well. I enjoy listening to some of his podcasts, but he’s definitely not “right-wing”.

        4. Believe the science.

          The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

          1. Fucking hilarious that you link to an actual study and Mike links to a raspberry comment.

    3. Welcome to the bipolar, all or nothing era.

    4. Reason keeps asserting people have the right to put pot, cocaine, heroin, LSD–anything–into their bodies, so why don’t the authors add Ivermectin to the list?

      1. Because orangeman bad?

        1. Most likely. Trump missed an opportunity by not suggesting that people breathe once in a while. Had he done so, most of his opposition would have smothered themselves.

          1. I wanted Trump to announce support for various lefty causes just to see how fast they backpedal off them.

      2. you have the right….. it is still stupid.

      3. ENB has come out Against a remedy that is described as “marginally effective”. What if that margin was the difference between recovery and death?

        Meanwhile, dont dare think about disparaging raw milk or food cooked in some dirty hovel kitchen and sold on the street

    5. …and NIH has just put out a positive paper on IVM. Stating that is has actual effects that give biochemical support to claims that is has worked in the field.

      “Ivermectin was found to be an efficient inhibitor of Mpro, replicase and hTMPRSS2 and the study manifests a superior ground for the candidature of ivermectin to be an efficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutic option.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

      1. I’m staying away from recently vaccinated people or wearing a mask (or two) when having to be in their presence. How is that for a narrative switch? Stay away from the vaccinated, they are shedding the deadly Delta variant!

  3. “Buckle up: President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk on Wednesday about the next phase of the government’s pandemic response.”

    Honestly he deserves a victory lap. He campaigned on delivering the vaccine and shutting down the virus and he did exactly that.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Cool. Now can someone tell Pritzger that Joe shut down the virus?

    2. No one can be this absolutely inept in their intellect to believe this nonsense.

      1. Wouldn’t you like to know.

    3. OBL is loving Biden. Best thing since Obama. Sniffy Joe keeps proving you right every day. I’m glad all my dead relatives proudly voted for Joe.

  4. But a new decision—from Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr.—reverses course.

    It’s going to be awkward at the Butler County country club.

  5. “”The bottom line is that while ivermectin might have some marginal efficacy, it is certainly not a ‘miracle drug’ when it comes to treating COVID-19,””

    This would be more of an indictment against use of ivermectin if ‘miracle drugs’ were normally a thing. I guess antibiotics qualified when they first came out, before bacteria developed resistance. But they’re few and far between, mostly medicine depends on medications that are only so-so effective.

    1. My thought exactly. If the bar for medicine is “miracle” we’re gonna need to get rid of a lot of medicine.

      1. Hey, in progressive theocracy (aka The Science) miracles are true!

    2. Hell, aspirin was a miracle drug when introduced.

      1. Don’t forget morphine.

    3. By this standard the COVID vaccine should not be used let alone mandated for existence in society.

    4. Show me the medical study on Ivermectin that shows it having any efficacy against COVID-19. Not some anecdotes, not some solitary doctor, but an actual study.

      1. I guess now that Japan’s approved it for such use, we’ll know for sure in a few months, won’t we?

      2. There are dozens out there idiot. Given your history you’ll dismiss it. It is a well known drug with almost zero side effects.

      3. So you can keep ignoring them? They’ve been linked here repeatedly.

      4. Here’s a list of 113 studies (so far) on Ivermectin use for Covid-19:
        https://c19ivermectin.com/
        Described as a “Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.”
        According to their count, 58 of the 63 of comparative studies showed Ivermectin as helpful.
        The people who run that web site keep it up to date, so expect its list of studies to grow in number.

        1. You posted this in response to Brandy. Well, she’s not going to click that link, or respond to you. And later this week or next week, when the topic comes up again, Brandy will again ask for any evidence that ivermectin helps with Covid.

      5. Bailey had an article on here last week, if memory serves, discussing Covid ivermectin studies that showed mixed results but were ultimately inconclusive due to the nature of the data collected.

        1. I trust this doctor’s analysis of the studies more than Bailey’s:
          https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/

          “What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).”

          1. Another cite for Brandy to ignore.

            It sure is weird, Brandy asked for a study, and multiple people provided links to studies, and she hasn’t responded to any of them.

      6. Start here… c19ivermectin.com

        There are close to 100 such studies.

        Here is the latest from NIH…

        “Ivermectin was found to be an efficient inhibitor of Mpro, replicase and hTMPRSS2 and the study manifests a superior ground for the candidature of ivermectin to be an efficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutic option.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

        1. Another cite for Brandy to ignore.

        2. That’s really interesting. I wonder what the mechanism is for such broad antiviral activity? Or at least, I’ve read that ivermectin has some antiviral utility over a broad variety of viruses. Not a virologist, so perhaps all of these viruses have some common structure that the compound binds to, interdicts, cleaves in some manner?

    5. Well, let’s be honest. Miracle Drug SHOULD be the standard if the courts are going to get involved in the doctor-patient-hospital relationship. Especially since the patient can be moved to a different hospital.

      If the patient could not be moved, that would be different. However, I will compare it to the cake lawsuit. Why should this baker/hospital be forced to bake the cake/give the medicine that they don’t believe is right? The patient should go to another baker/hospital who doesn’t disagree with them.

      1. Why should this baker/hospital be forced to bake the cake/give the medicine that they don’t believe is right?

        I’ve long held that public accommodations laws are an obsolete holdover from a time when being denied food/water/shelter/first aid by a local community, or a group of them, was a death sentence. Are there a lot of deaths for lack of gay wedding cakes?

        Moreover, unlike restaurants, bakeries, photographers, and jewelers that have gay marriage services thrust upon them, many hospitals (including West Chester) are compensated by the State specifically because they operate ERs that are open to the public. If the hospital didn’t want state money, they shouldn’t have opened an ER to the public.

      2. Abortion rarely fails.

    6. Its funny seeing Jeff, sarcasmoc, and white Mike all use the strawman “if it isnt 100% effective nobody should take it” as claims to opponents not saying to take the vaccine. Yet here you can see all of them attacking an off brand generic that does demonstrate effectiveness in dozens of studies. It is strange how often people dismiss the claims. The 3 mentioned seem to prefer only cdc claims even though the cdc itself said these drugs can help at earlybstage infections. We also saw AMA quietly admit hcq was effective in January in early cases.

      1. Putting words into my mouth again? Because I never said what your accusing me of saying. As usual.

        Aren’t you one of the many who said any and all efforts that weren’t 100% effective, such as masks and distancing, were completely worthless? I think you were.

        So it’s ironic that you would defend something that isn’t 100% effective. Actually it’s not ironic at all. It’s all political. You like the politics of those pushing this medicine so the medicine is good. You don’t like the politics of people pushing other measures so they’re bad.

        It’s all politics. Facts shmacts.

        1. You repeated it last week lying shit. How fucking drunk are you that you dont remember your own posts? You got called out on it then too. God damn youre such a lying pathetic fuck.

          1. Making stuff up as usual, with the typical emotional flourish. So predictable.

            1. sarcasmic
              August.30.2021 at 11:46 am
              Flag Comment Mute User
              Either the vaccine is 100% safe and effective, or there is no point in taking it at all. If you say it’s a good idea then you’re saying it’s 100% safe and effective, and you’re wrong.

              Youre such a pathetic lying shit.

        2. Aren’t you one of the many who said any and all efforts that weren’t 100% effective, such as masks and distancing, were completely worthless? I think you were.

          Lol. God damn. This is even pathetic for you. Now this is a straight up strawman. Find the link since you always demand it of others. Want me to post some of yours? Since I give you your cites all the time.

          1. I know you’re collecting posts of mine. However you still have found exactly zero that support your narrative that I’m some kind of leftist. I can say that with 100% certainty because no such posts exist.

            Those posts only exist in your head. Which is pretty worrisome being how much of a narrative you’ve built up about me means you think about me a lot. A fucking lot.

            I’m both flattered and creeped out.

            1. I’ve posted plenty of you gaslighting and attacking the right on threads even slightly negative to the left. What the fuck do you think that actually is? Your like a nazi guard saying you never said a negative word about the jews. And as proven above you lied about what you fucking said. Now cite your strawman against me or admit you’re a lying pathetic rat.

    7. “mostly medicine depends on medications that are only so-so effective.”

      I’m trying to draw a venn diagram between people who say the vaccine is a scam because there are breakthrough cases, and people who say we should try invermectin because there are breakthrough successes.

      Can you help me?

      1. I’d probably start with identifying the people that think the vaccine is a scam.

        1. Don’t you know? Acknowledging that it isn’t a sterilizing vaccine and that the number of breakthrough cases keeps growing (nevermind the fact that even if you don’t get too sick from catching the virus, you’re still shedding it) is EXACTLY the same as thinking it’s a scam and that this is all a hoax.

  6. It’s clear “the medical community does not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 at this time.”

    If only ivermectin was a racial justice protest. Inject that shit right into the country’s veins, sans prophylaxis.

    1. There’s no way to interpret your comment, connecting two unrelated topics, other than signaling to fellow right-wingers.

      1. That’s one possibility. Or maybe it’s about the fallibility of the medical consensus in the era of the enforced tribal groupthink.

        1. Sure, “racial justice protest” is totally a related topic to “medical consensus”.

          1. My god you are dumb.

          2. Doctors and public health officials were making some pretty absurd claims about racial justice protests and health last summer.

            1. That’s the connection? Can you give an example of such a public health official making a statement?

              I know that conservatives criticized liberals for overlooking the possibility of COVID spread in mass protests, and it was a valid criticism. But did any public health officials actually say, “Hey, it’s OK! They’re liberals!”

              1. Where did “liberals” come from?

                1. OK, is there a cite of a public health official saying, “Hey, it’s OK if people are out protesting racial injustice without socially distancing.”

                  1. I’m impressed that you’ve been able to memory hole 2020 so successfully.

                    1. It’s easy when you’re as dishonest as Mike Liarson.

              2. “Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response.”

                https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

                  1. …and crickets.

                  2. I’d bet you a dollar that information has been presented to Dee before today.

      2. Calling Fist right wing???

        Okay, you’ve officially become retarded.

