Ivermectin

[Josh]

Regardless of what you believe about Ivermectin, this is just bizarre.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202111 ... ing-better

What is bizarre? Something like 99% or more of people who get sick with Covid eventually get better. The relevant question is whether outcomes with Ivermectin are statistically better than other more conventional treatments. Most people actually get better regardless of what treatment they get or whether or not they even get any treatment.

99% of people in hospitals on ventilators for covid get better?

[nett]

Regardless of what you believe about Ivermectin, this is just bizarre.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202111 ... ing-better

What is bizarre? Something like 99% or more of people who get sick with Covid eventually get better. The relevant question is whether outcomes with Ivermectin are statistically better than other more conventional treatments. Most people actually get better regardless of what treatment they get or whether or not they even get any treatment.

it's bizarre that the hospital spent that much effort fighting it, and IS STILL FIGHTING IT. IVT is not a dangerous drug, it's interactions are extremely well documented.

[Robert]

it's bizarre that the hospital spent that much effort fighting it, and IS STILL FIGHTING IT. IVT is not a dangerous drug, it's interactions are extremely well documented.

I really do not understand why there is resistance to it. Even with anecdotal evidence, there is nothing proven it is replacing. Why not try it? What does it hurt to take it? It and HCQ have no short term side effects from the short regiment that is needed to fight Covid. The only reason I can see is big pharma wants their vaccine money and has paid off politicians and the media to blacklist them. This is criminal if they do help save lives.

[nett]

it's bizarre that the hospital spent that much effort fighting it, and IS STILL FIGHTING IT. IVT is not a dangerous drug, it's interactions are extremely well documented.

I really do not understand why there is resistance to it. Even with anecdotal evidence, there is nothing proven it is replacing. Why not try it? What does it hurt to take it? It and HCQ have no short term side effects from the short regiment that is needed to fight Covid. The only reason I can see is big pharma wants their vaccine money and has paid off politicians and the media to blacklist them. This is criminal if they do help save lives.

Exactly. For a hospital to tie up their own lawyer in court, incurring court fees no doubt, and then CONTINUE to fight it after the patient is in recovery is just crazy.

[Ken]

it's bizarre that the hospital spent that much effort fighting it, and IS STILL FIGHTING IT. IVT is not a dangerous drug, it's interactions are extremely well documented.

I really do not understand why there is resistance to it. Even with anecdotal evidence, there is nothing proven it is replacing. Why not try it? What does it hurt to take it? It and HCQ have no short term side effects from the short regiment that is needed to fight Covid. The only reason I can see is big pharma wants their vaccine money and has paid off politicians and the media to blacklist them. This is criminal if they do help save lives.

Exactly. For a hospital to tie up their own lawyer in court, incurring court fees no doubt, and then CONTINUE to fight it after the patient is in recovery is just crazy.

The hospital is in the right here actually. They are legally responsible for what happens within their walls, as are the doctors who work there. They can be sued for malpractice. As such they have legal discretion to determine what treatment regimens they feel are most appropriate.

If the treatment doesn’t work can the judge be held personally liable for medical malpractice if he ordered the treatment?

It is actually not so much a fight about Ivermectin at all. It is about institutional autonomy. Consider a different scenario. Could I go to court and have a court order a Catholic hospital to perform an abortion? Or even something less controversial like a tubal ligation which most of them also prohibit? If not, why not? And if the patient doesn’t like the answer what would you advise? Try a different hospital perhaps? Same thing applies here.

[nett]

I really do not understand why there is resistance to it. Even with anecdotal evidence, there is nothing proven it is replacing. Why not try it? What does it hurt to take it? It and HCQ have no short term side effects from the short regiment that is needed to fight Covid. The only reason I can see is big pharma wants their vaccine money and has paid off politicians and the media to blacklist them. This is criminal if they do help save lives.

Exactly. For a hospital to tie up their own lawyer in court, incurring court fees no doubt, and then CONTINUE to fight it after the patient is in recovery is just crazy.

The hospital is in the right here actually. They are legally responsible for what happens within their walls, as are the doctors who work there. They can be sued for malpractice. As such they have legal discretion to determine what treatment regimens they feel are most appropriate.

If the treatment doesn’t work can the judge be held personally liable for medical malpractice if he ordered the treatment?

It is actually not so much a fight about Ivermectin at all. It is about institutional autonomy. Consider a different scenario. Could I go to court and have a court order a Catholic hospital to perform an abortion? Or even something less controversial like a tubal ligation which most of them also prohibit? If not, why not? And if the patient doesn’t like the answer what would you advise? Try a different hospital perhaps? Same thing applies here.

You're very confused about provider autonomy and consent, which is odd because you're always talking about your wife who is a doctor.

Off-label use is common, and the liability falls on the provider who is prescribing. You've even conceded in that past that there is also no risk to Ivermectin when it's taken under the supervision of a medical provider.

