Montana Attorney General Harasses Hospital Staff for Refusing To Administer Ivermectin to a Patient
Dispatching a state trooper to a hospital seems a bit excessive.

As COVID-19 continues to ravage Montana at one of the worst rates in the country, doctors at one hospital there are facing another crisis: alleged intimidation and threats from state officials.
Earlier this month, doctors and staff at St. Peter's Health in the state capital of Helena refused to administer the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin—which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus—to an elderly COVID patient. The patient's family contacted the Montana Department of Justice, accusing the hospital not merely of violating her right to treatment, but also of withholding legal documents, limiting her text communications, and denying her visitation rights.
That's when things took a turn towards the excessive.
On October 12, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, dispatched a Montana Highway Patrol trooper to the hospital to meet with the patient's family; in a subsequent conference call arranged and attended by Knudsen, three unnamed public officials allegedly "harassed and threatened" hospital staff to have them administer ivermectin.
If true, these allegations are emblematic of Knudsen's willingness to use his office to wage partisan battles against his constituents.
"These officials have no medical training or experience, yet they were insisting our providers give treatments for COVID-19 that are not authorized, clinically approved, or within the guidelines established by the FDA and the CDC," hospital spokesperson Andrea Groom told Reason in a prepared statement. "In addition, they threatened to use their position of power to force our doctors and nurses to provide this care."
Knudsen's office declined to answer specific questions, but in a statement given to Reason, spokesperson Kyler Nerison denied the accusations of harassment and threats. Instead, he insisted that the Department of Justice was focused on "allegations that the hospital mistreated a patient and violated her rights and her family's rights."
The Facebook group Montana Federation of Republican Women also joined the fray, urging members to write to the hospital. In an interview with Montana State News Bureau, the group's president cited the 2015 Montana Right to Try Act to justify the patient's access to ivermectin.
State Sen. Theresa Manzella (R) joined the fight as well. "If I as an adult of sound mind want to take responsibility for my own healthcare if I get this terrible virus, I think I should have that opportunity as a free American adult," she told The Daily Beast.
Yet the hospital seems to be standing on solid legal ground: Montana law requires patients to be approved by their health care provider to be administered experimental drugs. If a patient does in fact want to be prescribed Ivermectin, they can choose to transfer their care to a doctor who will prescribe it—but they can't tell their current doctors what medications to give them, nor can the attorney general.
Local officials agreed with the hospital: after being contacted by the state trooper Knudsen dispatched, Lewis and Clark County Attorney Leo Gallagher said there was no evidence of a criminal offense.
At the end of the day, the incident reveals not just the state's antagonistic relationship with its own health care system, but Knudsen's disregard for the limits of his office: a followup story from the Montana State News Bureau included evidence that the hospital fell outside of the attorney general's jurisdiction, and he was not in the right to dispatch a state trooper there at all.
Earlier this year, Knudsen came under fire for intervening in the case of a man who violently assaulted a restaurant employee and threatened him with a concealed weapon that he did not have a permit for; Knudsen took over the case and had two of the charges dropped. In a separate incident, Knudsen audaciously attempted to subpoena the state's entire Supreme Court. Former attorneys described his actions to Montana Free Press as "breathtaking" and "embarrassing" to the legal profession.
In the meantime, as an investigation progresses, COVID isn't going away anytime soon in Montana, and hospital workers continue to be pushed to the brink. "Harassing our care teams places an additional burden of stress on these individuals, diverting their time and focus away from caring for these critically ill patients," Groom, the hospital spokesperson, said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You can't force a doctor to prescribe something against their will. The fuck is wrong with people.
If they can mandate any vaccine, they can mandate any treatment.
Period.
Exactly. The only question anyone seems to care about, including Max Savage Levenson, is whose authority matters. Whatever happened to "my body, my choice", self-ownership? How can self-proclaimed libertarian take sides? They both deserve to lose.
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now…… Visit Here
From his CV, I doubt Levenson's libertarian bona fides. Just sayin'...
Not one sentence in this screed is libertarian.
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $1850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.VRa You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here................ Pays 24
Because obviously there's no difference between transmissible and not transmissible, you brain dead authoritarian.
So you're saying COVID isn't transmissible? Christ you're dumb.
Ultimately this is about the exercise of power and in that arena you bring up a distinction without a difference.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE
Another shitty take from a shitbird. Big surprise.
I suppose you would be an authority. You are quite the shitty Shitbird yourself.
No you missed it. The doctor cannot administer anything against the will of the patient. Look up informed consent.
You are talking about conditions required for employment in a medical institution. Not the same thing.
Other than federally dated vaccines.
You don't have to take the vaccine. No one is holding you down and injecting you.
No one was forcing the patient to take ivermectin. The patient was requesting it. But totally the same as not wanting the vaccine just set in this re-education camp until you do.
But they were trying to force the doctor to prescribe it. Which should never happen.
If you want it, find a doctor who will prescribe it (and/or a hospital that will allow the treatment).
Two things.
1. But you can force a doctor to provide information on the availability of abortion services. You can force a baker to bake a cake. You can force a pharmacy to sell birth control.
2. The ability to prescribe is a government-created monopoly backed by violence that puts doctors as choke points for access to medicine. If a state university can't restrict speech because its a government funded entity, why should doctors be able to deny prescriptions based on personal preferences?
"But you can force a doctor to provide information on the availability of abortion services."
Per the supreme court, no you can't
"You can force a baker to bake a cake."
Sure. To some extent, sure.
"You can force a pharmacy to sell birth control."
Sort of. Your ability to do so is limited by the supreme court.
But ... do you actually support the states ability to do any of these things? Forget liberals being inconsistent on this point ... I am not, nor do I think the person you are responding to, am liberal. Are you consistent on this point?
I am making a good salary online from home. I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.CVn I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
Try it, you won't regret it!........ VISIT HERE
Nobody did any such thing you illiterate fucking prick. A hospital refused to dispense a prescribed medication that is the second-listed drug on the NIH website listing approved and investigational treatments for COVID-19 and which has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of COVID-19 in at least half a dozen studies in the United States as well additional studies in the EU and India.
You must be talking about this page:
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials
Your description of what the page says is way off, especially if you are trying to imply that ivermectin is approved for use.
And why the rudeness?
Oh, never mind. It’s Tulpa.
Because you deserve it?
Because you're a partisan hack, that's why.
You’re a disingenuous shitweasel?
Stephanie, you ignorant slut, Ivermectin is NOT on any approved list as a treatment for anything other than parasites in animals.
We doubt however that you are even ale to comprehend the difference between a parasite and a virus, so.
Shut the fuck up.
Jeffersonian,
Even the article says it is approved for human use, though not for Covid.
So, your statement is full of shit.
Yes it is used for parasitic infection in humans very rare in the US. Prescriptions can also be given off label and that is very common.
In the hospital it works this way. The pharmacy controls the drugs. Also the consensus recommendation among the medical staff and director. You need staff appointment to do anything.
I do not know if ivermectin has a positive effect or not. Large scale controlled studies underway now.
Difficult to say. Again I am not there to judge. If it were a last ditch thing I would tend to give into the wishes of the family and the patient if the downside was low.
HOW-FUCKING-EVER.
Since it has been prescribed several BILLION times for human use (in human-sized doses) without any contraindication wrt safety, why NOT administer it, eh? Goes like this:
"Jebus. Give him the damn stuff. It will calm him down, shut him up, and he'll stop calling those hicktard Trumpists to come down here and yell at us."
Problem, Fucking. Solved.
But noooooo...wouldn't be surprised if hospital staff have connections with this CNN-wannabe. The most sanctimonious, smug, self-righteous proglodytes in the WORLD are those whose special self-regard is enhanced by them living among the people they HATE, in a red state. Which appears to be the dynamic here.
We could solve a lot of our problems if we simply DID something about our prog overpopulation.
Some studies have suggested ivermectine increases the length of hospital stays and may even increase the number of deaths. Reality of these limited studies is that they are all over the place as far as results go.... which basically tells you the control group is all over the place as well.
By the way, now do abortion drugs and the morning after pill you retarded hypocrite who felches cum out of your brother's asshole.
As a legal matter, yes they can. Whether the state should have that power is a very different question.
It's probably also not entirely relevant to this article. While this presents it entirely as a case of police bullying doctors, there is remarkably little presented about the other side of the story. The family called the police. That makes me think there is as much or more of a story about the hospital bullying the patient.
“As a legal matter, yes they can.”
Can you cite the legal basis for your assertion?
Not necessary. A family recently harassed the medical staff at a northern Idaho hospital for not being willing to administer ivermectin to a patient.
That seems like a reach. It's a lot more likely that the people who understand medicine told the idiots who believe a heartworm medication can cure Covid that they'd have to go somewhere else and find another doctor because no responsible doctor would use ivermectin to treat Covid.
Because it isn't a Covid treatment. It hasn't been shown to be at all effective. Like hydroxychloriquine. Like any of the other "miracle cures" that also turned out to be snake oil.
But apparently Governor Superman came swooping in with his complete lack of medical knowledge and a cop to force medical professionals to ignore their knowledge and experience.
Illiterate sockpuppet.
https://ncats.nih.gov/news/releases/2021/large-clinical-trial-to-study-repurposed-drugs-to-treat-covid-19-symptoms
I assume you noticed that is a computer model, not any sort of actual study.
So it becomes a matter of rank and order. Worked in the county trauma hospital for some years. I am board certified in mopping the floors. We got along just fine with the police so long as they kept their distance. What is this police officer going to do? Can’t do anything.
You can’t force a doctor to prescribe something against their will.
Admittedly, I'm not 100% sure with St. Peter's Health, but the breadth of your statement makes me think you don't know how public hospitals work.
It isn't about the hospital. No responsible doctor would prescribe it and no hospital who wants to keep their insurance would risk a lawsuit. It just isn't worth it.
india must be full of irresponsible doctors
“ india must be full of irresponsible doctors”
Well…a lot of the better ones just leave and come here or elsewhere.
Someone from India told me that there are deficiencies in the education and training system. They don’t get a lot of practical experience. Here the emphasis is on practical experience. You get two years of basic sciences then the rest is all experience and you are expected to learn on your own.
So I it not about the hospital or about the hospital keeping their insurance? Dumbass.
It's not about the hospital making the decision in a vacuum. It's not worth it to the hospital to risk their insurance.
If you prefer, I can say it this way: It's not about the hospital. It's about the insurance company.
Of course, I don't think you are too dumb to know that's what I meant. You just wanted to troll. At least I hope you aren't that dumb.
Now do baking wedding cakes, renting out cottages, etc.
"but also of withholding legal documents, limiting her text communications, and denying her visitation rights."
Reason focuses on the smallest part of the story.
*shocked face*
Touch gloves and let’s have a clean bout.
What is the over/under dear old Max has ever been to Montana?
I haven't seen ravaging yet and live in one of the largest cities here.
Your ilk will never 'see' anything that you don't want to see. Montana is not yet in the same condition as Idaho is/was/idk but it's not too far different.
117 ICU beds being used for covid treatment. 81 ICU beds being used for everything else. 40 ICU beds empty. Doesn't take much covid growth at this point to fill up the ICU's. And before that happens, hospitals will be forced to eliminate all elective surgery.
But hey - your ilk will still see nothing.
Whoops. Looks like a MT Man had to go to WY to be treated for an emergency perforated bowel because MT hospitals were full. Last week.
But hey - at least you still see nothing.
Now JSafe at Reason is a friend of mine
He offers his advice for free
And he's quick to emote or to gaslight your quote
But there's someplace that he'd rather be
He says, "Chuck, I believe COVID's killing me."
As he straps another mask 'cross his face
"Well, I'm sure I'd enjoy being in a bar
If they get the unclean out of the place."
*slow clap*
The article clarifies that what it means by "MT hospitals were full" was that
Janelle says at every turn, hospitals around the state from Kalispell, Bozeman and Helena were saying no to taking his case.
Kalispell, Bozeman, and Helena all, of course, being significantly farther from Colstrip MT, where this couple lives, than Cody WY is (Kalispell is well over 500 miles away).
In fact, the closest city of any size to Colstrip other than Cody WY is Billings. The couple didn't mention trying hospitals in Billings, but the paper did reach out to hospitals in Billings who said (in the article you cite):
"Billings Clinic continues to make every effort to provide the procedures our community and region need, including life-saving care. Our operating rooms remain open for emergency and scheduled procedures, and we will continue to provide critically important care to trauma patients and transfers from the region. Extremely high patient numbers across Montana during this latest surge of new COVID-19 hospitalizations means hospital resources may be stretched at times, but this should not be a deterrent to seeking care. If you have an emergency and need care you should seek it out immediately by calling 911, going to the emergency department, or finding the right level of care for your needs"
"At St. Vincent Healthcare, we continue to serve those who are in critical need of medical services, including surgical care and hospitalization. The process of treating urgent and emergent cases has not changed. If you need emergency care, please seek medical attention immediately. In regards to elective surgeries, we have reduced our volume by 50 percent."
So, in fact, the hospitals in the city closest to where these people live, it turns out, aren't full and aren't turning people away.