        1. Clearly a troll, but the dude must wear a helmet IRL.

          1. IRL, Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee.

      3. Imagine being so stupid you call fist a right-winger.

        Collectivize harder Mike.

  7. I knew the Biden Era would be awesome. I just didn’t know it would be THIS awesome.

    The 10 richest Americans have gained a combined $257 billion this year.

    #BillionairesForBiden

    1. But do you still miss Hihn?

      1. Compared to the mass of shitlib shills and trolls, Hihn was lucid, pleasant and rational on his bad days.

  8. “We do not believe that hospitals or clinicians should be ordered to administer medications and/or therapies, especially unproven medications and/or therapies, against medical advice.”

    Uninformed consent.

    1. So they will be on the side of Catholic hospitals refusing to do sex change treatments and abortions? Right?

    2. What about when medical advice conflicts? He did have a prescription from another doctor.

      1. A doctor who is not affiliated with their hospital. Hospitals should have a right to choose which doctors they want to be affiliated with.

        1. Yeah, sure. But he wasn’t taking it against medical advice, only against some medical advice.

          1. And, in the blog post above, it is explained that the patient is well enough now to be moved to a hospital where the doctor who prescribed ivermectin is an associate.

            1. Hey! You still haven’t explained to us why you were pushing that phony Rolling Stone story about “Ivermectin poisonings” overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals.

              I’d like to know why you did that.

              1. What else is he going to do after jerking it to Maddow?

                1. Back in the day when I actually used to watch Oldurrman and MadCow I usually played video games after.

                2. Crack a beer and smoke a butt?

            2. Good, fine. I was only commenting on the narrow point of whether it was medical advice.

              1. Dee’s gotten the narrative. Now either you get with the narrative, or she’ll squawk at you whenever you don’t follow it.

            3. And, in the blog post above, it is explained that the patient is well enough now to be moved to a hospital where the doctor who prescribed ivermectin is an associate.

              ‘Well enough now? Now?

              Since they were forced to let him take ivermectin for a few days?

              Doesn’t that say anything to you?

              1. You can’t expect her to connect the dots.

        2. Contact white Mike, use the same argument for abortions now.

        3. Hospitals should have a right to choose which doctors they want to be affiliated with.

          Nope. Private practices have a right to choose which doctors they want to be affiliated with. Hospitals collecting state $$ because they operate an ER are, definitively, open to the public. A main point of the ACA was to expand this sort of public service.

    1. You’re not going to convince anyone that these vaccines don’t cause cancer until like 2030.

      1. I had chickenpox when I was 7. I can’t/shouldn’t get the shingles vaccine until I’m 50.

        Note: J&J and the Novavax vaccine obviate the whole issue.

        1. J&J and the Novavax vaccine obviate the whole issue.

          No arguments here, though J&J is looking like it’ll need boosters as well (no idea about the latter). Part of the problem with the quick rollout: everyone is still figuring out exactly what the proper schedule is.

          Delta largely moots a lot of this anyway. I think there’s going to be few unexposed places left in the country after this winter, and prior exposure sure seems stickier.

          1. I’ve been talking about this here and with friends. Locally, I think (think — weekly numbers come out tomorrow) we have plateaued. I was seeing from 1000-1500 cases a day in August, for two weeks it was the same. Yesterday’s report was 815 cases. But that’s also a holiday weekend, I don’t know about lag.

            Neighboring county sees similar trends. We’re very highly vaccinated here, especially in the vulnerable older population, and there was a pretty goodly spike in cases in January. So I bet a LOT of us were exposed to Delta, some had “breakthrough” and others might not even have noticed it or thought it was a day or two of summer allergies.

            I have no data to prove this other than watching the normal numbers, but if it’s true a lot of Delta exposed will have some fresh antibodies.

            I’d expect a pretty fast drop to accompany that fast spike in July.

        2. Yeah, notice the no “serious” health effects qualifier there. Guess myocarditis is just a mild heart flutter now.

          Let’s cut to the chase here–when the mRNA vaccines were developed, they were designed to produce up to 100 more of the spike antibodies in the first two weeks, and is followed by a 40%/month decline. Pfizer and Moderna now appear to have done this in order to game the trials and get their EUA, because if they had done a dosage equivalent to a normal infection, they’d have failed the 3-month trial window. 20% of the vaccinated have no immunity at all after 6 months, and over 90% have none after 8 months. Dosing at such high levels is likely what caused the spike in adverse reactions, incidentally. Branch COVIDidiots like JFart remain desperate to hide that VAERS reports on vaccines went through the roof this year; witness his deflection below.

          Keep in mind, ivermectin wasn’t on any normie radars at all, other than maybe a few fringe outlets on the internet. Suddenly, the media is issuing fake news stories about gunshot victims being denied medical care due to ivermectin overdoses, and overdose reports going up to catastrophic levels. They’re claiming that Joe Rogan took “horse dewormer” when he caught COVID, even though he was clear that it was part of a large drug cocktail prescribed by his doctor. This has all the hallmarks of a Journolist/Operation Mockingbird-type of coordinated media campaign, likely at the behest of the FDA and CDC. They have to poison the well and make people believe that ivermectin has no human applications, even though that shit is sold over-the-counter in African nations as a preventative.

          They’re not worried that ivermectin won’t work; they’re worried that it will, and people will be less inclined to take the otherwise useless vaccines that they’ve been pushing in favor of an off-patent, dirt-cheap medication that’s been in use for decades and won its inventor a Nobel Prize.

          Oh, and the best part? Pfizer is now developing a prophylaxis pill similar to PreP pills that are given to people in high-risk groups for AIDS. Basically, the idea is that you take your COVID AIDS pill in between your semi-annual or quarterly booster shot. PreP costs about $1900 a month; wonder how much Pfizer’s pill will cost?

          1. Myocarditis is one of the effects that is studied. And their conclusion is that for 17-39 yo males there is an increased risk for the first week after vaccine. But it is not a permanent carditis risk – and it is a lower carditis risk for that group than getting covid.

            VAERS reports on vaccines went through the roof this year

            VAERS does not report on VACCINE side-effects. It reports every single thing that occurs after someone gets vaxd whether ’caused’ by the vaccine or not. When half the population gets vaxxed, of course there is a massive amount of medical stuff that occurs after they get vaxxed.

            The US is horribly incapable of actually testing VAERS type data. Because our medical system is transactional. We generally are not able to follow individual medical histories over time. Kaiser and similar plans (closed HMO type systems) are the only ones that can do this. Otherwise, all the research is going to have to come from other countries with some form of socialized medicine that can ‘spy’ on medical records. But what Kaiser/etc are able to do is to compare medical histories of the vaxxd with SIMILAR patient mixes of the unvaxxed – to see whether those are statistically ‘different’ or not.

            1. Myocarditis is one of the effects that is studied. And their conclusion is that for 17-39 yo males there is an increased risk for the first week after vaccine. But it is not a permanent carditis risk – and it is a lower carditis risk for that group than getting covid.

              Myocarditis is a pretty serious side effect, and has affected more than just 17-39 year old males.

              But it is not a permanent carditis risk – and it is a lower carditis risk for that group than getting covid.

              We don’t know that, because the long-term side effects were never tested.

              VAERS does not report on VACCINE side-effects.

              Funny, this wasn’t an issue prior to January 2021. Wonder what changed?

              1. The overreporting of side-effects is a known problem with drug side-effect reporting. If you are in a test, you have to list all negative outcomes. For example, if a single person dies from anything aside from traumatic injury, you have to list “death” as a side effect, even if it was completely unrelated. This is why the side-effect lists are always so over the top. This has been a constant complaint for years on medical blogs and news.

                1. The overreporting of side-effects is a known problem with drug side-effect reporting. If you are in a test, you have to list all negative outcomes.

                  But this isn’t people in tests, it’s everyday people reporting these. And because VAERS is voluntary, who knows how many people had adverse reactions and just didn’t bother reporting them because they didn’t realize they could.

                  I’ll repeat–for decades, no major reporting on vaccine side effects happened for the ones already in use. Suddenly, reports go way above what they normally have been in the past, and now we suddenly can’t consider VAERS as a reliable data source anymore.

                  1. “Suddenly, reports go way above what they normally have been in the past, and now we suddenly can’t consider VAERS as a reliable data source anymore.”

                    We’re becoming a low-trust society. Again, like Latin America.

                    Expect more anomalies. Expect rumors to take the place of facts and data.

                2. Every medicine I’ve ever been prescribed has vague symptoms like “headache”, “stomach upset” listed in the possible side effects.

            2. Remember last year when you were telling about athletes dying from myocarditis and you didn’t know it was a common effect of infections in general? Want the links? Now you dismiss is so easily… is it politics or did you educate yourself?

          2. Well, you just devestated JFree’s little argument. I’ll bet he never reads it though.

            1. So much of this deflection reminds me of the military’s anthrax vaccine in the 90s-2000s. Around 70-80% of military personnel were reporting adverse effects, and the military denied up and down for YEARS that the vaccine was anything but “safe and effective.”

              No one questioned the data coming out of VAERS on any other vaccine side effects, until this year, when it came out that reports were going through the roof. Now, we suddenly can’t take those seriously anymore.

              These people are absolutely DESPERATE to keep the narrative going that anything other than these new vaccines are useless. When government and the media are going this hard in the paint to push “vaccines-only,” you’d think people who are normally skeptical of anything the government proscribes would be a little more cautious about taking them at their word.

              1. Yeah, the hard sell has been obnoxious. People who are sure that they are right don’t do this.

                1. That the neocon right has apparently gone all-in on the vaccines is rather elegant evidence that they aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

          3. Yeah. Really hard to believe that the pharmas didn’t know that the”vaccines” would fail. They’ve been animal testing for years and failing.

            1. What vaccines have failed?

              1. All of them.

              2. I believe he is referring to other attempts at making coronavirus vaccines.

                1. Or other mRNA therapies that failed to achieve their aims and came with all sorts of risks nasty side effects.

          4. There is also an odd increase of stroke and heart disease so far this year. Both conditions have been linked to vaccines.

            1. I’m *shocked* *shocked* I tell you. I mean it is not like none of that was predicted by the doctors that were silenced.

          5. 20% of the vaccinated have no immunity at all after 6 months, and over 90% have none after 8 months.