So you think she only called the hospitals on the other side of Montana? In fact, those two hospitals (the biggest in Montana) were among the many that explicitly turned them down because they were full with covid and diverting at the time. The family went to the nearest hospital (in Forsyth) and it is that hospital that was trying to arrange for a patient air-transfer.
Of course hospitals are going to tell a journalist - later- that they are open to emergency patients who walk into the ER even if they are full. Yeesh.
The information that contradicts my narrative is obviously a lie. Yeesh.
A patient who walks in the door of an ER is legally required to be treated or stabilized under EMTALA.
Patients who are going to arrive by air or ambulance are often 'diverted'.
Hospitals that somehow screw up and do or say the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person can get fined up to $100,000.
Has nothing to do with the stupid narrative of you morons and bots.
I wonder how many times the lefties here will continue to trot out this lie in various examples, only to have it thrown back in their face? They’ve swallowed this narrative and won’t take no for an answer.
And BTW - various hospitals in Montana have been under crisis standards of care for a few weeks now.
Oh? Care to back that up with figures and sources?
Helena, Mont.-based St. Peter's Health enacted crisis standards of care Sept. 16 as their critical care units and morgue hit 100 percent capacity
That's over a month ago. It's quite easy to duckduckgo 'Montana hospital crisis standards of care' and find more recent examples further down than the very first cite I found. Hell - it's the same hospital mentioned in the article.
But hey - I'm sure to your just-the-flu ilk this is all just a conspiracy.
Cases down since last year, the 'crisis' is a lack of nurses, which is why travel nurse pay has more than doubled as retirees duck out or get fired for being the Unclean.
And again, hospitals ALWAYS run near capacity for the moniessss.
But keep beating that dead ass and calling it your prize racehorse, JSlave.
83% capacity is pretty normal.
He also lives in the same city so I guess we see different things.
What is the over/under dear old Max has ever been to Montana?
"MAX SAVAGE LEVENSON is a Montana-based journalist who covers marijuana and music. His work has appeared in outlets including the San Francisco Chronicle, Leafly, NPR's All Songs Considered, and Pitchfork."
Montana through bong goggles.
Max Savage Levenson is an audio producer and writer living in Berkeley, California. His work has appeared on NPR Music, All Songs Considered, the Hash podcast, KQED's The California Report and others.
Something tells me Berkeley is his primary residence, even if he does also own a place in Missoula that lends him folk cred.
Sounds pretty lefty.
the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin—which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus
When is Joe Rogan suing you?
Joe Rogan took monoclonal antibodies. That's why he recovered so quickly.
And he also took Ivermectin as prescribed by his doctor.
Only vaccines work against COVID. Except in rare cases in blue states in minority populations where monoclonal antibodies work. They don't work in honky states like Montana. Follow The Science
Only vaccines work against COVID.
Just a few more boosters and they'll amost be as effetive as your standard-issue human immune system.
Force fields work better. Just call force fields before anyone else does.
Yes, and the ivermectin most likely didn’t do anything to help him recover.
Mike got his degree in virology at the University of CNN. He knows this.
Mike went to cawllege?
He got his Bachelor of Science! degree in Psycawlogy.
Can you provide proof, evidence or any reasonable argument that it harmed him in any way?
No?
Well that's not much of a win then, is it.
I can't wait until Merck's new on-patent ivermectin clone gets full FDA approval and we get to watch you shout from the rooftops about what a medical miracle is.
It's not Ivermectin, it's just different enough of a protease inhibitor to cost a lot.
Or he just didn't have a bad case.
At best, Joe Rogan COVID adventure provides anecdotal evidence.
You don't know what anti-bodies he had before being infected (maybe he was already exposed?)
You don't know the dosing for any of the medications/treatments he took.
You don't know if there was any effect by any of the treatments or if his natural immune system handled it just fine.
the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin—which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus
If you actually follow the link (via "has reported" in the article) you discover that Reason has not reported that at all. Reason reports that despite early promising signs, there seems to be no good evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid.
That is not saying that it is not effective, it's saying that nobody knows whether it's effective or not. Which is a different thing.
And the Reason article says precisely the square root of bugger all about it being "not safe." Which is hardly surprising since roughly 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been given to humans and if it was "not safe" we'd probably have heard.
If the guy can't even research his own magazine's articles correctly, what hope is there when he ranges more widely afield ?
I'd also like to say Max could be also influenced by our reps from Missoula and Mike Cooney the runner up to Governor spreading social about a freezer truck for dead body overflows yet it was a mobile data center and morgues said we aren't overflowing.
https://montanadailygazette.com/2021/10/06/montana-liberals-panic-think-freezer-truck-is-mobile-morgue-for-covid-corpses/
Aren't we supposed to be in some kind of anti-disinformation mode nowadays??
Ah, why do I even pretend? There's no longer any pretense that the media is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem party, and they are so fucking arrogant they pretend to believe lies they made up just the day before, complete with insults for people who call them out on it.
Sad fate for the country.
That is what happens when you report on Montana from California.
If a patient does in fact want to be prescribed Ivermectin, they can choose to transfer their care to a doctor who will prescribe it
Of course, finding an actual provider of prescribed medication may be problematic.
Which is as it should be when some uninformed patient has really bad ideas about what treatments they want.
The patient is more informed than an idiot who watches cnn.
Libertarians for medical decisions made by TOP MEN!
"...he anti-parasitic drug ivermectin—which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus..."
The article mentioned showed that studies showing ivermectin as being effective against were dubious to draw a conclusion off off, but they did not show it was unsafe, at least for human doses. Despite ivermectin being commonly described as a horse dewormer, it does have previously approved applications for humans. Also, there have been many reports of ivermectin being prescribed by doctors as a treatment for COVID. The formulaic disavowal of ivermectin is just suspicious.
Despite ivermectin's creators being awarded a Nobel prize for its discovery and use in human beings for half a century, you mean.
I mean, the majority of farm medications were first made and prescribed for humans. We are all mammals after all, so many of the same medications work in similar ways.
The medication is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent. In 2018, ivermectin was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions.
But the hospital can't administer it because it's dangerous. Get your vaccines kids!
No, doctors and hospitals don't use it because it doesn't work. If Covid were a parasite or a heartworm? Sure.
If anyone is really desperate for Ivermectin, just get a bunch of heartworm preventative for dogs. Same med.
Ivermectin is believed to potentially slow the spread of infection by keeping SARS-COV2 cells from suppressing natural antiviral responses. The same mechanism that makes it useful against parasites makes it potentially helpful against viruses. It's not conclusive yet, but given that Ivermectin has very mild side-effects, it's not harmful for the vast majority of the population to try as a treatment.
It's common, it's cheap, it's safe, and it might slow viral spread in your body and improve lung function. There's no reason it should be demonized the way it has been, beyond some motivated reasoning that people who use it are on the wrong team or something.
^THIS^
Nobody has “demonized” it. It is being studied.
Right-wing idiots who have latched into it, while simultaneously rejecting safe,proven-effective vaccination are mocked, and rightly so.
This is clear evidence you're out of touch if you haven't noticed what's happening, or even read THIS FUCKING ARTICLE where the author calls it an unsafe drug.
Turd lies. If he's breathing, it's bullshit.
"It’s common, it’s cheap, it’s safe, and it might slow viral spread in your body and improve lung function."
And if that was the argument being made, instead of overstated claims that it is a cure, there would be a completely different response. But like HCQ, Ivermectin is being overhyped as a cure when there is no evidence that it is.
Wow, did you need to bring a forklift to move those goalposts, or did you do it by hand?
Not two comments ago you said that no one else prescribe it because it doesn't work, because COVID isn't a parasite.
Not that you care, but you've lost any credibility you had on this issue.
No, I said that it isn't an antiviral. Which it isn't. It also isn't a protease inhibitor, which is a common claim by the "ivermectin is a wonder drug" crowd.
It is a drug that has, so far, shown no efficacy in treating Covid. The most that can be said is it looks like it *might* be beneficial so there should be studies done. But as of now? It hasn't displayed any sort of effectiveness against Covid.
There is more than one type of heartworm medication for animals, but don't let that detract from your narrative.
Yes, there are. And Ivermectin is one of the most common.
Why so angry? Because I pointed out another source of Ivermectin?
You are dumb as shit. Not even common sense. Hospitals try stupid sit to save people all the time. Hell, they try stupid shut like sex changes where the patient is in no immediate medical danger all the time. What is with people proudly demonstrating their stupidity in defense of shifty behavior?
What is the weird obsession with talking about sex change operations in a discussion of Ivermectin? They have nothing to do with each other.
A sex change operation isn't even a controversy. Unlike Ivermectin.
Ivermectin is not unsafe. Its side effects, when taken in human-sized dosages, are extremely mild, certainly no worse than the potential COVID-19 symptoms. It's not a horse dewormer, it's a Nobel-Prize winning medical treatment for use in humans. Because it's not a proven cure/treatment yet with peer-reviewed studies, it's not on the FDA approved list, but it IS FDA approved to give to humans for a variety of illnesses, and there are vectors that might make it helpful. There's a few studies with limited sample sizes that have shown positive results in patients treated with Ivermectin.
Unless the Doctors know something very specific about this patient's health (which is possible) they really shouldn't have denied the use of Ivermectin as a treatment. Beyond that, it does nothing to address the allegations that the patient's text messages and legal rights were being limited by hospital staff.
It is not unsafe when taken at appropriate dosages, but there are plenty of anecdotes of right-wing morons self medicating with veterinary formulations and screwing up the dosage.
Doctors should be able to use their judgement on whether they want to prescribe a medicine or not. If the patient doesn’t like it, they can find another doctor.
If the accusations about the patient’s text messaging, etc. are true (and I doubt they are), this would be a highly unusual way to address that.
Mike. Idiots will be idiots, but just like the person who supposedly took fish medicine (but was in reality poisoned in an attempted murder), the truth is quite different.
Ivermectin is commonly available in pharmacies. No one is taking horse medicine with doses intended for a half-ton steed outside of the deluded fantasies of op-ed writers.
Just adding once a drug has been proven safe it can be prescribed for off label treatments. 20% of the prescription are for off label usage.
Ivermectin is safe with no negatives for covid treatment that have been shown. Joe Rogan had the right attitude of throwing everything possible before you need to be hospitalized. Who cares which one of the medicines Joe used actually worked, none of them were dangerous or counter productive because they worked.
And if you want to throw everything at it, great. You just need to find a doctor that will prescribe the treatments you want. You don't get to force a doctor to supplant his conclusions and substitute yours.
Nelson. The doctor had prescribed the treatment. The hospital refused to comply with the doctor's prescription.
Once you realize that, it turns the entire story on its head. We have medical personnel overridden by bureaucrats.
As I pointed out above. Hospitals often have formularies for treatment of specific diseases. They may have restricted this drug following negative conclusions from NIH, CDC, WHO and others pending outcome of ongoing clinical trials.
No, the doctor did not prescribe it. And the hospital backed up the doctor.
This is literally a case of government force being used against a citizen (the doctor).
The formulaic disavowal of ivermectin is just suspicious.
If you disavow ivermectin then you voted for Biden. It's that simple.
It has the feel of a ritual mantra to even talk about the subject.
Needs moar TRIBE!
The media and fans of DNC or GOP should never have made this political. There is zero excuse for that.
I will say since the government cannot have emergency approval of the vaccine if there is any medication that treats the disease there is a motive to lie about treatments that work.
Whatever political side you are on everybody here know the NIH have lied from the beginning.
Any idea how it became political? What, did it become known that a certain doctor or patient was using it, and people aligned politically with or against that doctor or patient on some unrelated matters?
Yes: Democrats made COVID, masks, vaccinations, and ivermectin political, starting with making fun of Trump for claiming that a vaccine would be available by the end of 2020, Democrats refusing to take it when it was developed under Trump, and turning mask wearing into a political statement. And they're cronies in the medical establishment went right along with it.
Just wait until the press starts describing amoxicillin as an "aquarium antibiotic" and starts shaming people who try to take amoxicillin when their doctors prescribe it.
The rejection isn't about using a drug for the thing it's designed to treat. It's about pretending it treats something completely unlike what it was designed to treat. And parasites and heartworms are completely different than a viral infection.
There's actively clinical trials underway testing its effectiveness as a treatment, and many Doctors believe it may be effect. It's a fairly harmless medicine and there's practical reasons people believe it may be helpful. Just saying it's not a medicine specifically tailored to this one specific disease doesn't really mean anything.
And if the argument was "it might, possibly work", that would be different. But that isn't the claim, is it? The claim is that it is definitely effective, definitely a cure, and "they" are trying to suppress it.
It is a carbon copy of the HCQ misinformation. And I'm at a loss to understand why so many conservatives are so eager to embrace anything that isn't the vaccine.
And I’m at a loss to understand why so many conservatives are so eager to embrace anything that isn’t the vaccine.
Speaking as someone who got the vaccine, I'm not at any kind of loss to understand why leftists are so eager to deny any type of treatment other than the Holy Coof Juice that craps out after six months or less. They're simply repeating what their media masters tell them to repeat without any kind of critical thinking whatsoever.
Progs wouldn't be carping "HURR HORSE DEWORMER HERPITY DERPITY DOO!" if they were actually taking science in to account here.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of promise around monoclonal antibodies, but I don't think there are many (or any?) studies proving it.
But other than that, the other "not-vaccine" things have been spectacularly unsuccessful. And expecting a doctor to prescribe something that they don't think is a treatment just because you want it is ridiculous.
But other than that, the other “not-vaccine” things have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
Based on the infection rates of highly vaccinated countries, the "vaccine" things haven't been all that great, either.
Try to keep up. All of the vaccines have an effectiveness rate. None are 100%.
For example, the Moderna vaccine is 86.7% effective against the Delta variant. That leaves 13.3% chance of breakthrough infection. Which, given that there have been 6.2 billion (with a b) jabs, that leaves a lot of breakthrough cases.
If you get Covid, the vaccine almost always prevents severe infection or death. Fatalities break down at 3-5% for vaccinated and 95-97% for unvaccinated.
So explain why your comment makes sense?
Try to keep up. All of the vaccines have an effectiveness rate. None are 100%.
I'm keeping up just fine dickhead. The vaccines crap out completely after 6-8 months, and the case rates in highly vaccinated countries prove.
Dipshit, it's been studied for years as a protease inhibitor for viruses and has demonstrated efficacy against fucking HIV, SARS and a host of other diseases. That's why the NIH is actively conducting trials with it right now.
And when scientific evidence matches the political narrative, I'll be more than happy to get on board. But that isn't the case, is it?
From the moment the left realized the Chinaflu could be used to rid them of the Bad Orange Man, no treatment could be allowed to even be proposed, lest the created panᵈᵉᵐic not be able to serve it's intended function.
The continued opposition to treatments, and reliance on a marginally effective "vaccine", is in an effort to look consistent, when honest, honorable people see what is on their blood-stained hands.
Wow, you managed to repeat an awful lot of right-wing talking points, all highly questionable, in one medium-length paragraph!
Meanwhile, several blue states have outright banned licensed, practicing physicians in their states from prescribing the 100% legal, FDA-approved drug hydroxychloroquine for any reason, despite it being a widely used prophylaxis for travelers to certain tropical and equatorial destinations while Reason's staff competed to see how far they could take that Democratic party cock down their gullet.
Oh yeah, and then there was that time 2 days ago when Washington state suspended the license of a physician assistant for prescribing the 100% legal, FDA-approved drug ivermectin.
But yep, making hospitals provide medications and access to medical records to their patients is the real tyranny.
Fuck you with your mother's clit-dick you mendacious pieces of subhuman fucking shit.
It's also often prescribed for lupus. So I guess fuck those folks suffering from lupus.
I’m sure the hospital and doctor would have been fine with it if the patient had lupus.
The NIH is conducting a trial on Ivermectin and several other repurposed drugs right now. ACTIV-6 trials.
You'll find the biggest paper carrying the story is in fucking England. Absolute silence here.
Wait, they suspended a PA for prescribing medication without MD oversight (which is required), prescribing medication without an examination (which is unethical and illegal), and lying about his suspension by California for ethical and legal lapses? How unreasonable!
Basically if you replace Ivermectin with Oxy, he is running a pill mill. Potentially just as deadly if the patients didn't seek better alternatives, just without the addiction.
If I as an adult of sound mind want to take responsibility for my own healthcare if I get this terrible virus, I think I should have that opportunity as a free American adult,"
Completely agree.
And if you're asking for ivermectin for covid, you're not 'of sound mind', so don't have that opportunity. Case closed.
Love the so called "libertarians" here just loving using the coercive force of the state to demand doctors go against their medical judgement and the consensus of experts to recklessly endanger their patients lives. (First, they don't want doses that are safe for parasites, or even just 10x that where it's apparently not immediately damaging (and that doesn't suggest 100x is also safe)... second, even that isn't likely to be safe for covid patients just because in health adults it is).
If you want to somehow obtain it and take it of your own volition, fine, I agree you shouldn't be prosecuted. Using the force of the state to compel doctors to give it you is the kind of authoritarian bullshit I'm about fucking sick of from all you Republican bootlickers with your tongues stuck a mile deep up the auth-right shithole.
Most of the commenters here are libertarians.
not
A new retard is born!
Now do vaccine mandates.
Dumbfuck.
https://ncats.nih.gov/news/releases/2021/large-clinical-trial-to-study-repurposed-drugs-to-treat-covid-19-symptoms
Reason needs a better "science correspondent" so they stop getting this bad propaganda "reported". Ivermectin has been prescribed hundreds of millions of times for humans. It is used in combination with other drugs as an effective treatment for many things.
Maybe having the Weed and Music Correspondent From Montana covering this topic is a bad choice. Having a terrible science correspondent doesn't help.
I do think there is an interesting consequence of this ivermectin stuff.
Are hospitals merely cafeterias for administering whatever patients want to buy (or have bought on their behalf)?
I have a strong belief that sacrificing virgins in a volcano (or at least bringing them to my room for a deflowering) will cure covid. Can I force the hospital to make that happen? Thanks doc.
Wouldn't it be great if that same hospital (which just happens to be the only one in the state) could tell you to sign over your retirement account, personal belongings, first male child and your dog in order to get life saving treatment? Can they force you into that arrangement or would/could you just travel 1200 miles to the next hospital morgue?
Yes, in fact, hospitals are just giant cafeterias administering whatever their customers want to buy. It is why we go to hospitals - to buy stuff that we want or need. Sorry if your hospital doesn't have slaves to throw into volcanoes or your bed.
Virgins are overrated.
Irving Baxter did not think so
In March, Baxter preached about “the sin of fornication” out of wedlock — suggesting the coronavirus crisis was “a wake-up call.”
“I thought about fornication and I did a little research … I hope this research is not correct, but I got it straight from the encyclopedia — it says that 5 percent of new brides in America now are virgins. That means 95 percent have already committed fornication!” Baxter said on “The Jim Bakker Show,” which discusses end-of-times religious scenarios.
After launching into an anti-LGBTQ rant, he chalked the global pandemic up to lusty “sinners.”
You can't make this up. Too funny
'After launching into an anti-LGBTQ rant, he chalked the global pandemic up to lusty “sinners.”'
Wrong. The pandemic is the fault of redneck antivaxxing Trump supporters.
If only. It's more the fault of Blue Balled neurotic Science!-worshipping proglydytes.
Are hospitals merely cafeterias for administering whatever patients want to buy (or have bought on their behalf)?
Between the Social Security Act, the Medicare and Medicaid Act, and the CRA, yes. At least, public hospitals anyway.
Even cafeterias only serve the food they serve.
Why would a hospital not have a widely available and frequently used medication?
They do. There's a pet hospital near me. And in more rural areas, there are a lot of vets.
Run off to the vet or local pet store when you need amoxicillan, penicillin, cephalexin, or any number of drugs commonly given to animals, too. Shame on those stupid people taking "fish pills".
Ok. Well go to the vet to get the ivermectin. Then go to a baker to bake an ivermectin cake (but only with lqbtriseaq+-@! wording). Then any doctor will be obligated to give you a slice of that cake in a hospital cafeteria while an ancap minister marries you and a horse.
See you just have to figure out how to work within the system.
Fuck off back to your breadlines, slaver.
It is a mainstay of apocalypse zombie genre that the first place you want to loot for medical stuff is a vet hospital.
It's a bullshit willfull misinterpretation. Even cafeterias will say "Sorry, we're all out." not "We forbid anyone in our employ from giving you any."
Libertarians used to believe that individuals have a right to decide what goes into their bodies, including taking any drugs they want. Libertarians also used to believe that individuals have a right to decide what their medical treatments ought to be.
Until we abolish the government-granted medical monopoly, that means that, yes, hospitals and doctors have an obligation to administer treatments even if they do not believe them to be effective. It is their duty to administer whatever the patient wishes them to administer.
Until we abolish the government-granted medical monopoly, that means that, yes, hospitals and doctors have an obligation to administer treatments even if they do not believe them to be effective. It is their duty to administer whatever the patient wishes them to administer.
And in honest, good-faith fashion, both sides. Denying service to some is evil, enslaving others to accomodate wishes is evil, lying about public accomodations so that you can deny service to some and enslave people to grant wishes is the worst of both evils with a lie on top.
No, there is no "both sides" here. The fact that patients have to go begging on their knees to doctors and hospitals to receive medication and treatments is an outrage and a grave violation of individual liberties. Every doctor and hospital is a willing participant in that scheme, and the least they can do is not compound that outrage by imposing their own preferences on their unwilling patients.
Meanwhile, they stand by quivering in anticipation of the moment when the vaccine "mandates" will be enabled by force.
You keep saying 'doctor and hospital' like there are no doctors anywhere with their own agency or, admittedly specific to this situation, these people couldn't come by and dose themselves with ivermectin appropriately.
And it was your relatively good-faith 'both sides' proposition I was agreeing with. As opposed to the far more standard false/bad-faith "Doctors should be free to choose to perform abortion but not free to refuse it." or "Doctors should be free to refuse ivermectin but not free to refuse the vaccines."-style 'both sides' propositions.
More clearly, if they had gone to a private practice and said "GIve me ivermectin." and the doctor told them they had the wrong office, I don't think either one of us would have a problem with that.
Yes, I do have a problem with any doctor who inserts their own preferences into my medical treatment.
Doctors have a government-granted monopoly and they need to act accordingly.
"Inserts their own preferences"? What are you seeing a doctor for, if not to tell you what's wrong with you, and what you should do about it?
I'd say about 95% of my doctor's visits have not been for any useful medical advice, but simply to get prescriptions and order tests that I could get more cheaply on my own if the law only permitted it.
For the cases where their expertise matters, if by "tell me" you mean "advise me", then yes, that's one important function of doctors. And after they provide advice, I then should be free to proceed how I wish. If by "tell me" you mean "order me", then that is not a legitimate function of doctors.
So, then you'd be lying if you said you just want their advice.You want the means to carry out or ignore the advice as well. Lying and saying you just want the advice and then insisting the rest is owed to you makes you the slaver. The reason why hospitals and doctors are set up the way they are. And, by your own precepts, you can fuck off with that shit.
No, I'm not. All I want is their advice. What I am compelled to deal with is their self-appointed role as gatekeepers.
It is truly absurd for libertarians to defend the rent-seeking interference of doctors in the market for medical drugs while simultaneously claiming that recreational drugs should be legalized under free market principles. This is even more absurd because these crappy policies are in large part responsible for why US healthcare is so ridiculously expensive.
I mean, seriously, what is wrong with you?
No, I’m not. All I want is their advice.
So, in this case, the doctor saying "Here's my diagnosis. If you don't like it, you can hit the road." is perfectly in line with your wishes. Or do you feel the doctor was obligated to provide something more?
You're beginning to make your 'both sides' proposition (serve the public or don't) seem just as disingenous as the people you're arguing against.
As conditions of their licensing, doctors already are compelled to provide something more; they are not free agents in a private market.
I believe their purpose in seeing a doctor is to overturn the election. Getting ivermectin is just the slippery slope toward fetch my slippers and then stop the steal.
"As opposed to the far more standard false/bad-faith “Doctors should be free to choose to perform abortion but not free to refuse it.” or “Doctors should be free to refuse ivermectin but not free to refuse the vaccines.”"
What kind of idiocy is this? Doctors can refuse to perform abortions, they can refuse to administer vaccines, and they can refuse to prescribe ivermectin. They can also choose to do those things. If you want ivermectin, go to a doctor or hospital that is willing to prescribe it.
Medical licensing certifies (to employers and patients) that you, as a doctor, are capable and willing to provide standard medical care as described by the licensing requirement. This includes compelling you to perform a whole range of actions as needed and/or requested by patients. If you are unwilling to comply with those requirements, you don't meet the terms of the license and should lose it. You can still apply your medical degree for some other, unlicensed purpose if you like. That's the legal situation that the medical lobby itself created, so don't effing complain about it.
The idea that doctors are private actors who can deny or perform medical care according to their own whims is patently absurd.
In any case, as I was saying: I think the correct solution is to make most drugs over the counter in the US, just like they are elsewhere. There is no moral, utilitarian, or libertarian case to be made for the absurd prescription drug system in the US today.
No, there is no “both sides” here. The fact that patients have to go begging on their knees to doctors and hospitals to receive medication and treatments is an outrage and a grave violation of individual liberties. Every doctor and hospital is a willing participant in that scheme, and the least they can do is not compound that outrage by imposing their own preferences on their unwilling patients.”
Don’t go. Really it is in the best interest of everyone. Who would want you as a patient?
So doctors should be forced to prescribe whatever a patient wants? So someone can tell any doctor to prescribe 1000 Oxy pills to treat their stubbed toe? Or tell an oncologist to prescribe an Epi-Pen to treat their lung cancer?
Or is this just more selective outrage from the fringe?
Aren't you for drug legalization? Doesn't that mean that people should be able to obtain drugs freely? Or are you not a libertarian?
Well, that patient choice amounts to "I don't want to be treated for my lung cancer". That's a choice a libertarian should support, isn't it?
I am. I'm against forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do. If the doctor doesn't want to prescribe 1000 Oxy for my stubbed toe, they can't be forced to. That's my point. That the patient doesn't get to dictate to the doctor.