            Incidentally, because of this inconvenient little statistic, it’s likely that a lot of “breakthrough” infections aren’t actually breakthrough at all–it’s people who got the jab and lost all their immunity after a few months, rather than Delta getting past the vaccine. That would mean that the vaccines are effective for such a short period of time, as to be pointless, since we don’t know the effects of pumping people full of hyperdosed mRNA vaccines on a regular, scheduled basis.

            1. Oh don’t worry we have public health officials who have no problem with just giving people the shots now and letting God sort the rest out later.

            2. And yet the unvaccinated make up 94% to 99% of hospital admissions for covid, depending on which state’s data you look at. This, despite the sizable proportion of the population which is now vaccinated.

              The data is clear, man. Vaccines are incredibly effective, even if not perfect. There really is no other rational way to look at the data. The current pandemic is only among the unvaccinated.

              1. the people arguing against the vaccines have no interest in anything rational.

              2. This hasn’t been true since March dumbass. That citation is based on data from jan to early April when less than 100 million were vaccinated.

              3. Then why are the vaccinated so fearful of the unvaccinated to the point of hostility?

              1. You link to a site that doesn’t understand the difference between men and women as if it is credible.

              2. Like I’m going to fucking buy any claim from the media on the numbers at this point, especially when they’re pimping a fake story about ivermectin overdoses and patients pushing out people with gunshot wounds. If the vaccines were that awesome, Israel and Iceland wouldn’t have had a spike in their own COVID cases. Something that is completely dead after 8 months in 90% of the people who took it, and was created specifically to game the testing requirements, isn’t something to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore, ESPECIALLY when it’s being pushed by blatantly dishonest parties.

                I guaran-fucking-tee that if Trump had been re-elected, the press would be going apeshit about Operation Warp Speed and claiming that the spike in cases and lack of even medium-term efficacy proves they were issued too quickly, and they’d be casting doubt on the whole testing process itself with various “sources say” leaks.

                1. You know De would be here saying that Trump personally killed all of these people AND pontificating on the evilness of these Big Pharma crony capitalists.

                  1. Yeah, when did leftists switch to defending Big Pharma exactly or for that matter every mega corporation they have hated for the last at least twenty years.

                    1. DoL has always also defended democrats in power.

                    2. When they took over the corporations.

                    3. Or when the corporations took over the DNC?

                      Both?

        3. J&J said that a booster jacks up immune levels, but they don’t know right now what the proper schedule is for administering it. Novavax is promising simply because it’s not a hyper-dosed mRNA vaccine, but they won’t be on the market for several weeks, if not longer. Apparently their challenge right now is having enough stock on hand, because as a traditional vaccine, they have to incubate it, so it takes longer to produce.

        4. J&J and AstraZenca are also mRNA gene therapies. They just use a different vector for delivery of the genes of the spike proteins into the cells.

          1. J&J and AstraZenca are also mRNA gene therapies.

            I feel that this is getting a bit disingenuous as then, technically, the MMR and chickenpox vaccines, even immunity as the result of natural contraction, would be considered ‘mRNA gene therapy’. More importatnly, I didn’t mean to imply that the alternatives were risk-free but rather, more options obviate the success/risk associated with any one option.

            1. Not really, these were labeled as gene therapies until legislation was passed to bring them under the label of vaccines.

              Both J&J and AstraZeneca use an adenovirus shell that contains the gene of the spike protein in DNA form. The adenovirus infects a cell, injecting this DNA payload into the nucleus of the cell. The cell then begins to produce the mRNA sequences followed by translation of those sequences into spike proteins. The only real benefit of these two gene therapies is they do not use lipid nanoparticles, which don’t have a whole lot of study around long-term safety. Adenoviruses do have higher risks of blood clots and Guillain-Barre syndrome.

              1. Not really, these were labeled as gene therapies until legislation was passed to bring them under the label of vaccines.

                OK, now you’re coming across as an ass-backwards “vaccines cause autism” anti-vaxxer. You yourself state that the J&J vaccines use DNA, not RNA and, further, you shifted the goalposts from ‘mRNA gene therapy’ to ‘gene therapy’. If the vaccine uses no mRNA, how is it an mRNA gene therapy? If the virus uses mRNA to replicate and generate immunity, how is it *not* an mRNA ‘therapy’?

                Regardless, adenovirus-based DNA vaccines have been used since the 50s and, again, your bullshitting about DNA vs. RNA is moot relative to my point that option diversity can/does relegate the success of a/the initial option to obscurity.

                1. You’re misunderstanding what I am saying so I will try to explain a bit more clearly.

                  I am calling them gene therapies because that is what they were classified as by the FDA until some legislation was passed to classify this technology as a vaccine. They are gene therapies, not in the sense that they edit genes but in the sense that they are using the gene responsible for the spike protein.

                  mRNA != RNA

                  mRNA is what your body uses to build proteins. In the case of the Pfizer and Moderna it looks like this:

                  mRNA -> spike protein

                  In the case of J&J and AstraZeneca it looks like this:

                  DNA -> mRNA -> spike protein

                  All four of these gene therapies are essentially hijacking the protein production systems of cells in your body to produce a spike protein and they all use mRNA to do so.

                  1. J&J and AstraZenca are also mRNA gene therapies

                    No misunderstanding. Clearly stated. Clearly wrong unless the vast majority of viral vaccines going back to Pasteur constitute gene therapies.

                    mRNA != RNA…

                    I don’t think you’ve taken a single cell or molecular biology class. First, what you said isn’t technically correct. mRNA *is* RNA the same way a square *is* a rectangle (the other two being tRNA and rRNA).

                    But that’s splitting hairs relative to my assertion immediately above. Your statements seem ignorant of The Central Dogma (as Francis Crick coined the term in 1957) and basic virology. Every human virus hijacks the body’s replication machinery (making use of mRNA along the way). Even attenuated virus vaccines, known and used since Pasteur expanded on Jenner’s work ‘hijack’ the machinery behind the central dogma. They do so because that’s what the native viruses do. You can’t replicate the virus in vivo otherwise.

                    Regardless, as I said, adenovirus vaccines have been in use since the late 50s. To lump them together with the mRNA vaccines which haven’t been in use in the general public prior to 2019 is disingenuous.

                    Regardless of *that*, if I have an mRNA vaccine that’s cured a billion people but kills everyone allergic to shellfish, it doesn’t matter to someone who’s allergic to shellfish that it’s cured a billion people. Especially if there’s a deactivated or attenuated virus vaccine that doesn’t kill people allergic to shellfish (even if the latter vaccine kills osteoporotic Native American women over 80).

    2. Federal and Kaiser Permanente researchers combing the health records of 6.2 million patients found no serious health effects that could be linked to the 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

      “We collected the data on the successfulness of our product and didn’t find any adverse events.”

      Meanwhile…
      US Data Only COVID19 vaccines (Dec’2020 – present)
      Number of Adverse Reactions: 514,270
      Number of Life-Threatening Events: 8,056
      Number of Hospitalizations: 29,079
      Number of Deaths: 6,296

      1. It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt

        1. You should take that advice, cowardly piece of lefty shit.

        2. Speaking from experience?

        3. “SHUT UP!!!” JFree explained.

        4. Very pointed. Especially considering that instead of opening your mouth to address the VAERS cases, you attack me.

        5. So quoting government statistics makes him stupid?

        6. God forbid the truth every comes out if it undermines a statist agenda…

      2. That would be a fatality rat of about 0.7% E. G. The Sam as wu flu

    3. By definition the vaccines are 100% safe. Any evidence to the contrary is coincidence.

  9. “How 9/11 changed the Democratic Party.”

    I already know the answer.

    In the early 2000s Democrats used “neocon” as an insult. Over time, however, Dems realized the neocons are actually their allies. Today writers like David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and Jennifer Rubin are the most enthusiastic pro-Democratic voices at major publications like The Atlantic and The Washington Post.

    #LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons

      1. They can change on gun ownership the freedom of speech too.

      2. The way to reduce gun violence is by convincing ordinary, “responsible” handgun owners that their weapons make them, their families, and those around them less safe.

        In other words, by lying to them.

      3. Frum is a special kind of dishonest, he transcends political parties.

        1. So, a Bill Weld Libertarian?

    1. “#LibertariansForEmbracingNeocons”

      Every Sullum article ever.

  10. It’s clear “the medical community does not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 at this time.”

    If he had signed up to participate in a clinical trial and was shunted off into an Ivermectin-only group would the hospital get off its high horse about it?

    1. reason needs a like button

    2. It’s kind of a non-sensical question considering West Chester Hospital is not a research hospital at all.

      1. Did you actually think that clinical trials are only done at “research hospitals”, or are you just trying to be tricky again?

        1. Talk about not following the link:

          No clinic or office visits are necessary! This is a contact-free, at-home trial.

          We will send you a symptom survey for you to record your symptoms and a pre-addressed envelope for you to return it to us.

          You can also give optional, additional, self-collected labs. We will provide materials and shipping.

          1. Lol, of course. If White Mike had a sense of shame he’d call it a day on that one.

          2. So, why would a non-research hospital that isn’t associated with any doctor who is prescribing ivermectin want any part of that?

            1. What’s a “non-research hospital”?

              I don’t think you understand how medical research works.

              1. What’s a “non-research hospital”?

                Not that I agree with the label but, in practice it would, definitively, be a hospital that is open to the public.

                1. Public hospitals host medical research trials all the time though.

              2. Mike doesn’t seem to understand much of anything.

      2. Are you even a real person? Because I’m starting to have doubts.

  11. But a new decision—from Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr.—reverses course. Oster said West Chester Hospital does not have to continue treating Smith with ivermectin.

    Not his body. Not his choice.

    1. Sorry, that only applies where dead babies are involved.

      1. Will absolutely take a life? Her choice.
        Might have a slim chance of saving a life? No way, Jose.

        Do no harm indeed.

        1. Fuck *your* Precautionary Principle.

    2. Bake the cake.

      1. What if he identifies as a horse? Would it be ok?

        1. mare or stallion?

          1. Depends on if the individual wants hormones with the ivermectine.

  12. An Ohio hospital will no longer be legally compelled to treat a COVID-19 patient with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.