I know you think it should be different. That drugs should be available OTC and that the medical field shouldn't be a "monopoly". But, as of now, it's not. So can you acknowledge that today, right now, a patient can't force a doctor to prescribe medication that they don't want to?
There is a limited set of procedures medical providers can refuse to provide on religious grounds. Furthermore, hospitals can make accommodations and assign different doctors to cover individual preferences.
But in general, if a medical provider refuses a treatment to a patient and the patient suffers harm as a result, a court will likely find the provider guilty of malpractice. Such conduct is also a violation of medical ethics and licensing requirements.
So, yes, patients can compel medical providers to prescribe medications in many circumstances, enforceable via malpractice suits.
Medical providers right now are probably OK to refuse treatment with Ivermectin, though a sympathetic court might still look at the literature and reach a different conclusion.
No one is going to get sued for refusing to prescribe Ivermectin to treat Covid because, given all available information, it isn't a treatment for Covid.
What do you think would happen if a doctor got on the stand with all of the presently available medical literature that shows Ivermectin hasn't proved to have any efficacy in treating Covid and you had, on your side, a rant against the medical establishment, a Joe Rogan podcast, and the sloppy "science" of sites like the ivmmeta site?
If I was a betting man I would put my money on you, rightfully, getting laughed out of the courtroom.
The plaintiff would dispute those conclusions, point to papers reaching different conclusions, point to numerous individual cases, point out that lack of statistical significance does not prove absence of an effect, present a risk/benefit analysis (low risk, uncertain benefit), and make a case that the treatment is commonly used in other countries. More likely than not they would still lose, but with a sympathetic jury, who knows.
But you have proven my point: deciding which treatments to offer is not up to the doctor as an individual private actor; doctors are compelled to follow legal and professional standards of care. Right now, the standard of care in the US happens to be that Ivermectin is not offered as an option to treat COVID, but if that should change, then doctors can be compelled to do so, no matter what their personal opinion in the matter may be. Doctors are neither qualified nor permitted to override standards of care decisions with their own judgment, and doctors are not self-directed actors in a private market and haven't been for a long time.
I'm going to guess that you aren't a lawyer. Because even I know that your scenario would end with you getting laughed out of court.
Although, actually, you probably wouldn't even make it to court. I imagine that the word "frivolous" would be used when your case got tossed out.
So first the state grants a monopoly on an essential service and essential products, and when people complain, you say "well, you can always just kill yourself." And you call yourself a libertarian.
"Worship us doctors and pay us our cut, or else just go away and die." You couldn't have said it more clearly.
Your contempt for the medical profession and practice is crystal clear. That is your right. You have lawsuit waiting to happen written in bold letters.
Most people do not follow advice because, well bless their hearts. I don’t often. I have hypertension. Taking that pill every day is easy. I still want that pastrami rueben sandwich with a kosher dill because life is too short.
It is not a good idea to be your own doctor. You are correct that most med pros are not so great in science. It is not what they signed up for.
Resentment is not good for a healthy spirit and life. That is free advice and you are free to ignore it.
The government, we have too much of it and it granted me nothing. Getting to the point where I just do not want to fight it.
There is no monopoly on the purchase or administration of ivermectin. FFS - you can buy it on Amazon. And you can probably find dozens of medical quacks and frauds from Lew Rockwell who will administer and prescribe it.
Other than that - fuck off slaver.
You cannot buy medical grade Ivermecting without a doctor's prescription.
And typical of slavers like you, you defend government-granted monopolies.
So, you're saying you wouldn't buy pure ivermectin, safe enough to inject because it didn't have a USP label on it?
I wouldn't buy Ivermectin at all, since I don't need it. But there are plenty of other drugs and services for which I couldn't find a non-human substitute even if I wanted to.
Just consider the absurdity of what you are actually defending: a government regulatory system in which doctors extract money and can deny you access to a safe and essential product on a whim; a system that is responsible for absurdly high medical costs in the US and in which pretty much every other country on the planet is more liberal than the US. And you seriously want to pretend that you are a libertarian.
They aren't denying anything "on a whim". In their professional, trained, medical opinion it is not a valid treatment for Covid. Probably because it hasn't been shown to be an effective treatment for Covid. There are other doctors with different views. Find one of them.
The issue is not whether the medical provider believes that the treatment is effective, the issue is whether a court of law would find the physician guilty of malpractice for refusing the treatment.
The determination of whether Ivermectin is a safe an potentially effective treatment for COVID is ultimately up to the courts, not the professional opinion of individual doctors.
Your view of doctors as private, self-directed agents operating in a free market is divorced from reality. Doctors ultimately have very little say: they must offer their patients all reasonable treatments, they must comply with the patient's treatment preferences among those options, and they cannot just kick patients out because they don't like the treatment option the patient chose.
NOYB, stop. Turn around and look behind you. That line in the distance is the border to rationality. Go back.
I know you can't edit or delete your post, but you can just tell everyone you were hammered. We'll give you a pass.
Take your own advice, Nelson. You are utterly delusional about the status of medical providers in the US. Doctors are neither qualified nor permitted to substitute their own judgement for the professional standards of care set by regulatory bodies or the legal system.
The current system of medical licensing and prescription drugs "enslaves" both doctors and patients and causes healthcare costs to spiral out of control. It is the epitome of crony capitalism and progressivism. And you are seriously defending it.
A doctor in America cannot be forced to prescribe a treatment that they believe isn't a treatment. And that's what you want to do.
Find me a case where a doctor was forced to prescribe an UNPROVEN treatment against their will. Any case.
I'll be here waiting.
I wouldn’t buy Ivermectin at all, since I don’t need it. But there are plenty of other drugs and services for which I couldn’t find a non-human substitute even if I wanted to.
Neither of which is what I asked. Have you or would you ever consume or inject a compound that's not 'medical grade'? If the answer is 'No', you're a bigger part of your own problem than I am.
It's not true doctors have a duty to administer "whatever the patient wishes." Medical ethics do not require a doctor to give a patient a particular treatment of the patient's choosing, they require a doctor to obtain informed consent before giving them any particular treatment.
The affirmative obligations on doctors: facilitate this abortion, show them the sonogram - are creatures of specific government mandates, not expressions of a general responsibility to give the patient whatever they want (or don't want). You're right that those specifics create obligations "to administer treatments even if they do not believe them to be effective." But there isn't one for any of the more "exotic" purported covid treatments that I'm aware of.
The issue here is that a doctor with admission privileges at a particular hospital could facilitate a patient taking whatever horse dewormer they wanted - on THAT doctor's word and license.
What the state AG is seeking to do here is force a hospital without such a doctor to administer the treatment anyway. With respect to the doctor's volition, it's the same as when the right makes abortionists show women pictures of a fetus, or when the left makes doctors refer women for abortions in the first place.
"Medical ethics do not require a doctor to give a patient a particular treatment of the patient’s choosing"
Except abortions and transgender treatments. Those are "on-demand", and preferably paid for by taxpayers.
There is no place where any doctor is forced to perform either of those procedures.
Yes, the doctors that they use for those procedures agree to perform them. So completely irrelevant to this discussion.
But your moral self-righteousness and virtue signaling is noted.
That is correct: doctors do not currently have a legal duty to do so.
Those medical ethics were developed before the FDA and the AMA hijacked healthcare.
Indeed it is. That's the consequence when government hands out monopolies to something like healthcare: now every decision involves government and politics. The solution is to end those monopolies.
But until that happens, government will be involved in telling doctors what they can, must, and cannot do, whether that involves abortion or COVID. And one thing government ought to tell doctors is not to deny patients approved and safe drugs if they request it, even if the doctor believes a different treatment plan is preferable. Patients, not doctors, should decide on their own treatments.
“Patients, not doctors, should decide on their own treatments.”
Well go ahead.
Well, that's why it's important to be active politically to abolish the destructive government-established cartels and monopolies.
You can do all of those things. Just not off a doctor's prescription pad and not in a hospital that won't do it. Free association.
You want to take ivermectin? Or hudroxychloriquine? Or whatever the latest/next thing that also won't work? Go ahead. Just not at the hospital and not prescribed by a doctor.
That is about as libertarian as you can get. You don't get to force other people to do what you want if they don't want to do it.
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But in actual fact, the sale or import of prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription in the US is against the law.
The purpose of this is not patient safety (many of the drugs that are prescription only in the US are over the counter elsewhere), it's a racket responsible for driving up US medical costs massively. In Germany, for example, you can just buy Ivermectin without a prescription.
Prescription drugs are not available in a free market, and doctors and hospitals have colluded with government to create this situation in order to enrich themselves. It is preposterous for you to claim that this is a libertarian arrangement.
Just like your local electric utility is required to provide service to you without being able to claim "free association", neither should doctors be able to claim "free association" when it comes to their patients or treatments.
Then you're using one government intervention into the doctor-patient relationship as a wedge to drive more intervention into that relationship. "Doctors and hospitals have colluded"? Some have. Most doctors did not ask to be put into this position, but it was the only table they were allowed to sit at to get into the game at all.
You are using loaded language to express that, but yes, that is correct: businesses operating under a government-granted monopoly necessarily need to be tightly regulated.
The vast majority of doctors, in fact, supports and favors the monopolistic arrangement. In fact, they support even more government intervention and government subsidies. And all doctors benefit from the financial windfall and the power that they receive as a result.
We could avoid all of these discussions easily simply by making most drugs, tests, and medical devices available over the counter, like they are in other countries. The main obstacle to that is the medical lobby because they would suffer financially.
Mendacious moron.
https://ncats.nih.gov/news/releases/2021/large-clinical-trial-to-study-repurposed-drugs-to-treat-covid-19-symptoms
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Why couldn't the family just administer the drug themselves? I'll bet you a fat dollar that the hospital would never allow such a thing.
Have you seen the Mayo’s bottle charge?
That is an absurd statement. Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines and it is widely used. It is safe even in high doses (i.e. doses much higher than those used for therapy). It may or may not be effective against COVID-19, but it is certainly a safe medicine. And your own article provides no evidence to the contrary.
It is questionable to begin with whether doctors should have the ability to withhold a safe and approved medicine that a patient wants to take.
But any of the other allegations are certainly a reason for police and the legal system to get involved and question doctors and the hospital. Note that I said "allegations": even if it turns out that the allegations were false, police still needed to be involved.
That is the libertarian point of view, as opposed to the statist propaganda Reason spreads these days.
That is the libertarian point of view, as opposed to the statist propaganda Reason spreads these days.
It's articles like these that put a bullet in the head of any 'both sides' credentials Reason may have.
There's a legitimate case to be had that doctors shouldn't be forced to give medication or treatments that they don't want to give. Especially based on empirical evidence. "I'm not going to give her Ivermecting because I don't think it will save her." is an absolute medical call made by the doctor. As Jerryskids points out, there's a valid libertarian case that even if a/the doctor refused, an employee of a public hospital could abide the patient/family's wishes and at least hand them a vial of ivermectin and a syringe. A legitimate both sides around individual liberty with far-reaching implications, but Reason can't be bothered to wade into the nuance and doesn't want to play that card in rather obvious contradiction to their own supposed principles.
"If a patient asks to be treated with cannabinoids, a medication proven to be ineffective, the hospital is right to refuse them." - Reason
That would be a valid case if doctors operated as providers in a free market, but they don't. The medical establishment has monopolized the administration of medicines and treatments for their own financial gain, and on top of that gotten into bed with one of the major political parties.
Given that patients have no other options than to have medications and treatments prescribed and administered by a monopolistic medical establishment, doctors ought not to have a choice in the matter.
So you think medical professionals shouldn't be allowed to use their knowledge and expertise because they aren't any better at medical diagnoses and treatments than the average Joe off the street? And they should be forced to do whatever a patient says, regardless of what they know is effective?
That's not libertarian.
Medical professionals shoudl of course use their knowledge and expertise--to give patients the best advice they can. But they should not have the right to withhold safe and approved drugs because they may prefer a different treatment plan.
Correct. Doctors have a government-granted monopoly, just like your electric utility. As part of that arrangement, they cannot claim "free association" to do things they don't like.
Of course it is not libertarian; it is not libertarian because the entire medical system is a government regulated sh*tfest designed to extract massive amounts of money from patients. Granting freedom of association to a monopolist makes it even less libertarian because it bestows even more government privileges on that monopolist.
I'm all for making the medical system libertarian. Until the, doctors are not free to act as private actors. That is true for many aspects of medical care, and it should be true when it comes to Ivermectin.
It's weird how this is an article that mentions the lack of FDA approval and doesn't even do the typical "both-sides" schtick that Reason loves to do.
Hobby Lobby, a private corporation, cannot deny (funding for) birth control to its employees who identify as being practically unable to reproduce, but a public hospital can deny and cannot be forced to provide medication (for which it has already received funding) that may or may not save a sick patient's life.
Just stupid. To the point where it's not accidental but a willful, malicious (the best/fairest reading is that they don't care whether someone dies) attempt to see how much stupid can be crammed down people's throats.
Hobby Lobby, I'll remind you ,was worse than that.
They provided over A DOZEN different methods of birth control. ONE method they stated was abortion in their eyes and refused to cover that ONE method.
I was talking about their hypothetical obligation to provide birth control to lesbians but, thanks for reminding me that reality is way more retarded than I think it is.
Of course the rights of a corporation and its religious beliefs should be ... oh, wait. Corporations aren't people and don't have religious beliefs. So maybe the actual people involved should be the controlling interest, not the "religious beliefs" of a thing that isn't a person.
And thanks for reminding me that the religious are far from the only or worst "keep reality retarded" fundamentalists.
They love to do it because it is not a schtick. It’s a reality.
Not saving the patent isn't enough to refuse treatment; thinking it's actively harmful or will interfere with other medical options would be though in my opinion. In this case there are no options, possibly by design with the reactions to any actual treatment options.
Not saving the patent isn’t enough to refuse treatment
Done currently all the time. Pretty much the atomic qualification for kicking someone off the donor list.
So, when the patient demands their safe and approved (by the medical licensing organizations) sex change operation, the doctor should be forced to administer it?
You don't make people free by enslaving their doctors.
It's not doctors who have the ability to withhold medicine, it's government. Doctors have a way around this government barrier; that doesn't mean they're responsible for the barrier.
It's like if government closed a border crossing. There's a way around it, but it goes thru your property. If you can shoo the traffic off your property, are you responsible for the border's being closed?
Government denies a lot of people possession of a sidearm for their own protection. You pack legally. Are you obligated to provide security service for anyone who asks to hire you?
Are you kidding? Who do you think sits on the FDA panels deciding which drugs require prescriptions? Who do you think are the experts called in by Congress when making new laws?
If the AMA and doctors pushed for making most drugs over the counter and allowing commercial drug (re-)imports, it would happen.
But the majority of doctors prefer the current racket, where people are forced to needlessly see (and pay for) doctor visits in order to get prescriptions for routine drugs, tests, devices, and procedures.
We know that most of those are needless because other countries have better health outcomes without all those requirements.
Just think of the absurdity of this: a magazine that spills endless amounts of ink on promoting drug legalization turns around defends a corrupt, rent seeking, government-granted monopoly when it refuses to give a patient who is of sound mind a safe and widely used drug.
Apparently, according to current libertarian thinking, you should be able to kill yourself with Fent.nyl, but the state should lock you up if you desire to treat yourself with a safe, approved, WHO-essential medicine.
you should be able to kill yourself with Fent.nyl
Not just be able kill yourself. The state should provide free needles and safe injection sites with naloxone and trained medical professionals on hand to save you should you inject yourself with a cocktail that may or may not contain some combination of heroin, fentanyl, carfentanyl, or virtually anything else; but if you show up to an already-built facility with trained medical staff already on hand (and who happen to stock both fentanyl and ivermectin) and ask for a safe, approved, WHO-essential medication they should be obligated, as policy, to refuse you.
That's what you got from an article critical of the state sending armed men to harass people outside of their jurisdiction for a non-crime?
You've got a bad case Reason Derangement Syndrome. That election really broke you, didn't it.
The article says a lot of things that aren't just being critical of the use of force, such as claiming that ivermectin is literally dangerous. Which is factually wrong and yet asserted as a proven fact, with a link for reference!
This isn't even an article where they played the Both-Sides game. It doesn't claim that there's very limited reasons why ivermectin should be denied as a treatment. It doesn't explain that the hospital apparently did a very poor job of explaining itself to the family or providing appropriate service. It even cited the FDA as an authority figure when this is a libertarian publication and we rightly point out the FDA gets a lot of shit plain wrong, puts a lot of unnecessary barriers in the way of treatment, and drives up the cost of medical research through being extremely inefficient.
Apparently written by a child. Its embarrassing.
outside of their jurisdiction for a non-crime
It was the MT AG sending MT State Troopers to a hospital in MT. Squarely within the jurisdiction.
There may be a case to be had that the AG shouldn't have been invovled, but you can't get to the police not showing up without also saying they shouldn't show up to overdose or domestic abuse calls. Given the details, potentially going so far as to say citizens have no effective right to petition their government.
Armed men come to harass you when someone alleges that you have committed a crime, whether that allegation is true or not. We call that "police". There is nothing illiberal about that, and it isn't the part I was commenting on.
The part I was commenting on was the fact that the patient was denied the ability to inject a drug of his choice by a government-granted medical monopoly. That ought not to be acceptable to a libertarian.
The election? What does the election have to do with any of this, or with me for that matter? Why would the election "break me" when I didn't even vote?
The election? What does the election have to do with any of this, or with me for that matter? Why would the election “break me” when I didn’t even vote?
I was opposed to the Pan(demic) fascism in Mar. '20. Well before/after/orthogonal too any election.
It's almost like, despite sarcasmic's stupid assertion of having ascended petty tribalism, he really can't conceptualize a world outside of it.
Even Reason Derangement Syndrome doesn't make sense as you agree with Reason's, supposed, 'People should be free to inject whatever drugs they like.' precept. Even if they are abjectly crazy, you aren't engaging in the derangement and endorsing the fact that they at least have moments of lucidity.
What crime? Following medical ethics? Following established medical procedures? Refusing to prescribe snake oil?
None of those are crimes.
FTFA: accusing the hospital not merely of violating her right to treatment, but also of withholding legal documents, limiting her text communications, and denying her visitation rights.
Those are potentially illegal acts.
In a free country, I should have the right to use whatever snake oil I like. Ivermectin is available over the counter in many countries, and it is used by many people to treat COVID. There is no rational reason for a US doctor to abuse their government-granted monopoly and deny this drug to any patient.
Can you explain to me what "legal documents" a hospital could refuse a patient? Or how a hospital policy against cell phones is "limiting text communications"? Or how Covid visitation restrictions are. denying visitation rights"?
"In a free country, I should have the right to use whatever snake oil I like."
Agreed. But you can't force anyone else to participate in your activity. And the fact that prescriptions are limited to licensed prescribers doesn't suddenly mean that the licensed prescriber suddenly loses their right to refuse you.
It's almost like their complaints wouldn't pass the smell test if Governor Superman had asked a couple simple questions.
You
It would seem to be pretty self-evident how those policies relate. And, in any case, the police showed up because someone alleged illegal conduct, not because actual illegal conduct took place. That’s what police are there for.
Legally, no. Right now, doctors obviously can legally refuse to comply with patient wishes. Right now, doctors can blackmail their patients into submitting to procedures they don’t want by withholding all other treatment options. Right now, we live under a progressive government-granted monopoly on health care services that allows doctor to collude and treat their patients like slaves while enriching themselves like plantation masters. I’m just saying that that needs to change because it’s not working as healthcare and because it is morally profoundly wrong.
Following established medical procedures? Refusing to prescribe snake oil?
When the fuck has HCQ or ivermectin ever been snake oil, you mendacious dipshit? Ivermectin not only approved for human use, it's inventors were given the Nobel Prize for it. HCQ has been used for decades.
You're seriously going to sit there and argue that a medication used for humans and prescribed by doctors for over 30 years now is snake oil, much less one that's been used for several generations now?
It's snake oil because it's being marketed as a treatment for covid when it is not a treatment for covid.
People are making fuck tons of money off you idiots.
It’s snake oil because it’s being marketed as a treatment for covid when it is not a treatment for covid.
Which should be up to the doctor and the patient to determine between themselves, not the FDA when it's already been cleared for human applications.
Bitch, you don't even know about your state's own environmental history, don't try to pretend you know anything about science.
I know lots about science, but I still outsource my medical procedures to the experts.
I know lots about science
That is yet to be demonstrated. You didn't even know that drought was common in the American west before the millenium.
What a doctor prescribes is up to the doctor. Period.
And when it comes to Covid, HCQ is definitely snake oil and Ivermectin is following the same path. Like zinc, vitamin C, light therapy, thinking happy thoughts, and hating Joe Biden, they don't seem to be a cure for Covid.
You keep peddling this fantasy and it's simply not true. What a doctor prescribes is up to established standards of care and the preferences of the patient; if the doctor violates either of those and a patient comes to harm as a result, they will be held accountable for malpractice.
The reason US doctors currently are not required to prescribe HCQ or Ivermectin is because in the US, that's not standard of care. If that changes, then a doctor is compelled to act accordingly; their personal opinion on the efficacy of those treatments is irrelevant.
The preferences of the patient, if they are to use unproven treatments, are completely irrelevant.
Your choices are to find another doctor/hospital or go to Tractor Supply and get your own. You do not have the right to hijack a doctor's prescription pad for your personal delusions.
Find me a case where a doctor has been forced to prescribed an unproven drug. Any case.
I'll be here waiting.
What a doctor prescribes is up to the doctor. Period.
And when it comes to Covid, HCQ is definitely snake oil and Ivermectin is following the same path.
That you're actually calling medications with long-time known medical uses as "snake oil" is the laziest part of your argument.
Aspirin is snake oil if it's used to treat cancer. Lidocaine is snake oil of it is used to treat an infection.
It's not just about the drug. It's about what it is being used for.
And HCQ being used to treat Covid has been shown to be snake oil. And Ivermectin is looking like HCQ 2.0.
It's not just about the drug. It's about what it is being used for.
Uh, doctors prescribe medications for off-label uses all the time.
Pretty soon the armed men will be accompanying the med-tech who has been dispatched to jam the needle into your arm to dispense the vaccine. If you resist, they will first shoot your dog, then shoot you. (they might shoot your dog anyway)
>>ravage Montana
all 17 people hardest hit
The article author repeated the lie that Ivermectin is "unsafe" - which unless you're a libtard you know is false.
Seriously, why don't your fucktard writers research just a little before spewing shit on a page? I thought this was "reason", not "The View".
They know it's a lie but they screech harder.
Anything is unsafe at the wrong dosage. Many things are benign within a certain range of doses. Some are even helpful.
Luckily, for the ailment in question, we have a vaccine.
It's amazing how the media spouts the "Ivermectin is unsafe" narrative and never even mentions that the drug has been used for decades with very little, if any, side effects. The media never reports on studies that show it IS effective in treating Covid-19. Instead, they repeat the government mantra that vaccines are the only way to defeat the virus. And, many media outlets are still promoting the "horse paste" bull shit.
A lot of people have been successfully treated for Covid-19 by using ivermectin in early treatment. Media could at least give both sides of the story rather than just spout the government narrative without any question as to whether they could be wrong in this instance. (Because government and public health officials have never been wrong before, right?)
Physicians absolute refusal to provide ivermectin to patients who ask for it is simply crazy. There is little evidence that it harms patients, and quite a bit of evidence it could help. Why not give it a try?
"Because government and public health officials have never been wrong before, right?"
Hell, Fauci's been wrong about 150 times or so. When he wasn't outright telling the "noble lie".
Because if anything works, no more emergency. No more vaccine exceptions. No more money tree.
Even the studies that ivermectin proponents like to cite don't characterize it as a "treatment" for COVID-19. In those studies, it's used as a prophylactic. They purport to show that ivermectin can limit the likelihood of infection, and mitigate the severity of symptoms in cases of infection.
Unfortunately for proponents, a few of the most compelling such studies have been exposed as methodologically problematic or simply faked, with bad data, implausible findings, etc. What remains is a more mixed set of results that does not point conclusively in one direction or another.
Based on what we know, if properly administered, ivermectin may make sense to prescribe when someone is at high risk of infection. But anyone who shows up at the hospital and demands it is way past the point at which any known study has purported to show it to be effective.
Ivermectin is indicated to act as a protease inhibitor, diminishing viral reproduction, which leads to diminished symptoms and faster recovery.
Coincidentally, Merck's new pill (not disclosed at the time they condemned Ivermectin, despite years of promising antiviral research with HIV, SARS, West Nile and others) also is a protease inhibitor, much like Ivermectin.
But it's on-label, and estimated at $700 for a treatment course, instead of $7.
I see how you said "indicated to be", which is to your credit since ivermectin has not been shown to actually *be* a protease inhibitor. The only source for that claim comes from an Indian paper that says that it might be true, not that it is true.
The diminished viral reproduction was established in an in-vitro study, which is why some people are claiming that ivermectin isn't safe. The doses required for an adult are incredibly high and have not been tested for safety. To me, that doesn't make it "unsafe", it just makes the safety at therapeutic doses undetermined.
Merck and Pfizer are both proven protease inhibitors, unlike ivermectin. Protease inhibitors are a broad category of medicines that work differently to achieve the same result.
Does this mean ivermectin is what the most vigorous proponents say it is? No. Does it mean that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor? Nope. Does it mean that ivermectin is unsafe? Not at all. Do the facts leave ivermectin in limbo, not shown to be effective but not shown to be dangerous? Absolutely.
Sending a LEO to force a doctor to administer a treatment they think is unwarranted is definitely the wrong way to go. That said, there's a lot of practicing MDs who would say that giving a Covid vaccine to a healthy child under 18 is also an unwarranted treatment.
It's seeming that at human dosage levels, Ivermectin probably doesn't do much against Covid, but it's really only unsafe at any meaningful level if the pateint is looking to refuse other proven treatments (monoclonal antibody transfusion and steroids in particular) and take ivermectin alone.