    So what are they going to be treating him with? Nothing, because there’s no approved treatment for Covid and nobody is interested in reporting on possible treatments and talking about possible treatments will get you banned from Facebook and Twitter? All they’ve got is the vaccine and that’s all you’re allowed to talk about. The vaccine isn’t a treatment and as it becomes more and more obvious that the vaccine does not in fact protect you from getting Covid, we need to be looking at treatments for Covid, looking at answers to the question of what you should do when you do inevitably get the Covid.

    Right now, the only answer they’ve got is the vaccine. Absolutely every single person on Earth must get the vaccine. And then the Covid will disappear and we can go back to living our lives the way we used to? Well, no, the Covid will never disappear and you’re never going to be able to go back to living your life the way you used to. Why not? The way we used to live our lives included simply putting up with colds and the flu, why can’t we simply learn to put up with Covid in the same way? Fuck you, you’re now banned from Twitter and Facebook for asking that question.

    1. Hmm, if we all submit to monthly vaccines and carrying universal medical papers, how is that living like we used to?

    2. Leeches work very well especially when attached to one’s temples and each nostril. But the progtards and commies have suppressed the efficacy trials. If only there was a patriotic group of Americans who had the political will to undermine all of that and wasn’t in thrall to the notion of eliminating leeches and all other parasites. Oh well.

      1. Cannabinoids are an effective treatment for chronic pain.

        Prove me wrong.

      2. If only we didn’t have cowardly pieces of lefty shit running around with PANIC flags! Oh, well.

      3. Leeches are still used in modern medicine, but JFree didn’t learn that at his University of CNN biology courses.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis#Today

      4. Did you think that sounded clever in your head before you posted it?

      5. That is fucking stupid, even for you.

        1. Is Jfree’s smug self righteousness with zero sense of humor preferable to the fearful hostility of most vax enthusiasts?

          Let the reader decide.

    3. Lethal injection of morphine?

    4. On October 22, 2020, FDA approved NDA 214787 for Veklury (remdesivir), which is indicated for adults and pediatric patients (12 years and older and weighing at least 40 kg) for the treatment of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Under its approval, Veklury should only be administered in a hospital or in a healthcare setting capable of providing acute care comparable to inpatient hospital care.

      Someone might point out the remdesivir is also not a miracle drug.

      It is awfully disconcerting how little we hear about therapeutics.

      1. There’s plenty of information for doctors.

        What’s disconcerting is that so many people have internalized this as political. Which has merely created a conspiracy mindset that ‘miracles’ are being suppressed.

        1. Nobody is arguing “miracles are being suppressed”

          Just that “medications that show some capacity to help are being mocked for reasons nobody can quite understand.”

          …well, outside of them being inexpensive and not giving Big Pharma a shit ton of money to sell…

          1. Nobody is arguing “miracles are being suppressed”

            Dr Pierre Kory testified before some Senate committee in Dec 2020 that ivermectin was a miracle drug and info on it was being suppressed. He is not a random kook. He is the cofounder of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – which is in fact the group of doctors advocating for ivermectin and talking about it being censored – on various politicized media outlets. Including for example Lew Rockwell’s fraudulent shit. It is true that Kory has been hijacked by the antivax crowd because he initially viewed ivermectin as a bridge to vaccines. But he allowed himself to be coopted.

            1. Dr Pierre Kory testified before some Senate committee in Dec 2020 that ivermectin was a miracle drug and info on it was being suppressed.

              Uh, it’s been termed that for a while now:

              Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective
              Andy CRUMPand Satoshi ŌMURA

              Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 10; 87(2): 13–28.

            2. Haha. “Hijacked” “coopted”. Brainwashed?

              How else to describe any questioning of your superior dogma?

              What a doosh.

        2. Our two major parties are working hard every day to politicize EVERYTHING, and suck us all into their stupid partisan divide.

          1. Thanks Mike Laursen, Reason commentariat Democratic Party representative, for that pretension of “Both Sides”.

            1. It is amazing how he says both parties as he pushes nothing but leftist narratives on between.

          2. I would agree with this, and it has spread into really weird areas of life that should have no connection to politics. From my perspective, this is largely due to the expansion of government powers. Once the government begins to control everything down to even small aspects of a person’s life, the side that is even marginally less likely to impact your life becomes your ally in a battle to crush the side that wants to have a larger controlling impact in your life. I would say that this is even prevalent on a micro scale within the LP. I am a third generation libertarian and am looking to be more directly active within the party. I had never really paid much attention to the inner dynamics of the party until now, and there is a really weird and off-putting warring culture within the party. It definitely makes me wonder if it is a waste of my time and money to support them.

            What I find interesting is that, among the people that I listen to, the COVID vaccine critics/drug repurposing supporters (and vice versa) do not fall along party lines. Even in the Reason comments section, I get the impression that virtually everyone is anti-mandates, but we largely disagree on the best way to discuss it and probably what the end goal looks like.

            We have all been convinced that the only thing that matters is the result of the latest study, so that is where the battle over mandates feels like it begins and ends. I think this is a horrible place to start or end the discussion because we should all be skeptical about every study until it has been validated multiple times. This is a process that takes years. In the near term, study results and VAERS data are a good place to generate a hypothesis not where we should be looking to justify mandates or base moral/societal obligations.

            1. “ there is a really weird and off-putting warring culture within the party”

              Sadly, it is so.

            2. I’m glad there are still some people out there who are trying to see thru the politics and just get the science. Maybe there’s just been too much pressure to find answers too fast.

              I do think the masking promotions are pie in the sky as concerns the masks the vast majority would wear, under the circumstances where transmission would be likely. As to vaccines, who among those who are knowledgeable about vaccines in general thought those high efficacy numbers would stand in the long run over such newly deployed technologies so quickly? As to antivirals, yeah, considering the current state of knowledge about that general class of therapeutics, who could expect a sharp good or bad result so quickly? Similarly the picture of the clinical significance of the various genetic strains of the virus.

              There’s a lot of fear that the only politically effective way to push back against a mandate is to show that the thing being mandated is objectively bad — for everyone. Considerations of individual liberty alone aren’t enough, because the people aren’t libertarian enough.

            3. “It definitely makes me wonder if it is a waste of my time and money to support them.”

              Well, I think so. I joined the LP right out of HS, back in the 70’s. Even helped found a chapter of the LP at my college.

              But it was commonly understood back then that the LP had to succeed fast, or the major parties would alter election laws to lock us out. We didn’t, they did; Practically every campaign ‘reform’ in the last 40 years had the effect of rendering it harder for us to succeed.

              In the late 90’s I finally decided that the game had become too rigged to bother continuing with the LP, especially since in the absence of electoral success, the party was getting taken over by grifters and con artists. (Yeah, Harry, I’m talking to you.)

              These days the LP usually just functions as a convenient ballot line for spoiler candidates trying to make sure the GOP loses. They hardly even pretend otherwise. I mean, did Weld strike you as particularly libertarian? He didn’t even know what the libertarian position was on a lot of issues.

              I can’t really say what I’d recommend as an alternative; Our electoral system isn’t nearly as free as it was when the LP was founded, and the game is rigged from top to bottom.

              1. These days the LP usually just functions as a convenient ballot line for spoiler candidates trying to make sure the GOP loses. They hardly even pretend otherwise.

                That’s an acute observation. Not that a candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote, but it’s rather telling when Reason runs an article that brags about how it prevented a mainstream, almost always GOP, candidate from winning.

        3. That this statement gets broadcast far and wide as, “stupid rubes don’t know ivermectin is for horses! Why, it’s no better than leeches!” is the problem I’m talking about. Anything that shows promise to prevent hospitalization, besides vaccines (though also in this case under the prior admin), is immediately and thunderously denounced in this country. It’s weird.

          What you linked to is 4 treatments, all of which require infusion therapy. That’s not ideal, especially for an airborne disease which is especially dangerous for the immunocompromised.

          1. Anything that shows promise to prevent hospitalization, besides vaccines (though also in this case under the prior admin), is immediately and thunderously denounced in this country. It’s weird.

            It’s not weird, it’s sinister, and it’s clearly being coordinated by the elites, the same way political operations and protests against Trump were last year. They’re using the exact same methodology in their reporting, it’s just in the service of a different narrative–“only these new vaccines work!” rather than “Orange Man bad!”.

          2. What you linked to is 4 treatments, all of which require infusion therapy.

            FFS. The page I linked to is just the ‘what’s new’ page of those treatments. The menu bar shows the full range of all the treatment protocols ranging from early presymptomatic outpatient treatment to last-possible-treatment of ECMO.

            What is it with you people? You people are fucking incapable of actually trying to look at something (in this case a link – which means the ONLY link I can actually link to in a comment) as if it is something that contains information that one might be able to learn something from. Instead it is all part of some game that is completely politicized in your head.

            Fuck you all.

            1. Sorry your leftist narratives get shot down so quickly. Panic harder and more quickly.

            2. What is it with you people?

              We know you are a liar and act accordingly.

            3. You just compared ivermectin to leeches.

            4. The page I linked to is just the ‘what’s new’ page of those treatments. The menu bar shows the full range of all the treatment protocols ranging from early presymptomatic outpatient treatment to last-possible-treatment of ECMO.

              Yeah, there’s a bunch of pages there which keep going back to the same few EUA-approved treatments written about on your linked page. You’re not really countering my point.

              You people are fucking incapable of actually trying to look at something (in this case a link – which means the ONLY link I can actually link to in a comment) as if it is something that contains information that one might be able to learn something from.

              It’s obvious that I went through the site considering that I went down into the weeds to contrast the CDC’s decidedly neutral IM statement with the media overreaction to experimental self medication. Try and keep up, Judgy Jerry.

            5. Maybe try reddit? They’re mostly a bunch of statist loving democrats who like to shit on anyone that doesn’t agree with the hive mind so you’d fit right in.

      2. I wouldn’t take that garbage, it doesn’t work, and appears to be causing kidney failure.

    5. Considering the vaccine drastically lowers your chance of hospitalization, it is most definitely a treatment.

      There really isn’t a good reason for not getting it now. And if you choose not to, then do us all a favor and stay out of the hospital. If you choose to ignore medical advice now, then stick to your guns and avoid it when you get covid.

      1. Then receiving the vaccine after symptoms appear should cure coronavirus, right?

        It’s not a treatment. It’s a prophylaxis.

      2. Considering the vaccine drastically lowers your chance of hospitalization, it is most definitely a treatment.

        And increases your chances of getting a heart attack, but let’s not worry about that. You went to the hospital for something else, certainly not COVID, and that’s what matters.

      3. >>drastically lowers your chance of hospitalization

        so does never going to a hospital. your metric is fail.

        1. Hell, considering these baboons are STILL putting people on vents, despite the fact that doing so is practically a death sentence, avoiding the hospital altogether shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. I could do a signed and witnessed directive that I shouldn’t be put on a vent under any circumstances, and I still wouldn’t trust that they’d follow it at this point. For all I know, they’d knock me out, hook me up with three other people in a room, then tell my family I passed away without them ever knowing I was put on a vent against my wishes, since they wouldn’t be allowed to enter the room due to “COVID protocols.”

          1. my pops (probably his pops) set the bar at “can you see bone?” it has kept me out of hospitals altogether.

            1. Like cops, lawyers and used car salesmen, hospitals should only be used as a last resort.

          2. Got a “Next door” where they were discussing a woman’s 28-year-old son with Pneumonia who tested positive for Corona/Wuhan that went to the ER and because his stats where good enough they would not admit him at the hospital. Gave him antibiotics and sent him home. Then a back and forth on how to trick the hospital into admitting…call for an ambulance etc. My thought is why would you do that. Obviously in this litigious world if there was a chance he would go south they would have admitted him so why would you want to be in a hospital longer than you have to? I am almost 56 and have never spent a night in a hospital other than to be with my Wife when she had surgery and our daughter. And having done that unless I am at deaths door would not want to, and I work for a hospital.

            As for this poor guy in Ohio, the decision by the hospital was obviously a political one. His physician wanted to prescribe it but the hospital refused the course of treatment and as he did not have admitting privileges at that hospital they had to go this route. Ivermectin if administered correctly would not have harmed him just might not have helped him so why not follow his doctor’s prescription? It was a political decision, and unfortunately hospitals are becoming hot beds of just that. I know we just hired our Diversity and Inclusion director…I am really looking forward to my brain washing to come

            1. Ivermectin if administered correctly would not have harmed him just might not have helped him so why not follow his doctor’s prescription

              Mainly because, even if the doctor was willing to treat him with the stuff, it has to be taken prior to getting infected. By the time you’re showing severe symptoms, it’s too late, as the viral loads have already made your way through your system and are in the process of dropping off the cliff. That’s honestly why I was more puzzled about Rogan getting ivermectin in his cocktail, although I’m assuming he basically said, “Give me the good shit and throw the ivermectin in there, too, because I can afford it.”

            2. I’m still waiting to hear from the side cheering this why a hospital should be able to deny a medication prescribed by a licensed physician?

              1. Because, just like individuals, businesses have rights to make decisions without coercion.

      4. Why does everyone of you chucklefucks parrot this same argument you got from your favorite partisan clown on cable news as if it is some groundbreaking argument we haven’t already heard and disabused?

        For the last god damn time, people choose to go against either all or parts of their doctor’s recommendations all the time. Just because a person does not want one specific treatment does not automatically mean they are against doctors, anti-science, or whatever anti-fuck you idiots want to parrot next.

      5. Like most vaccines, it’s a pretreatment. I say “most” because you have the weird example of the zoster vaccine, which works as a post-infection treatment to prevent shingles. There are also vaccines that can “catch up” with slow developing conditions like rabies infections and tetanus toxemia, and hence are administered after the insult.

        1. And unlike most vaccines it doesn’t offer sterilizing protection against the targeted antigen.

    6. The approved treatment for severe covid cases is to shove a pipe down the patient’s throat and wait for them to die.

      1. Sepsis was about a third of clvid deaths last year from that very treatment!

      2. Don’t forget due to staffing shortages the person operating that equipment may or may not know how to operate it correctly. You might get too much pressure which will blow out your already damaged lungs due to human error.

        Isn’t it great they are firing all the people with common sense from some of these hospitals. I really don’t want to be treated by a bunch brain dead super woke leftists.

        I think I’ll continue to stay away from them as much as possible.

    7. believe it or not…. there are treatments other than this “does practically nothing” one.

  13. President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk on Wednesday about the next phase of the government’s pandemic response.

    Well, we know he’s not going to shut down society. We know that. He will shut down the virus.

    1. That would be bad-ass, but he is much more likely to shut down society.

  14. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, led policy makers to embark on one of the largest spending binges in federal government history…

    Wait a minute. Was 9/11 actually an inside job?

  15. The new ban raises fresh constitutional issues, so the Justices may get another bite at this big apple…

    Like the president, the state of NY leaders don’t mind skirting any constitutional oaths.

  16. Hellscape Australia. Seems like an area libertarians might have some interest in.

    Going overseas is also prohibited, even for dual citizens and permanent residents, which in any other situation would trigger a small diplomatic incident. It is possible to get an exemption, but more often than not exemptions are refused.

    In most cases, these restrictions have been made not by the legislature but by unelected health bureaucrats who have extraordinary powers under open-ended emergency legislation. In fact, parliaments themselves have often been suspended under the pretext of preventing infections. Just last month, for example, an upcoming session of the Victorian parliament in Melbourne was quietly canceled, pursuant to orders by an opaque government body known only as the “COVID-19 Response Division.”

    And so 18 months in, there is still no real end in sight to Australia’s coronavirus nightmare. At best, we are a cautionary tale about government excess. But at worst, the Australian experience may point to something more sinister in 21st-century governance — what we once thought was a temporary aberration in the norms of our liberal democracy is slowly becoming a permanent dynamic.

    At a time when the political and cultural elite have never been more indifferent to the centuries-old traditions of liberal democratic governance, we may be seeing in Australia the first glimpses of the “post-democratic” state.

    1. But don’t dare complain about it:

      Facebook or Twitter posts can now be quietly modified by the government under new surveillance laws

      “A new law gives Australian police unprecedented powers for online surveillance, data interception and altering data. These powers, outlined in the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill, raise concerns over potential misuse, privacy and security.

      The bill updates the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. In essence, it allows law-enforcement agencies or authorities (such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission) to modify, add, copy or delete data when investigating serious online crimes. (build your own evidence – ML)

      The Human Rights Law Centre says the bill has insufficient safeguards for free speech and press freedom. Digital Rights Watch calls it a “warrantless surveillance regime” and notes the government ignored the recommendations of a bipartisan parliamentary committee to limit the powers granted by the new law.

      What’s more, legal hacking by law enforcement may make it easier for criminal hackers to illegally access computer systems via the same vulnerabilities used by the government.”

    2. A friend of ours is traveling back to Australia, to see her mother and family for the first time in over a year. Has to pay about $20,000 to quarantine for two weeks, staying at one of the (expensive) hotels on the Australian government’s list.

      1. Could be worse, they could actually have to stay in an old, previously abandoned, mining camp.

        1. Does it have dingos?

    3. Too local. If it’s not on ENB’s Twitter feed it didn’t happen. Now an old man being denied the right to try is something libertarians can really get behind.

      1. He’s not being denied. He’s being denied using the medicine at one particular hospital.

        How is this different than a bakery being forced to make a gay wedding cake?

        1. Because a customized artistic expression is compelled speech.
          The baker cant and doesnt refuse to sell any cake to the gays, just not create a custom one.

          Administering a harmless FDA approved drug is not an individual expression of conscience. And hospitals, unlike sole proprietor bake shops, get most of their money from government.

          Any more brain busters?

  17. Notorious SWERF Mackinnon can’t make it two sentences without lying. Porn does not desensitize the average consumer to violence.

    Violence to that morning wood, maybe.

    Hey, what’s a SWERF? Sounds hawt.

    1. Well, people talk about porn. Speech is violence.
      Ergo, ipso facto, henceforth thereunto, porn is violence.
      The more people talk, the more they are desensitized to violence.
      So we clearly need common sense speech control.

    2. Sex work excluding radical feminist?

      It is hard to keep up with the terms the woke come up with to disparage heretics, apostates and infidels.

    3. Sis Women Exclusionary Radical Feminist?

    4. “Hey, what’s a SWERF? Sounds hawt”

      Not as hot as CALLCL.

  18. Earlier this year the French government snuck an anti-porn clause within a ‘domestic abuse’ law.

    It was just the tip.

    1. Meh. The French would always rather talk about a thing more than do a thing, including sex.

    2. I wonder if ENB is still blaming the Moral Majority for that?

  19. The proposed spending bill that Democrats want would be “a cradle-to-grave reweaving” of the U.S. social safety net…

    Someone wants that voter base on the hook.

    1. On the hook. In the net. There’s more than one way to catch a fish.

  20. El Salvador is adopting bitcoin as a legal tender.

    Step aside, Somalia.

  21. In Richmond, Virginia, a six-story-tall, 12-ton statue of Robert E. Lee is set to come down this week.

    Can’t they just put a cape on it and make it Darth Vader?

    1. Why is Darth Vader riding a horse?

      1. Cut off two of the legs and call it a Tauntaun. Jesus Space Christ, do I have to think of everything?

        1. Would you? That would be helpful.

    2. Robert E Lee is more responsible for the health of our union and democracy than any and all of his modern detractors will ever be

  22. On Title IX and student-professor relationships.

    Another Only Fans related round up link?

    1. I think title IX requires that female professors sleep with their students at the same rate as males.

  23. This Court is not making a decision on the effectiveness of ivermectin.

    Immediately followed by a shitload of analysis on the effectiveness of ivermectin and concluding with the stunning not-making-a-decision-on-the-effectiveness statement that if it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction. How the fuck is this not a decision based on the conclusion that ivermectin is not an effective treatment?

  24. “If it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction,” the judge concluded

    Except, of course, you know, the patient’s free choices to be treated with the medicine he wants. WTF people.

    1. It really is interesting that ENB can only provide the decision without comment, and has nothing to say about how ridiculous healthcare has become wrt our liberties.

      Why its almost as if she wants to do a victory dance for her side of the culture wars, rather than use this platform for the spreading of libertarian ideas.