CDC protocols require the administration of ivermectin to all incoming refugees as part of processing just in case they happen to have any of the kinds of parasites that it's intended to treat, and the medicine itself has been administered safely to human patients billions of times around the world over the last several decades .
The patients in this case should simply have sought a second opinion from another doctor rather than involving the State and law enforcement to force the removal of a medical decision from being made by the physician providing treatment.
What sort of insanity is it to think that doctors should be required to do whatever a patient says?
If you don't like "no" from a doctor or a hospital, the response is to go to a different hospital or doctor.
And the "Doctors don't know anything, the internet says this works." belief makes insanity look reasonable.
How are seriously ill people that are essentially held hostage by the hospital ("withholding legal documents, limiting her text communications, and denying her visitation rights") supposed to do that? In addition, there are likely no "different hospitals" nearby, again due to government regulations and a government granted monopoly.
Doctors and hospitals have a government-granted monopoly and physical control of a sick person's body. If they use those powers to go against the wishes of the patient, they are abusing their power.
I get it. You think doctors and hospitals are in some sort of conspiracy against Americans. But in order for that to be true there must be a monolithic set of beliefs that all doctors and hospitals adhere to. But doctors and hospitals have different beliefs about treatments all the time. There is a lot of variation in opinions regarding what treatments to use to treat various diseases.
There are doctors advocating for ivermectin. There are those opposed. There are those who have taken a wait-and-see approach. There are those who have taken a why-not approach. The medical profession is anything but a monopoly. It is like any other industry. Many brands are available to consumers.
A “conspiracy” would mean secret collusion. I’m not alleging that. I’m saying, as should be self-evident, that American doctors are operating in a government-granted monopoly that the majority of those doctors support and lobby for. That’s no conspiracy, it’s plain as day.
And the medical establishment is already going after healthcare providers that advocate Ivermectin, threatening their licensing.
It's irrelevant whether Ivermectin works or doesn't work; in a free country, people should be able to choose it as a medical treatment even if their doctor has different preferences.
Ivermectin is used by doctors to treat COVID in dozens of countries, and it is over the counter in much of the world. There is no rational justification for a US doctor to refuse it to a patient.
Rational reasons for a doctor to refuse to administer Ivermectin for Covid:
1) When it doesn't work I get sued, and/or
2) When it has a side effect I get sued, and/or
3) My medical license is imperiled for prescribing an off-label treatment
4) I care about the health outcomes of my patient and giving them the horse dewormer makes them less likely to accept an effective treatment (instead).
You can fix 1-3 by murdering the AMA and trial lawyers, but there's no way to make 4 irrational.
What part of 'Nobel prizewinning drug actively being used and studied to treat Covid around the world' is not making it to your peabrain?
You're welcome to take aspirin if you want a placebo, it's available over the counter (formulated for humans) and you don't have to pay the inflated prices and then risk fucking up reformulating the drug from the animal version (if you even think to bother) after you buy it from a vet.
Holy shit, here we go again.
What part of ‘Nobel prizewinning drug actively being used and studied to treat Covid around the world’ is not making it to your peabrain?
Uh, if you take too much ivermectin, the worse that can happen to you is that you get the squirts.
Thank you: you just proved that your objections have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with propaganda and ideology.
For a doctor. to abuse government granted monopoly and to override the treatment choices of their patients is a grave violation of bodily autonomy of those patients.
I think a doctor that lets his preferences override those of his patients is a psychopath. But be that as it may, we can't get those doctors to like it, but until we break their government-granted monopoly, the least we can do is give doctors a choice: put the patent's preferences first or face the legal consequences. If doctors don't like it, they can leave the profession. The medical profession doesn't exist to make doctors happy.
You don't want a doctor, you want a drug dealer.
"Thank you: you just proved that your objections have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with propaganda and ideology."
Enjoy your internet bucks. In contrast, I'm dismayed that you are so stupid you've taken an equal and opposite position based on tribalism. The left has successfully goaded you and yours into not just endorsing quack cures and antivax, but affirmatively calling for government force to be used against doctors who refuse to go along. You and the rest of the Trump brigade are Democrats' best friend - you grow closer to their positions even as you mortify swing voters into their camp.
"For a doctor. to abuse government granted monopoly and to override the treatment choices of their patients is a grave violation of bodily autonomy of those patients."
Only abortion rights absolutists believe that the right to bodily autonomy is a positive right that requires third parties to put what you want into your body (or to take it out by their act).
"I think a doctor that lets his preferences override those of his patients is a psychopath."
False framing. Saying "I won't give you ivermectin" isn't "overriding" the patient. The patient has final say over which option is administered from among those the doctor is willing to provide. What you propose is enslaving the doctor - forcing them to provide only and exactly whatever the (uninformed, in the case of ivermectin) patient wants. You want net neutrality for doctors - a dumb pipe delivering only and exactly what the consumer wants.
Most people would prefer the benefit of their medical training.
"but until we break their government-granted monopoly, the least we can do is give doctors a choice: put the patent’s preferences first or face the legal consequences"
This is one of the more Orwellian statements I've read regarding "choice" in a while.
Your proposed policy is simultaneously:
1) never going to happen wrt quack Covid cures
A) going to provide political cover for such affirmative obligations on doctors to continue happening, and more comprehensively happen for abortion, sex change surgery, and all of the things that leftists have the necessary policy influence to actually impose on doctors. It's very telling you haven't responded to my sex change procedure not-even-a-hypothetical in these comments.
2) politically ruinous to your appeal to risk-averse suburban housewives (and other similar swing voters) who want covid to go away or at least be mitigated and perceive anti vaxxers and people endorsing quackery to be an impediment. One inspiring the sort of revulsion that swings voters away from entire coalitions.
Consider reporting your contribution to the Democrats to the FEC, it's value might be high enough to require it.
Leftists don't need political cover for that since they are already doing it. And leftists aren't imposing anything on doctors that most doctors want because most doctors are leftists.
The principle you advocate is that patients have no say or control over their own treatment, because taken to its logical conclusion, the options for you will be to either submit to the government approved and mandated treatment or go home and die (if you are lucky, many hospitals may not let you leave).
Doctors have a government granted monopoly and are already heavily regulated in what they can and must do. Those regulations are not "enslavement", they are a condition of their license. We can add to those conditions that they are required to comply with patient wishes under most conditions, even if in their judgment the treatment isn't optimal.
The proper function of that "medical training" is to advise patients, not to override their wishes.
You must be joking: you are spewing the Democrat party line. YOU want to force patients to submit to the will of the medical establishment. YOU want to take away patient choice. YOU are defending medical fascism and a creepy, corrupt healthcare monopoly that has no equal anywhere else in the world.
"The principle you advocate is that patients have no say or control over their own treatment, because taken to its logical conclusion, the options for you will be to either submit to the government approved and mandated treatment or go home and die (if you are lucky, many hospitals may not let you leave)."
This is not a logical conclusion, this is a complete monopoly edge case, where the patient has no ability to go to a different doctor: hospitalized, near death, AND nobody in the hospital is willing to give them Treatment X. Mind you, this is a hypothetical you're raising in the context of an over the counter (animal) dewormer that even you appear to acknowledge is ineffective against covid. In the average case, a patient who wants to take Drug Y just has to find a doctor who will prescribe it.
You're pissed about the medical monopoly, and your proposal is to strengthen it, by wielding state power to obliterate doctor discretion, so (suddenly) enough people agree with you and destroy, what, the AMA? You realize it's 50-state medical licensing, not federal, right?
Your plan is shit. A balloon, and something bad happens. This is precisely the kind of apocalyptic retarded Trumpkin shit that we have already pissed too much time away on.
"You must be joking: you are spewing the Democrat party line."
You appear to lack all self-awareness. And you're defining the Democrats as "opposing that thing I said". News flash Trumpkin: you're closer to the Democrats in policy terms than the Republicans you hate ever were.
"YOU want to force patients to submit to the will of the medical establishment."
Your argument is literally: force doctors to administer whatever the state says. You just assume you'll be the state in this idiotic plan, so you can make it "whatever the patient wants." You are endorsing the expansion of state power to counter private power you don't like. It's just like your plan to use the state to destroy Facebook. And your plan to use the state to destroy job exporters. And, ultimately, to use the state to engineer society, just like the left.
"YOU want to take away patient choice"
Akin to taking away the choice to commandeer a doctor to perform an abortion, sure. You're in positive rights la la land, right there with the left - demanding other people perform and provide your "choice." You very well can't have a right to ivermectin if you can't afford it, or if you don't have the necessities of life to access it, right comrade?
"YOU are defending medical fascism and a creepy, corrupt healthcare monopoly that has no equal anywhere else in the world."
I'm acknowledging that your plan doesn't kill it, doesn't hamper it, and in fact strengthens it.
I mean, other than the whole I-have-a-right-to-a-sex-change-chop-off-my-junk-Dr.-Slave - if you're calling my opposition to that fascism you're too far gone for me to bother anymore.
Gonna answer that sex change hypothetical, yet?
I didn't say that any specific doctor at the hospital needed to administer the drug. But obviously, no doctor was willing to do so, which is why we are having this discussion.
And this is not a rare edge case, this is common. In fact, even worse than refusing to give a drug is the common case of doctors pressuring patients into unnecessary and costly procedures by refusing to provide more conservative and less expensive treatments.
Not at all. We are talking about drugs here, not surgical procedures.
No, I'm not saying that people have a positive right to obtain medical treatments from doctors or hospitals.
We live in a nation where the government has gravely violated the negative rights, specifically the right to freely transact in medications and medical services. As long as those violation of basic liberties are in effect, at the very least government needs to regulate the monopoly it has created so that people can get the services a free market would provide them with.
I seriously considered putting this up front, but I figured you wouldn't be petty and shortsighted enough to take refuge in "We are talking about drugs here, not surgical procedures." Now I recall your position and general political disposition and realize my mistake.
So, do hormone blockers. Mom and her life partner insist little "Heather" is really a girl, she just needs those pesky natural male hormones blocked in preparation for her male genitalia to be cut off. And even if "she" doesn't ultimately get the surgery, "Heather" will not likely be able to father children ever if she takes those drugs. So, provide the drugs, doctor.
You are endorsing a positive right. The negative right would be the state can't stop someone from buying a drug. The positive right is the doctor must provide it. You just think (rather: claim you think) it's a worthy measure to endorse it because of how awful the status quo is. It's "flight 93 election" thinking for health policy.
Maybe you should stop with the catastrophic thinking, in more ways than one.
What I propose is to make almost all of the prescription drugs, tests, and medical devices sold in the US over the counter. Ivermectin, birth control, the morning after pill, Viagra, insulin, syringes, etc. should be available to anybody who wants them in a free market, paid out of pocket, imported or domestically manufactured. That's the libertarian thing to do, and it is incidentally also the way it works in many other countries.
We're not getting to your fantasy. What we are getting is affirmative legal obligations placed on doctors to provide certain procedures regardless of medical necessity or the doctors' wishes. That's slavery. The two parties inflicting these requirements are
1) Democrats
2) You
Defend the position you are taking *here*: forcing doctors to administer whatever the patient says, I don't need to hear about the rest of your plan, which is plainly along the lines of:
1) enslave doctors
2) ...
3) libertopia
Every business operates under such "affirmative legal obligations". Restaurants can't deny an obese or black customer some dishes on the menu because they think those dishes are bad for them.
There is no "rest of my plan", there is a simple choice:
EITHER (1) deregulate the medical profession and drug market so that doctors aren't gatekeepers and monopolists,
OR (2) force doctors to operate in a non-discriminatory way and comply with patient wishes
Personally, I prefer (1), but until that is realized, I'll settle for (2).
You'll get neither. But what you say matters while Republicans are trying to protect doctor's conscience rights despite your contradiction.
All your advocacy does is help the left.
“ (i.e. doses much higher than those used for therapy)”
Wait, what?
“ But any of the other allegations are certainly a reason for police and the legal system to get involved and question doctors and the hospital. Note that I said “allegations”: even if it turns out that the allegations were false, police still needed to be involved.”
Well go ahead. Bring the police to the ED or ICU. Rounds start at 7:00 am. You have no rights there.
You have no medical credentials. You have no reason to be there. You do not know what the medicos are dealing with.
Here you go.
Police departments and courts seem to be able to hold medical professionals legally accountable without endangering patients.
Indeed, I'm a scientist. In contrast, most medical doctors have no scientific credentials.
And why would I care? Doctors are licensed professionals who get paid handsomely to do a job. If they don't like the pay, the working conditions, or the licensing conditions, they can find a different job.
You have no medical credentials either, janitor. Just because you borrow a doctor's ID to open the door doesn't qualify you beyond mop duty.
They can choose for themselves. They can't choose for anyone else.
No, patients can't choose for themselves; government regulations--the result of lobbying by medical lobbyists--prevent it. And that is really at the core of the problems with the US medical system: the greed of doctors, hospitals, pharma companies, and insurance companies.
Fuck you again, unReason.
https://ncats.nih.gov/news/releases/2021/large-clinical-trial-to-study-repurposed-drugs-to-treat-covid-19-symptoms
Yes, one of the most studied drugs on the planet is dangerous and unsafe. No practical uses for Covid, despite worldwide acceptance, despite demonstrated effects against it and other viruses, despite decades of safety and harm data...
...better wait for Merck's new on-label to save us. OBL is right again - Reason loves big money.
And for White Mike: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/
Yes, Ivermectin isn't at alllllll relevant to Covid. Better get the experimental poke again!
Wouldn't it be nice if "journalists" writing columns like this would bother to check their facts rather than simply posting their opinions? Instead of simply stating that Ivermectin "is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus," a good journalist would have fleshed out the story with facts that are readily available with a minimum of research.
For instance, Ivermectin has been in use by hundreds of millions of humans since the late 1980's. It has been determined to be "safe and effective" for treatment of various diseases in humans by the WHO. Earlier this year the NIH revised its assessment of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid to "neither for nor against." The NIH study database (PubMed.gov) cites studies that conclude "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin. Using Ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease."
The fact that Ivermectin has been used safely by humans for decades is irrefutable. Whether it is effective for the treatment of Covid is an ongoing question. Certainly, there is ample anecdotal evidence suggesting that Ivermectin reduces hospitalizations and deaths. I'm not promoting the use of Ivermectin, I'm just against sloppy journalism designed to promote an agenda rather than inform readers.
The propoganda defies reason. There should be no argument here - everyone wants Covid mitigated/over with ASAP. But the rabid opposition to anything but the vaccines is insane.
Because the vaccine is... the vaccine. Get the vaccine and shut your mouths. You deserve a forceful government hand if this is how you choose to behave. It's a deadly communicable disease for Christ's sake.
So you won't take the scientifically proven vaccine because you have anecdotes about another drug.
You're right. Burn down the public schools where you live. They are absolutely useless.
A really good journalist would have laid out the very clear evidence that this is a deranged money-making grift taking advantage of gullible Trump supporters. And that's what it is. Bret Weinstein is a con man. How can you not know that?
Omitting 'allegedly' from directly before 'harass' is excessive. And if there was harassment, it appears to have been carried out by the hospital staff, assuming the patient is being truthful. This local piece would be better written by a local journalist, not someone from from another state with clear biases and an axe to grind.
If they're so dead set, tell the patient they're getting discharged and let the AG administer it himself.
My god, this virus has exposed the pure stupidity and authoritarianism of folks, that is for sure.
Absolutely has. Progs are repulsive.
Doctors take an oath to do no harm, Keeping life saving medicine from patients violates that oath, and the law. Doesn't seem like harassment to me. Think how many people in the US died because Trump endorsed life saving Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin so Trump hate kept the medical community from using these drugs proven effective in every other country on Earth. Disgusting.
It isn't life-saving medicine. It is maybe-possibly-better-than-nothing-at-all medicine that would require a massive therapeutic dose to have the possibility of matching the in-vitro study from India.
Hydroxychloriquine was even worse than ivermectin, since it has been shown to have had zero impact on Covid.
The dosages from the in-vitro study from India aren't relevant, since Ivermectin likely acts in vivo by changing inflammatory and immune responses, not inhibiting viral replication.
Completely wrong. At least google Ivermectin before you pontificate about it.
There are many things wrong with your answer that indicate you don't understand how Ivermectin's anti-viral properties work. Please don't have children or vote.
You don't need any other treatments if you get the vaccine, so you don't really have to worry about it.
Tell that to the thousands of people who have died from COVID after being vaccinated.
Orders of magnitude more people die of Covid who aren't vaccinated. You don't know this, but you're making a pro-vaccine argument. Breakthrough deaths occasionally happen in old people with cancer, sure, but they certainly wouldn't have been better off without the vaccine.
Did you know that vaccinated people have a lower risk of death from all causes?
You have to concoct some pretty stupendous mental gymnastics to counter the very simple equation that there is a virus, a vaccine for that virus, and thus you should take the vaccine.
Your statement that "you don’t need any other treatments if you get the vaccine" is false.
Your statement that "Orders of magnitude more people die of Covid who aren’t vaccinated" is also false.
Yes, and that alone calls into question the statistics on the efficacy of the vaccine. I leave it to you to work out why.
I am vaccinated. That doesn't stop me from calling you out for the scientific nonsense you spread. You don't know what you are talking about, Tony. You are spreading dangerous misinformation.
Perhaps if you make a substantive point I can respond to it.
Don't get me wrong, it's rather amusing watching people fall for obvious snake-oil scams and then get on the internet (or their podcast) and brag about it.
Standing in the public square dumping a bucket of shit on your heads would probably be more public-health-conscious, though.
"Your statement that “Orders of magnitude more people die of Covid who aren’t vaccinated” is also false."
Since 95-97% of deaths are in the unvaccinated, he's absolutely right. Even if you got spotted 5-7 points (giving you only 90% of all deaths), death is still 900% (9x) more likely in the unvaccinated than the vaccinated.
Even if the 9x figure were correct, it wouldn't be "orders of magnitude"; the vaccine provides decent protection, but it does not reduce your risk by "orders of magnitude".
And, returning to the original point: Tony's claim that "you don’t need any other treatments if you get the vaccine" is false. Thousands of people in the US have required other treatments for COVID despite having had the vaccine.
I'm sorry, but you need to read the literature before you accuse others of being "completely wrong".
The fact is that the antiviral properties of Ivermectin are apparently only a subset of a large number of physiological effects. Given that viral load seems to bear little relation to severity of disease, it is likely that it is not the anti-viral properties of Ivermectin that are responsible for observed effects, but other properties. That also means that the in vitro anti-viral concentrations are irrelevant to making statements about human dosages (they are also irrelevant because of lung accumulation).
I really have no horse in this race. I don't pretend to know or care whether Ivermectin works, and since I'm vaccinated, it is unlikely to matter to me personally.
But the sad fact is that most medical doctors neither are scientists, nor are particularly smart, nor are particularly competent. Patients would do well to remember that. Americans will be healthier and will be able to reform healthcare after they acquire a healthy contempt for doctors and the rest of the healthcare industry. If you are a doctor, let me say clearly to you: you suck, both intellectually and as a human being.
Viral load bears significant impact on the disease, as most of your symptoms stem from your body overreacting to the pathogen. This goes back to the protease inhibitor function hindering reproduction and why it's used as a prophylactic.
Many people with very high viral loads have no or few symptoms. That tells you that pathogenesis is more complex than simple viral infection. As you say, "most of your symptoms stem from your body overreacting to the pathogen", i.e., there is an immune system component to severe COVID.
Hence, drugs against COVID have multiple potential targets: (1) they can reduce viral load and (2) they can modulate the immune system.
Ivermectin appears to do (1) at high doses and (2) at lower doses.
That's why Ivermectin may be effective against COVID even at doses at which it may not reduce viral load significantly.
"which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus—to an elderly COVID patient."
If you are going to die anyway, what difference doe it make? What if it is effective for even a few patients?
Reason's attitude reminds me of the days cancer terminal cancer patients in extreme pain were denied opiate pain killer to keep them from being addicted. At least we saw the stupidity of those laws and they were rescinded. A terminal patient has no worries about addiction.
An elderly dying patient should get at least a chance at a life saving medicine if they request it. I hear dying of covid is not pleasant, so if they die a few day sooner it is a blessing, if the drug helps them survive great.
^This^
Reason insisting she be unable to get a drug because it may not save her from a painful death. Just fucking evil.
I don't believe Reason was insisting that the patient should not be able to receive the treatment, merely stating the medical consensus that ivermectin is not an effective treatment.
It is my belief, that this article's focus is on the Attorney General's habit of selectively enforcing the law to adhere to his own beliefs which I'm sure we can agree, is a problem.
Though, I can understand your conclusion. I felt the same way when I first read it, but I later felt there was not enough here for that conclusion to be warranted.
Does this author think patients should be unable to receive medication for this or that reason? I don't know. Maybe? I'll have to do more research on them to be sure of their position.
Wow these brainwashed morons are inventing rights out of thin air faster than the ghost of Thomas Jefferson can write them down.
The rights we are talking about here are the same rights libertarians have always been insisting on: a legal and free market in drugs, both of the recreational and of the medical kind.
Doctors as gatekeepers for obtaining drugs are incompatible with a free market in drugs. And the extent to which drugs are restricted in the US is absurd even compared to other progressive nations.
But even this minor incursion of snake-oil salesmen is causing havoc, so your general idea seems pretty stupid. I'm open to ideas, but restricting certain drugs to behind a prescription wall seems like a fairly reasonable deference to expertise in a stable functioning society.
Demonstrate that you people can handle the freedom you demand. You're not doing a very good job at that at all.
Challenge accepted!
Would you say that countries like Germany and Sweden are "functioning societies"? At least medically, they are healthier and live longer than Americans.
So, we can make all the drugs over the counter that are over the counter in Europe. That includes Ivermectin. It also includes contraceptives, insulin, contact lenses, and lots more.
We can eliminate more than half of the doctor's visits in the US that way, greatly lower drug costs, and create a competitive market in those drugs.
The only obstacle to this is the American medical cartel and ignorant voters like you.
This is not an issue I vote on, but certainly we can agree that medicine in America is infested top to bottom with the pathologies of capitalism, exactly as you describe.
The US healthcare system is failing because it is a corrupt system so that medical providers and insurance companies can enrich themselves. That isn't capitalism, it is textbook progressivism.
In a capitalist free market system, I wouldn't have to pay a few hundred dollars to my doctor to purchase a drug that I can by for a few bucks abroad.
The countries with socialized medicine have better outcomes and live longer than Americans? Sounds like an endorsement to me.
Germany doesn't have "socialized medicine"; its healthcare system is more free market than that of the US.
Among other things, many drugs are available over the counter, without a doctor's visit, and must be paid for out of pocket.
I don't know about Germany, but Sweden is the poster child for effective socialized medicine. Low costs, great outcomes, overwhelming patient satisfaction, and great life expectancy.
A system which you were lauding a few posts up.
Remember when libertarians didn't take the side of the government sending armed goons to force private citizens to accede to the demands of an angry mob?
Anyway, I'll be off to the hospital to demand my monthly dose of all of the drugs I can get a good street price for.
Absolutely. Progs are repulsive.
I've re-written this comment like 10 times already so I'm just going to give bullet points:
- Patients should be allowed to take whatever they want to treat their illness regardless of the medical consensus on its efficacy. (You have a right to be an idiot.)
- Doctors should not be forced to administer medications (Doctors have rights too.)
- However, patients can't access medication without a doctor's prescription thereby infringing on a patients right to make their own healthcare decisions. The Gordian knot that is the current system pretty much ensures that SOMEONE's rights will be infringed upon when disagreements occur. (Problem wouldn't exist if there was no gatekeeper between patients and medication.)
- Government should keep its nose out of other people's healthcare decisions.
- That being said, government officials should adhere to the rule of law or resign in protect should they disagree. A person should not be able to use state violence to enact their own personal beliefs. If you want to act on your personal beliefs, you need to do so in a private capacity or advocate for people to adopt your beliefs through LAWFUL means.
So when my grandma drinks a gallon of arsenic to treat her joints, who do I get to sue? The shop that sold it? The manufacturer? You?
If you grandma was mentally competent and chose to forego and/or act against sound medical advice you don't get to sue anyone. She made a choice and is responsible for the consequences for that choice up to and including her own death. That's the burden of being a mentally competent adult.
I understand the libertarian argument for elimination of the prescription system. However the potential consequences are concerning.
diagnosis is the hard part. People are generally terrible at self diagnosis. So why go to the doctor when you have webMD or watched an episode of House?
I know everyone here is smart and everything but a lot of people are not.
So getting the right dose of the right medication. Checking for contraindications and potential interactions. Knowing what to look for, say liver or kidney function for a certain drug, all of that is going on.
What people are missing is the role of pharm companies and pharmacists. They have an interest as well. Sure there is financial reasons. There is also liability concern. Everybody in that line has an interest in generation a reputation that people will trust. Even though errors do occur there is a whole line of checks that occur before you pick up your pills at the CVS drive through.
In principle I get it but you are going to end up with a lot of sick or dead people if you trash the whole system,
How is that any different from saving for retirement, maintaining your house, or maintaining your car?
Yes, indeed, that's what you're not understanding. See, in other countries, when drugs are available over the counter, they are available from pharmacists. Those pharmacists talk to patients, give advice, and warn about risks and side effects. The existence of pharmacists is another reason why your "concerns" are so irrational.
We know how systems that make a lot more drugs available over the counter work in practice because we have an international comparison. There aren't "a lot of sick or dead people"; to the contrary, many countries like that have lower medical expenses and better health outcomes.
And the above is merely a progressive cost/benefit analysis. From a liberal point of view, (1) people have a right to make decisions about their own medical care, (2) people can get prescription drugs without prescription anyway if they are willing to break the law, and (3) people seem to be fine maintaining their homes, cars, pets, etc., so it is absurd to suggest that they can't do so with their own body.
"I know everyone here is smart and everything but a lot of people are not."
This is the snobbish paternalism people always use to justify taking people's rights away.
Peasants couldn't possibly understand all the intricacies of the matter; therefore, the best option is to just remove them from the equation.
I find that people suddenly become a lot more competent when it's their own ass on the line.
Also, I don't remember suggesting that people should no longer be able to consult doctors regarding their medications. All I want to do is remove the requirement.