      1. Are you under the delusion that ENB is any sort of libertarian? She’ll use the arguments to push progressive goals but nothing else.

    2. Did you RTFA? All the guy has to do is transfer to the hospital with which his doctor is affiliated.

      1. that’s “all”?

        Have you ever been so sick you couldn’t leave the hospital? Transferring sucks, and is dangerous. Give the man the medicine he wants this is a free fucking country I thought.

        1. Except for doctors, nurse, and the people managing the hospital. They don’t get any freedom in this matter.

          1. Are you a fvckin real person?

  25. whether genuine consent or real romantic love is possible between teachers and students.

    I thought getting to screw co-eds was the pain perk for getting into academia in the first place.

    1. It does seem to be apologia for saying sexual harassment law should not apply to the academic clerisy.

      1. Dating current students is clearly a no no. Dating ex students is a different matter. Two adults are still two adults.

    2. If you are running any business (including a university) there is ZERO upside in allowing romantic relationships between a person of authority and subordinates. It may be possible, but allowing this behavior makes your company a litigant to messy matters of love. But most seriously, it allows predators abusing their power to hide in plain sight.

      This was the problem with Hollywood. People like Weinstein were able to force women to have sex for advancement. And in a libertine culture where directors and producers and actors all slept around regularly, it was difficult for 3rd parties to credibly say who was making trades for what, vs behind just consensual and/or romantic relationships.

      1. This was is the problem with Hollywood.

        Weinstein wasn’t an fallen leader or wolf in sheep’s clothing, he was a scapegoat. A good chunk of his accusers have similar accusations against himself. A good chunk of his staff helped him perpetrate his crimes (or “crimes”) and never faced any consequences. Kevin Spacey never did a minute of jail time. Nobody did any time for sifting through twerking minors to make Cuties.

        1. Against themselves.

      2. True of a big business, i.e. one too big for everyone to know each other. The up side for a small business is the greater chance of being able to get and hold onto employees. Work takes up so much of people’s lives, why should romantic relationships be excluded from them? Hard enough to find partners if the work environment, or part of it, is closed off to that.

        1. That’s nuts. It is even worse for a small company. In a large company, if two people fuck around and it gets “complicated” the company has hundreds of other peons to mitigate the damage. In a small company I worked for, two managers breaking up left two teams unwilling to work with each other for nearly a month before management had to fire the leaders, and then the rift between the two teams lasted for months after that.

  26. After the Supreme Court rejected the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium, New York state’s government has extended its own eviction ban through January 15, 2022. “The new ban raises fresh constitutional issues, so the Justices may get another bite at this big apple,” suggests the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

    Supporting an eviction ban has become my new litmus test for if you are a total ignoramus on economics. Used to be minimum wage, which still works as a good litmus test but this one is better.

    1. So, Donald Trump started the eviction ban with an executive order. Is he a total ignoramus on economics? (I think he is, but do you agree?)

      1. Yes he is an idiot about most things.

      2. If you see everything through the lens of partisanship, you are bound to believe anything and support anything no matter how loathesome. Be careful.

    2. Where does MMT rank on your list?

  27. I tried to read Cathy Reisenwitz’s full thread on Catharine A. MacKinnon’s column in the Times, and I have a question: Who’s crankier, Cathy or Catherine? I’m totally down with Cathy on the merits, as I probably would be whenever the two get in a tussle, but Cathy’s prose style, not to mention her “logic”, could use some work.

  28. “El Salvador is adopting bitcoin as a legal tender. “El Salvador has just bought it’s [sic] first 200 coins,” tweeted President Nayib Bukele on Monday, adding that the country’s brokers would “be buying a lot more.””

    Notice that earlier in the links, ENB just includes Tweets from people she agrees with. (Meanwhile, in France: [Tweet Include]). But here she quotes a smaller, more terse tweet, from El Salvador’s president. Why? Is it because she wanted to slip in that “[sic]” in order to get a dig at the right wing president of El Salvador?

    I see it in the headlines that get written for articles, and in the morning links. Man, that passive aggressive nonsense must be horrible to be married to.

    1. Bukele isn’t right wing. Dude was FMLN for years.

  29. The proposed spending bill that Democrats want would be “a cradle-to-grave reweaving” of the U.S. social safety net, notes The New York Times. “To critics, the legislation represents a fundamental upending of American-style governance and a shift toward social democracy. With it, they worry, would come European-style endemic unemployment and depressed economic dynamism.”

    No one worried about the govt going bankrupt eh?

  30. See Cathy Reisenwitz’s full thread for a rundown of why Catharine A. MacKinnon is wrong about OnlyFans and online porn:

    CAT FIGHT!

  31. hile the drug has recently become popular on the right as a remedy for COVID-19

    Yeah, all those crazy right-wingers running the governments of India, Peru and Mexico.

      1. Point is that it is being actively studied and isn’t just some wacky thing right-wing Americans have latched onto.

        The University of Minnesota seems to be looking at it as well: https://covidout.umn.edu/. Combinations of drugs involving ivermectin seem like they might have some promise.

        1. Yet we have vaccines that are fully approved, but the tribe on the right would rather take stuff that’s still under study.

          1. No, we have one vaccine that’s “fully approved,” and its the one less effective against the variant that’s dominating the case numbers right now.

            Oh, incidentally, the same thing is happening in Florida that happened in India and the UK with Delta–a sharp spike, followed by a rapid drop-off. Texas appears to be flattening, which means it’s going to start dropping off soon, as well.

            No wonder the media is pushing the mu-variant panic button.

            1. Actually the one approved vaccine is not available yet and may not manufactured at all. The current emergency authorization grants immunity to the drug companies. The approved vaccine is not immune to liability. The whole thing is a bait and switch to convince people that the available vaccines are FDA approved. They are not.

            2. Texas’ issue is not so much the un-vaccinated as a huge influx of, how can I put this PC, less than legal patients being purposely…eh I mean expediently located in Texas. I am guessing the same for Florida. And now we just got another 100k plus from Afghanistan, wonder what their vaccination status is? Notice they were discouraged from settling in blue states?

              1. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/coronavirus-texas-hospitalizations-level-off/

                “With at least 13,790 COVID-19 patients, most of them unvaccinated, hospitalized in Texas on Thursday, the state marked a week hovering at just below the record set in January for hospitalizations during the pandemic, according to numbers released by the Texas Department of State Health Services.”

          2. Are you always this full on leftist only decision making? Whats next, you choose which cancer treatments people are allowed to use? Fuck off. When did you become such a fucking statist.

          3. “Nobody needs 23 treatments for COVID while there are children starving in the streets.” – Brandybuck

          4. So what? We should still be looking at any potential treatment. The fact that some people might be being stupid about it is irrelevant.

            1. The fact that some people might be being stupid about it is irrelevant.

              People being stupid about it is kinda the point. No risk, no reward. People should be free to seek their own risks/rewards. You’re on pretty Nobel-worthy moral ground when you drink the vial of H. pylori yourself and then dose yourself with antibiotics to cure your ulcers.

              1. I’d call that accepting personal risk, not being stupid.

                1. In hindsight, sure. Up front, there’s, auspiciously, no way to know. You drink the vial of bacteria and don’t develop ulcers or develop ulcers that aren’t cured by antibiotics or just get sepsis and die or whatever, you just look dumb.

                  1. Maybe I have a different idea of what counts as stupid. If you understand the risk and decide to do the dangerous thing anyway, I don’t consider that stupid, even if the outcome ends up being bad.

          5. Need you always be wrong? Pfizer, the least effective, but trendiest, has FDA approval, but requires a booster, which has not been completed or approved. This means… not fully approved.

            1. If you walk into a clinic and get a Covid vaccine you will not get a FDA approved jab. You will get a jab with emergency use approval (EUA). The same jab you could get in January. This entire charade was created to mislead the public and convince employers to require vaccines as a requirement of employment among other things.
              https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550b0ac4e4b0c16cdea1b084/t/6124fdd27da16f3e2c51aecb/1629814226387/Key+points+to+consider+FDA+letters+and+press+release.pdf
              There are now TWO LEGALLY distinct (Pfizer vs. BionTech), but otherwise identical products,
              based on two FDA letters, as well as a press release.
              DOES NOT GIVE FULL APPROVAL
              • Extends EUA to allow supply of current Pfizer under EUA because limited supply of
              BioNTech version.
              • “The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
              effectiveness. (page 2, Pfizer letter)
              o here FDA quietly admits that the licensed Pfizer vaccine and the authorized
              Pfizer vaccine are identical with regard to safety/efficacy, but they are “legally
              distinct.” That’s code for one has manufacturer liability, while the other doesn’t.
              It is also code for “we don’t want to impose a mandate on the EUA product cause
              it is illegal, but we can probably get away with a mandate on the licensed
              product.”
              o page 12 AA (Conditions with Respect to Use of Licensed Product). This tells you
              that yes, we licensed the vaccine, but…there is a lot of the old vaccine out there,
              actually “a significant amount” and this amount will be considered an EUA and
              will continue to be used.
              o Now, why would they do that? Why specify that identical versions of the
              product will be legally different? Because they need the license to impose the
              mandates. But they need the EUA to evade liability.
              o Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer. (While all EUA
              products were given a liability shield.)

    1. Not to mention Japan and just about every county in sub-Saharan Africa.

    2. Read your Dalmia: India is run by a crazy right-winger.

  32. Sexist discrimination is running rampant on college campuses from an equality of outcome perspective, and the pandemic has made things even worse.

    “Nearly 700,000 fewer students were enrolled in colleges in spring 2021 compared with spring 2019, a Journal analysis found, with 78% fewer men”.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233?

    The article speculates about men coming out of high school needing to find work to make up for lost incomes of their mothers and girlfriends, who had to stay home during the pandemic to watch kids while the schools were closed. That explanation doesn’t account for the fact that the trend started long before the pandemic. From elsewhere in the article:

    “At the close of the 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high, and men 40.5%, according to enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group. U.S. colleges and universities had 1.5 million fewer students compared with five years ago, and men accounted for 71% of the decline.”

    —-Ibidem

    No doubt, there are multiple factors at work here, and surely the perception that academic life is fundamentally hostile to young men is among them. Whether you’re going after a two-year program at a community college or STEM degree at a four-year university, how do you knock off your general ed requirements without getting the sense that you’re running a gauntlet of professors and students who are hostile to at least part of your identity? How do men watch the news over the last five years and not get the feeling that when colleges invite them over for a meal, that they aren’t the ones on the menu?

    No good reason for the government to get involved, but more identity based politics masquerading as the scholarship of power relations probably isn’t the solution. An emphasis on individualism wouldn’t contribute to this kind of thing. It’s hard to convince people you don’t hate them while simultaneously insisting that they start to hate themselves.

  33. What profit is there to its shareholders, when a company refuses to host a website that people can report regulation violating abortion “clinics” on?
    There isn’t any.

    But the Biden administration did say that it would relentlessly investigate companies cooperating with the new Texas law.

    The US federal government doesn’t need a new law like the Australian one, that gives their government unprecedented powers for online surveillance, data interception and altering data. They can achieve the same results without the hassle of First Amendment court challenges.

    And ENB and Reason celebrate this because of course they do.

    1. Maybe they feel a moral obligation to not be part of a law that they feel violates people’s rights? I’m not a mind reader, but I believe they have every right to resist the Texas abortion gestapo.

      1. they feel a moral obligation

        Who is “they”? The shareholders? The CEO? The Board? The financial department?

        What do you think that the odds are that a shareholder meeting was held to discuss the issue? The CEO will just explain in six months that it was that or an IRS audit, and FTC and FCC reviews of their business practices.

        Anyway, you can only support abortion if you don’t have any morals. Particularly ones regarding life and personal liberty.

        1. “Personal liberty”
          Nothing says personal liberty like letting the religious kook politicians in Texas tell people and doctors how to handle a pregnancy.

          It really is dumb to argue about abortion because everyone is pretty set in their views.

          Not wanting to host a government snitch cite is pretty libertarian in my opinion. If it was child porn or something then I’d feel differently, but it’s not.

          1. Nothing says KAR’s idea of “personal liberty” like some psychotic ripping you to shreds on your mother’s order. Fucking bloodthirsty fascist ghoul.

            1. Again we aren’t going to agree on it.

        2. I don’t know who “they” is with these particular companies. I’m sure whoever made the decision has the authority to. If not I’m sure the shareholders will let them know if they have a problem with it.

          1. I’m sure that they will, but let’s not pretend then that it was the “company’s choice”.
            Let’s also not pretend that the Biden administration’s threats don’t constitute government interference.

            1. You’re free to criticize these companies, but I imagine “they” know more about running their companies than some backwards hick in rural Canada,

              1. Just like I.G. Farben and Krupp Industries did, right?

                1. Please cite me being anti Semitic or stop with this bs

    2. Apparently, both GoDaddy and Epix claim that the group violated their TOS, but there are no specifics given on how they did so. So, what was the violation? Or was this just an excuse to throw the group off because the management of both those companies find it icky?

      1. I don’t think many of them care about icky. I think that they’re more worried about the threatened Biden administration blowback for cooperating.

        This is just another instance of the Democrats evading the First Amendment by inches.

        1. I see what you’re saying. Kinda like McCarthy saying social media companies should be scared of a GOP majority if they cooperate with the 1/6 committee?

          1. Only if McCarthy had the political wherewithal to do so like the Bidenistas currently do, but yes. Right now he’s just shouting into the wind, but if he had the administration’s power, definitely.

            1. So McCarthy is “just shouting into the wind” by making public statements. However the “Bidenistas” are for sure much worse based on your speculation? What evidence do you have that the govt influenced these situations in any way?

              1. Oh shit, are you telling me that McCarthy runs the American government and the Biden administration is just some out-of-power, podunk House Minority Leader?

                Am I ever out of touch. When did that happen?

                1. What evidence do you have that the Biden admin has influenced these decisions. The DOJ said they’d try to protect clinics, but that doesn’t apply to hosting a website.

      2. “Prince said Epik would no longer offer its services if the group continues to collect private information about third parties through its digital tip line.”

  34. The whole thing was crazy to begin with. The “doc” never even met or was referred the patient. Wrote a quack script for a drug that showed marginal efficiency in a petri dish at 100x the maximum recommended dose for a human so it’s not effective. Then, the hospital offered to transfer the patient to a hospital where this quack had admitting privs and his wife refused.

    The entire thing was bogus and the judge who said they had to treat him with this clearly unproven “treatment” was clearly wrong. Glad someone smarter got it right.

    1. First fish antibiotics, now it’s horse dewormers. But it’s the vaccine they don’t trust because it had an accelerated approval process.

      1. Hey, what is Lysol, chopped liver?

        1. Now watch Brandyfuck tell us that Warfarin can only be used as rat poison, Thalidomide can only be used to create birth defects and acetylsalicylic acid is only good for making you a bleeder.

          The funny thing is that the lefties and narrative pushers here, are unwittingly showing their lack of education.

      2. First fish antibiotics, now it’s horse dewormers.

        Here’s where the well-poisoning comes in to effect.

        I realize, as someone steeped in Silicon Valley, that you’re simply parroting what the morons in your social circle are saying. Are all of you geeks that unaware that ivermectin has been used for human applications for decades now, or are you really that worried that using it might help people from getting sick?

        Because ivermectin’s been on the market for so long, the patent expired. Is that why you’re deflecting about the useless mRNA vaccines having been approved to swiftly, before the actual long-term effects were known?

        1. > Are all of you geeks that unaware that ivermectin has been used for human applications for decades now

          Yes that its true. But it’s used for parasites. NOT for any viral infections. The difference between a parasite and a virus is an two orders of magnitude difference.

          1. Yes that its true. But it’s used for parasites. NOT for any viral infections.

            Better let Japan know that it can’t be used as a preventative, then. We wouldn’t want an advanced first-world nation to be administering “horse dewormer” to people.

          2. And you keep proving youre completely ignorant to the science. Trump broke so many of you fake libertarians.

      3. “it’s the vaccine they don’t trust because it had an accelerated approval process.”

        Brandybuck, that is a pretty stupid take, tbh. The vaccine has not been in use for decades like ivermectin. Whether it is effective or not, we know very well what the side effects from human use of the drug is, while we have no long term data on vaccines.

        In fact if you look at the history of Moderna you would know that the whole reason they pivoted their treatment to vaccines was that they determined that there are negatives that come with continued use of the mRNA treatments, and so sought out use cases that would be only a few shots, instead of continuous use.

        1. Brandy, much like Jeff and mike, doesn’t care as long as he can bang conservatives (and libertarians he perceives as conservative) over the head.

      4. >>horse dewormers

        you beat this drum as though you are the only one here who doesn’t know it has multiple uses.

        1. He doesn’t. He knows Maddow told him it was for horses.

      5. If people are taking horse pills, that’s a bad idea. Otherwise, why are you calling it “horse dewormer”. It’s a drug used in humans and for veterinary purposes in many species. Nothing specific to horses about it. Yet for some reason everyone seems to be referring to it that way. I can’t think of any reason to do that besides to give people a false sense that only crazy idiots think it has potential with covid, which is clearly not the case.

        1. That’s the talking point that was distributed to them on the current incarnation of Journolist, obviously.

          1. I think it’s late night TV hosts and MSNBC and CNN personalities.

      6. As usual those who use the “horse dewormer” meme out themselves as far left progtard shitheads.

        Not that we didn’t already know you’re an ignorant fuck but good confirmation.

      7. Hod damn youre pathetic. Hcq for humans isn’t fish tank cleanr you anti science ignorant fuck. The other drug kills parasites, not just in horses, and has a few off uses doctors have come to trust.

        You pushing the ignorance of anti science leftist narratives shows how ignorant you are and how far left you are. You would rather people not have choice than anything else at this moment.

      8. Guess I drank all that bleach for nothing.

    2. 100x the maximum recommended dose for a human

      Sort of like the mRNA vaccines!

    3. the medical association of Japan has approved Ivermectin for treatment of the wuhan flu. What do you say to that?

      1. They’re just a bunch of crazy Trumper assholes, obviously.

        1. Seriously. Who you gonna trust a bunch of white supremacists japs or Ron fucking Bailey.

      2. Not finding anything in Google to support your claim. Can you provide a cite?

        1. Fuck off Asshole. Your citations include debunked rolling stone articles.

        2. don’t use google

          1. I’ll assume that’s a cop out on proving the truth of your claim.

            1. I assume you did not find the easily searchable information. Sad!

            2. hint: use Duck Duck Go, Google doctors the search results in favor of the regime party line no matter if it’s true or not. But you know that.

              1. He knows and prefers it.

              2. So, another cop out.

  35. “If it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction,” the judge concluded.

    “If, on the other hand, it *is* an effective treatment, then this court *still* cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction. This court therefore errs on the side of caution and rules against the wishes of the patient and his spouse.”

    1. The key to that decision is that the patient is well enough to move to another hospital where the doctor who prescribed ivermectin has admitting privileges.

  36. why would anyone be a college professor if not for the chicks?

    1. You’re thinking of male cheerleaders.

      1. true. dude in my house was a male cheerleader and got more chicks than anybody.

  37. “KABUL—Taliban fighters violently dispersed the first sizable protest in Kabul since last month’s insurgent victory, showing that Afghanistan’s new rulers won’t tolerate public opposition as they prepare to unveil their administration.

    Tuesday’s protest was triggered by the presence in Kabul of Lt. Gen. Faiz Hameed, the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, who is involved in talks toward forming a new Taliban-led administration. Pakistan has supported the Afghan Taliban since the Islamist movement was born in the 1990s.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/taliban-crack-down-on-protest-led-by-women-in-kabul-11631014019?

    The statement that, “Pakistan has supported the Afghan Taliban since the Islamist movement was born in the 1990s” has a number of problems with it. “Pakistan” has both supported and fought against the Afghan Taliban since the 1990s, and the Taliban has targeted “Pakistan”. It’s important to understand that there isn’t just one Pakistan. The tribal areas in the mountains of the north are not under the control of the government, and while the ISI is nominally under the control of the government, the ISI acts independently of the Pakistani government–and also opposes the Pakistani government.