Look at it this way:
When my plumbing breaks, I can choose to fix it myself if I'm sure I know what I'm doing OR I can talk to a professional about it. There is no requirement saying I MUST consult a professional and yet I sometimes still do when the job exceeds my skills.
I am able to choose the best option for me using a variety of factors. Why should it be any different for medicine?
As a general rule I find the contributors to Reason to be sane and well informed...accept when it comes to two topics. The first is AGW and the second is Ivermectin.
The author wrote: " the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin—which, as Reason has reported, is not a safe or effective treatment for the virus." Ivermectin IS a safe drug, regardless of what it is prescribed for. Humans have consumed more than 5,000,000,000 doses of the medicine and as for whether or not it is effective in treating Covid, the results are mixed. In Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with a population of over 230 million, Covid deaths dropped to ZERO after the state distributed kits containing Ivermectin. At the very least there is NO possible harm to the patient if they take human doses of the medicine.
The only group that stands to lose if Ivermectin is proven to be effective is Big Pharm, who stand to make almost $125B next year on the vaxx.
I haven't seen Reason articles denying AGW (they may exist, but I haven't seen them). They usually just point out that politicians plans are unlikely to have any significant result on global warming while having devastating consequences for the economy.
As for the ivermectin thing, you may want to read this:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-suggests-a-causal-link-between-ivermectin-recommendation-and-the-decline-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh/
But like I said before, patients should be able to try whatever medication they want even if it goes against medical advice.
Correcting medical errors in the article:
Ivermectin is a safe human drug used for many years by billions of people. It is not experimental. But it may not be effective in treating Covid.
As for whether a patient can demand this treatment for Covid, that's a more difficult question. Unless there's some safety issue such as a drug interaction, it's probably most ethical to comply with patient wishes in this respect. It might help them - studies are still not complete - and shouldn't hurt them. And it's their life after all.
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it's a detailed and analitical way of saying it's bad science.
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it's a detailed and analitical way of saying it's bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it’s a detailed and analytical way of saying it’s bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it’s a detailed and analytical way of saying it’s bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it’s a detailed and analytical way of saying it’s bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it’s a detailed and analytical way of saying it’s bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
Here is a detailed explanation of the methodolgical and statistical errors and misrepresentations of the ivmmeta site. Basically it’s a detailed and analytical way of saying it’s bad science.
https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/an-anti-parasitic-drug-in-a-new-context?_csrf_attempted=yes
So you want "properly credentialed" data?
Somebody really should knock the wheels off of your goalposts.
We are way too busy deworming patients and being harassed by Attorneys-General. Go away!
THAT is a point that remains unaddressed. If the guy wanted lime jello in the belief it would help Covid or cure cancer, why would they not give it to him.
Make no mistake, the issue here is unwarranted bullheadedness from the hospital staff. Perhaps to gain the approval of noted virologist Don Lemon.
Also, Reason doesn't really need journalist-ish propagandists like this Levenson person.
Is your narrative securely in place?
Before declaring victory, be sure:
1) You have asserted the truth of your narrative, to your own satisfaction, in terms that are convincing. To you.
2) Any counter-arguments and the people making them have been ridiculed and insulted.
3) Any contrary data has been dismissed and the sources of the data discredited (once again, to YOUR satisfaction).
4) You have a plan in place to shift emphasis and change assertions, and the wheels on the goalposts are well-greased.
Only THEN can you add another "I Won an Internet Argument" ribbon to your trophy room.
it’s not that the icus are full, it’s that bidens Vax mandates on health workers combined with handouts have crippled the labor force.
No. It is that the ICU's are full. From Montana's health dept site:
ICU capacity this same time last year - 215 total - 43 covid; 71 non-covid; 101 empty
ICU capacity now - 231 total - 116 covid; 79 non-covid; 36 empty
The total has risen --- by more than the non-covid beds as well if that can be deemed 'normal growth'. There is no staffing problem absent covid.
The same is true in most states. And you partisan hack assholes know it. Which once again proves that you all just lie. Perpetually and forever. Fucking waste of time and space. You are now muted.
That's not even the conclusion of the article.
"Based on my review, I think ivermectin is a promising therapeutic for COVID-19, but the current data on its use is not convincing enough to outweigh its risks. There is a signal of benefit, yes, and in the near future there may be a well-done study that shows benefit in some patients. (Actually, there are several ongoing trials studying exactly this.) However, the data supporting ivermectin’s use published on ivmmeta.com is not robust enough to inform a practice change or suggest the drug should be prescribed for COVID-19 patients."
That's a gross misrepresentation of what the author claims. Not that their claims are very good to begin with. One of the points is whinging about replicability. (Meanwhile vaccine trials have how many successful replications?), that's great, but does not actually impugn the data. He raises some good points, but all of the rest are speculation and interpretation. "May have", "possibly", "likely".
There's this: "The ivmmeta authors do exclude observational studies in favor of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but only in some of their analyses. And yet, the authors conflate the two in many of their graphs, which is fairly misleading."
And this: "It is impossible to include the negative or nonsignificant results if they were never published. Researchers often account for this fact by including a “funnel plot” in their findings. Ivmmeta does not include a funnel plot and, as a result, it’s impossible to assess for publication bias in the data."
And this: "Another problem with many meta-analyses is heterogeneity; included studies should measure similar interventions, populations, and outcomes. Any meta-analysis of ivermectin data would have a heterogeneity flaw because the ivermectin studies have very different populations, doses, co-administered medications, and outcomes. The doses of ivermectin range from 6 milligrams once, to 12 milligrams every 12 hours for three doses, to 24 milligrams every 48 hours for two doses. Some doses were given with doxycycline, some with other therapeutic regimens, and some doses of ivermectin were given alone. The outcomes range from viral clearance, to symptoms, to mortality. In this context, any meta-analysis of ivermectin is unproductive, given the high amount of heterogeneity."
And this: "Further, the preferred way to analyze studies is to group similar studies and then analyze them. The authors of ivmmeta.com do attempt to look at mortality outcomes separately, but they group observational studies, unblinded RCTs, and double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in the same analysis. Additionally, the dosing and control groups in the included studies were highly variable — again, a meta-analysis on such highly variable heterogenous data is not scientifically sound."
And this: "Also, the ivmmeta authors chose to analyze only one outcome per study. They chose the most clinically relevant outcome from each study, and did so consistently. However, they also ignored many (often nonsignificant) results. They also ignored studies that reported no events in either group (which would technically be a study showing no effect for ivermectin)."
And this: "It is therefore impossible in many cases to verify the ivmmeta authors’ interpretation of the data without the original data for reference. Replicability is a fundamental part of the scientific method, and it’s missing."
And this: "Many of the referenced studies, though, did not comment on adverse events or stated that investigators collected data but did not report it in the preprints. It is impossible to evaluate potential benefits without weighing them against the risks."
And this: "Based on my funnel plot analysis, there is likely publication bias in the ivmmeta data, meaning there are unpublished studies showing no benefit. Based on my review, I think ivermectin is a promising therapeutic for COVID-19, but the current data on its use is not convincing enough to outweigh its risks. There is a signal of benefit, yes, and in the near future there may be a well-done study that shows benefit in some patients. (Actually, there are several ongoing trials studying exactly this.) However, the data supporting ivermectin’s use published on ivmmeta.com is not robust enough to inform a practice change or suggest the drug should be prescribed for COVID-19 patients. There is certainly not enough convincing evidence to argue that a well-done RCT is unethical. In fact, the data strongly suggests that an RCT should be done. I encourage physicians and patients to participate in a randomized trial, so that we can better understand ivermectin’s real potential."
So, no. It wasn't a gross oversimplification of what the author claims. He pointed out that:
-The analysis mixed observational studies (the garbage pail of studies) to RCT trials in their graphs, making them unreliable.
-The lack of a funnel plot makes it impossible to control for publication bias.
-Heterogeneity (of dose size, schedule, and outcomes) makes a meta-analysis of ivermectin "unproductive" (science-talk for useless).
-They ignored studies that found no result. So if it didn't show an effect, it was ignored.
-Many of the studies are not available, making an examination of the authors' interpretation impossible.
-Many of the studies didn't list adverse effects, making a cost/benefit analysis impossible.
-The data on the site is not robust (aka it isn't good sxience).
Basically, the entire article lays out the flaws in the site's analysis and methodology in detail.
I'll repost from above. The most damning point, by far, is that they ignored studies that showed no effect. So if it didn't help, they didn't include it in their analysis.
There’s this: “The ivmmeta authors do exclude observational studies in favor of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but only in some of their analyses. And yet, the authors conflate the two in many of their graphs, which is fairly misleading.”
And this: “It is impossible to include the negative or nonsignificant results if they were never published. Researchers often account for this fact by including a “funnel plot” in their findings. Ivmmeta does not include a funnel plot and, as a result, it’s impossible to assess for publication bias in the data.”
And this: “Another problem with many meta-analyses is heterogeneity; included studies should measure similar interventions, populations, and outcomes. Any meta-analysis of ivermectin data would have a heterogeneity flaw because the ivermectin studies have very different populations, doses, co-administered medications, and outcomes. The doses of ivermectin range from 6 milligrams once, to 12 milligrams every 12 hours for three doses, to 24 milligrams every 48 hours for two doses. Some doses were given with doxycycline, some with other therapeutic regimens, and some doses of ivermectin were given alone. The outcomes range from viral clearance, to symptoms, to mortality. In this context, any meta-analysis of ivermectin is unproductive, given the high amount of heterogeneity.”
And this: “Further, the preferred way to analyze studies is to group similar studies and then analyze them. The authors of ivmmeta.com do attempt to look at mortality outcomes separately, but they group observational studies, unblinded RCTs, and double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in the same analysis. Additionally, the dosing and control groups in the included studies were highly variable — again, a meta-analysis on such highly variable heterogenous data is not scientifically sound.”
And this: “Also, the ivmmeta authors chose to analyze only one outcome per study. They chose the most clinically relevant outcome from each study, and did so consistently. However, they also ignored many (often nonsignificant) results. They also ignored studies that reported no events in either group (which would technically be a study showing no effect for ivermectin).”
And this: “It is therefore impossible in many cases to verify the ivmmeta authors’ interpretation of the data without the original data for reference. Replicability is a fundamental part of the scientific method, and it’s missing.”
And this: “Many of the referenced studies, though, did not comment on adverse events or stated that investigators collected data but did not report it in the preprints. It is impossible to evaluate potential benefits without weighing them against the risks.”
And this: “Based on my funnel plot analysis, there is likely publication bias in the ivmmeta data, meaning there are unpublished studies showing no benefit. Based on my review, I think ivermectin is a promising therapeutic for COVID-19, but the current data on its use is not convincing enough to outweigh its risks. There is a signal of benefit, yes, and in the near future there may be a well-done study that shows benefit in some patients. (Actually, there are several ongoing trials studying exactly this.) However, the data supporting ivermectin’s use published on ivmmeta.com is not robust enough to inform a practice change or suggest the drug should be prescribed for COVID-19 patients. There is certainly not enough convincing evidence to argue that a well-done RCT is unethical. In fact, the data strongly suggests that an RCT should be done. I encourage physicians and patients to participate in a randomized trial, so that we can better understand ivermectin’s real potential.”
So, no. It wasn’t a gross oversimplification of what the author claims. He pointed out that:
-The analysis mixed observational studies (the garbage pail of studies) to RCT trials in their graphs, making them unreliable.
-The lack of a funnel plot makes it impossible to control for publication bias.
-Heterogeneity (of dose size, schedule, and outcomes) makes a meta-analysis of ivermectin “unproductive” (science-talk for useless).
-They ignored studies that found no result. So if it didn’t show an effect, it was ignored.
-Many of the studies are not available, making an examination of the authors’ interpretation impossible.
-Many of the studies didn’t list adverse effects, making a cost/benefit analysis impossible.
-The data on the site is not robust (aka it isn’t good sxience).
Basically, the entire article lays out the flaws in the site’s analysis and methodology in detail.
Because no reasonable medical professional looks at one case and says, "We should do this for everyone.". Because, absent larger studies and an understanding of the details of the case, that's pretty much the definition of malpractice
A lot of places likely have a formulary restriction and limit Ivermectin only to FDA approved uses.
Such as this one
https://news.unchealthcare.org/2021/09/formulary-restriction-ivermectin-for-covid-19/
Again, you fucking retard:
“Meanwhile, St. Peter’s is facing provider burnout and a staffing shortage, with 200 positions currently unfilled. The system has asked the Montana National Guard for help, a request they are unsure will be granted.”
I wonder why ICU nurses are burning out. Maybe because they keep having to watch people die of a disease that is almost exclusively fatal to the unvaccinated?
Knowing that they brought it on themselves doesn't make it any easier to watch someone die.
I wonder why ICU nurses are burning out. Maybe because they keep having to watch people die of a disease that is almost exclusively fatal to the unvaccinated?
Knowing that they brought it on themselves doesn’t make it any easier to watch someone die.
You copy-pasta'ed this above, retard.
Do you not recall that hospital staff were getting laid off last year, and that they're currently being fired for not getting the Magic Coof Juice?