    Because the ISI came to Kabul to help select the new Taliban government doesn’t necessarily mean any of this is happening at the behest of or in consultation with the Pakistani government or that the resulting Taliban will have friendly relations with Pakistan, but we should hope that’s what it means. If the Taliban is thoroughly in bed with Pakistan, that probably means Chinese development is on the way for Afghanistan, which is what they need if they’re to be stable over the long run.

    P.S. The protests against the Taliban, Pakistan, and the ISI was mostly by Afghan women. It was put down violently. That’s a shame.

    1. It was put down violently mostly peacefully respected under Sharia Law.

      FIFY

    2. “KABUL—Taliban fighters violently dispersed the first sizable protest in Kabul since last month’s insurgent victory, showing that Afghanistan’s new rulers won’t tolerate public opposition as they prepare to unveil their administration.

      So an insurrection. Why do we care about this?

      1. The libertarian position is that trespassing is a capital offense and the penalty should be imposed while the crime is in progress. Turns out the Taliban are actually libertarians.

        1. The new administration is being sworn in and unveiling its agenda, and then a bunch of right-wing agitators showed up and tried to shut the process down. Getting shot in the face is too good for them.

    3. Illian Omar should go join those protests

  38. >>How 9/11 changed the Democratic Party.

    20 years ago was the Democrat Party. still corporatist warmongers but the name was different

  39. “Buckle up: President Joe Biden is scheduled to talk on Wednesday”

    No Senile Joe will read from a teleprompter screen, get it wrong, riff about some bullshit to cover up his dementia, wipe the drool off his chin, and then walk away without answering questions.

    The media will squee about it because they are all about the agitprop grift.

  40. Given the lack of data, we cannot know for certain that Title IX disproportionately affects marginalized groups, but there is good reason to think that it might.

    So we can’t come to a clear decision about whether or not the rule(s) are good, but only if they have disparate impact?

    Fuck off.

    1. Disparate impact is always lurking in the shadows ready to pounce on the unwary. We can’t see it or hear it but we can feel it’s presence.

      1. One day, we’ll have a vaccine that’s 95% effective at preventing disparate impact and Republicans will ruin the whole thing by refusing to take it.

  41. See Cathy Reisenwitz’s full thread for a rundown of why Catharine A. MacKinnon is wrong about OnlyFans and online porn:

    If there’s one thing Millennials like more than smashing the patriarchy, it’s women who are paid to have sex.

  42. • In Richmond, Virginia, a six-story-tall, 12-ton statue of Robert E. Lee is set to come down this week.

    Why?

    1. To make room for a six-story-tall, 12-ton statue of George Floyd?

      1. Libertarian Moment!

  43. A billionaire is hoping to create an American city from scratch in the desert.

    It’s been done. It’s call Brasilia, and it’s a fucking mess.

    1. Efforts to improve the city are ongoing, coinciding with a national movement to reevaluate mobility. The city is centering design around pedestrians and cyclists.

      “We’ll simply implement rush *day* to accommodate all the commuters!”

      1. “They should just implement a free market solution like sidewalk congestion pricing.” – Reason

        1. Where’s the damn like button.

    2. “Costa never thought about pedestrians,” Francisconi says. “The design of the streets was just terrible. They’re not for leisure or walking or meeting.” Due to high rates of violence in Brazil, shoppers feel safer going to malls as opposed to storefronts on inhospitable streets, he adds.

      So now we know the real reason that Democrats are backing off on urban law enforcement. The Simon company has deep tendrils.

  44. Butler County Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr. clearly read the Wikipedia article about ivermectin and called it a day. Almost everything he said is directly quoted from its page on the drug.

  45. “This Court is not making a decision on the effectiveness of ivermectin”

    Proceeds to make a decision based on the effectiveness of ivermectin.

    I guess being a judge doesn’t preclude you from being a complete moron.

  46. ‘Given the lack of data, we cannot know for certain that Title IX disproportionately affects marginalized groups, but there is good reason to think that it might.’

    ENB, every progressive, and yes, feminist policy, has had the arguably unintended consequences of penalizing disadvantaged and marginalized people while paying lip service to elevating them. Your assertion is nice, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, or history. In this case, there is ample evidence, as you yourself have mentioned, that those most impacted by Title IX are minority students, often accused by white women.

    1. I made a note of this issue above.

      I don’t care about disparate impact, I want to know if the rule is good.

      a: Is the rule good?
      b: Well, it has a disparate impact!
      a: So more minorities are being caught up and being accused?
      b: Yes.
      a: So those minority students were innocent.
      b: *checks notes on believing all women* Well… I believe that a woman’s lived experience is… important and should be heard.
      a: You didn’t answer my question. Let me try a different tack: If the rule is good, and the people accused were all guilty, then maybe minority populations have a rape problem.
      b: That’s racist! I can’t believe you even said that.
      a: So I can infer you believe those accused were innocent– or at least disproportionately so.
      b: YES!
      a: Then the rule isn’t good. The race issue need not be explored.
      b: Yes, but women need this rule to protect them from rape!
      a: You just essentially admitted it wasn’t…and you went further by suggesting that the rule was catching mostly innocent people.
      b: Minorities, yes.
      a: No, innocent people don’t have a color, race or class. Innocent stands on its own. So the rule is no good *moves to strike rule*
      b: Wait, I didn’t say that… it just needs to be equitable.
      a: Define that.
      b: It needs to have an equal outcome.
      a: Are you suggesting that if a black student is accused that we should dismiss the accusation until we get to an equal balance of accused whites?
      b: Well, no… ok, now I’m confused, let me think about this for a minute…

  47. I was talking to a young co-worker regarding libertarianism and they brought up Reason. I let them know that I was a subscriber back in the early 90’s and donated several times but let them know things have changed. I let them know that today, Reason is to libertarianism what the ACLU is currently is to civil rights and to go find other more relevant sources.

    1. You did the world a favor

    2. I only refer people to Reason for Heaton, Bragg, and Remy. Reason’s brand of libertarianism is good for the lulz and not much else. I’d say they’re the Jon Stewart of libertarianism but, when I say Jon Stewart’s name everybody knows who I’m talking about. Even if the discussion gets more in-depth, it gets hard to explain/justify reading Reason over reading The Babylon Bee.

      1. A sample from a random article:

        They failed, utterly, to investigate the events at Wi Spa in a cool, neutral, reasoned fashion, and instead leapt to the conclusion that it was a fuss over nothing or possibly even a hoax. Maybe that crazy black lady made it up. It is not an exaggeration to say that this one event, strange as it was, has exposed the moral and professional rot of the liberal media, and the extent to which some journalists have allowed their borderline religious devotion to wokeness to override their commitment to objectivity and truth.

    3. Then why are you here?

    4. perfect analogy

  48. So the actual headline is that an Ohio hospital was allowed to deny treatment to a patient. No mention of whether the hospital is willing to administer any treatment at all.

  49. “And “while there are some doctors and studies that tend to lend support to ivermectin…the studies that tend to give support to ivermectin have had inconsistent results, limitations to the studies, were open label studies, were of low quality or low certainty, included small sample sizes, various dosing regimens, or have been so riddled with issues that the study was withdrawn.” It’s clear “the medical community does not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 at this time.”…so about the same as those claiming Ivermectin doesn’t work or isn’t safe…

    “Kelly Martin, a spokesperson for the hospital, called the ruling “positive.” She told The Cincinnati Enquirer. “We do not believe that hospitals or clinicians should be ordered to administer medications and/or therapies, especially unproven medications and/or therapies, against medical advice.””….oh, like experimental vaccines that don’t prevent getting, carrying, or spreading the very virus they claim to protect from?

    1. oh, like experimental vaccines that don’t prevent getting, carrying, or spreading the very virus they claim to protect from?

      “At West Chester Hospital, we pride ourselves on not taking even the slightest risk to save lives. Experimental targeted radiation therapy to treat delicate brain cancers? Pass. Never-before-attemped heart valve replacements? Sorry. Novel gene therapy techniques to treat congenital conditions? Go to Mayo. Hormone therapy and gender conversions are right out.”

      1. Experimental targeted radiation therapy

        That’s the funniest thing about this, IMO. Ivermectin doesn’t require teams of virologists or pathologists or Ford employees working around the clock to build respirators. When I was in high school, we kept a vial of it for our pigs in the fridge. Two guys with one high school diploma between them could dose 100 head of hogs (from newborn piglets to finish weight) in a couple of hours.

        They’re literally refusing to deliver an extra pill that may have a slim chance of saving someone’s life. Sorry, can’t do that, but enjoy the jello!

    2. The COVID-19 vaccines are quite successful.

      1. Not according to newer research coming out of Europe and Israel.

  50. The courts need to stay out of medicine. They won’t do the job they are paid to do but wish takeover fields they have no knowledge about.

  51. I see Reason is again referencing Bailey’s error filled analysis not of the data on Ivermectin but on the journalistic (an editorial at that) analysis of an unpeered reviewed, unpublished article and also mistakingly arguing that ivermectin is only an antiparasitic despite decades of use also as an antiviral. Further, the article doesn’t state that the reason the FDA and Europeans discourage it’s use is because the research is still ongoing, not because it’s ineffective. Finally, it would seem to me that what the wife was asking for was a long held libertarian concept called right to try, which the hospital refused. Rather than celebrating this as a loss of libertarian values, ENB chooses to make this about the “right promoting quack treatments” which isn’t even close to the truth. A number of well respected medical researchers are currently researching ivermectin as a possible adjunct in treatment of COVID and several initial in vitro studies look very promising. The in vivo work is in it’s preliminary stages. Unfortunately, Bailey didn’t address this in his analysis and hyped a single, unpublished article, and couldn’t even link to th article or the data but instead linked to an editorial on the unpublished study. He provided one link to the “data” but the link actually takes you to a presentation on the use of Fluvoxamine in COVID treatment.
    Fluvoxamine is an ADHD drug that acts on serotonin uptake and is not related at all to ivermectin which inhibits reproductive pathways of a wide range of parasites and some viruses. In vitro cell culture research indicates that ivermectin may also inhibit the reproduction of COVID, however, in vivo research is in its infancy and so far there is very minimal peer reviewed published material available to render any judgement call on its effectiveness as a treatment modality. This is the only reason that the FDA and Europeans authorities are discouraging it’s use. Not because it is dangerous and not because it’s been found to be ineffective.

Please to post comments