Try harder next time, you're just confirming my bias

[Ken]

Exactly. For a hospital to tie up their own lawyer in court, incurring court fees no doubt, and then CONTINUE to fight it after the patient is in recovery is just crazy.

The hospital is in the right here actually. They are legally responsible for what happens within their walls, as are the doctors who work there. They can be sued for malpractice. As such they have legal discretion to determine what treatment regimens they feel are most appropriate.

If the treatment doesn’t work can the judge be held personally liable for medical malpractice if he ordered the treatment?

It is actually not so much a fight about Ivermectin at all. It is about institutional autonomy. Consider a different scenario. Could I go to court and have a court order a Catholic hospital to perform an abortion? Or even something less controversial like a tubal ligation which most of them also prohibit? If not, why not? And if the patient doesn’t like the answer what would you advise? Try a different hospital perhaps? Same thing applies here.

You're very confused about provider autonomy and consent, which is odd because you're always talking about your wife who is a doctor.

Off-label use is common, and the liability falls on the provider who is prescribing. You've even conceded in that past that there is also no risk to Ivermectin when it's taken under the supervision of a medical provider.

Try harder next time, you're just confirming my bias

I have admittedly not followed all of these Ivermectin cases as closely as you have. But the ones that I have read about you have patients who are admitted to a specific hospital and who are under the care of a specific doctor who has admitting privileges or actually works for the hospital in question (some doctor is always the signatory on every patient’s chart). And then you have family find outside doctors who do not have any association or admitting privileges to that particular hospital writing prescriptions for a patient who is not actually under their care. And that is what results in the clash.

If my wife was the primary physician for a particular hospital patient who disagreed with her prescribed treatment. She might consider the alternative treatment suggested and if she thinks it is a reasonable alternative she might go along and change the orders to reflect that. But if she strongly disagrees then she won’t back down and the patient will need to find a different doctor or possibly a different hospital all together. She isn’t going to put her signature on a treatment plan that she disagrees with strongly.

Likewise, hospitals themselves are free to establish their own standards of care for the facility. They may choose to ban acupuncture or homeopathy or other forms of alternative medicine. They may ban specific procedures like abortions. They may ban specific treatments they believe are unapproved. Like pot therapy for cancer. Or taking LSD for psychiatric care. None of this is unusual or remotely controversial. Someone who wants to treat their stage 3 liver cancer with pot instead of radiation or chemotherapy is free to check out of that hospital and find a facility that will accommodate them, or do it at home. Just like someone who wants to take Ivermectin against the policy of a particular hospital is free to do the same.

[nett]

The hospital is in the right here actually. They are legally responsible for what happens within their walls, as are the doctors who work there. They can be sued for malpractice. As such they have legal discretion to determine what treatment regimens they feel are most appropriate.

If the treatment doesn’t work can the judge be held personally liable for medical malpractice if he ordered the treatment?

It is actually not so much a fight about Ivermectin at all. It is about institutional autonomy. Consider a different scenario. Could I go to court and have a court order a Catholic hospital to perform an abortion? Or even something less controversial like a tubal ligation which most of them also prohibit? If not, why not? And if the patient doesn’t like the answer what would you advise? Try a different hospital perhaps? Same thing applies here.

You're very confused about provider autonomy and consent, which is odd because you're always talking about your wife who is a doctor.

Off-label use is common, and the liability falls on the provider who is prescribing. You've even conceded in that past that there is also no risk to Ivermectin when it's taken under the supervision of a medical provider.

Try harder next time, you're just confirming my bias

I have admittedly not followed all of these Ivermectin cases as closely as you have. But the ones that I have read about you have patients who are admitted to a specific hospital and who are under the care of a specific doctor who has admitting privileges or actually works for the hospital in question (some doctor is always the signatory on every patient’s chart). And then you have family find outside doctors who do not have any association or admitting privileges to that particular hospital writing prescriptions for a patient who is not actually under their care. And that is what results in the clash.

If my wife was the primary physician for a particular hospital patient who disagreed with her prescribed treatment. She might consider the alternative treatment suggested and if she thinks it is a reasonable alternative she might go along and change the orders to reflect that. But if she strongly disagrees then she won’t back down and the patient will need to find a different doctor or possibly a different hospital all together. She isn’t going to put her signature on a treatment plan that she disagrees with strongly.

Likewise, hospitals themselves are free to establish their own standards of care for the facility. They may choose to ban acupuncture or homeopathy or other forms of alternative medicine. They may ban specific procedures like abortions. They may ban specific treatments they believe are unapproved. Like pot therapy for cancer. Or taking LSD for psychiatric care. None of this is unusual or remotely controversial. Someone who wants to treat their stage 3 liver cancer with pot instead of radiation or chemotherapy is free to check out of that hospital and find a facility that will accommodate them, or do it at home. Just like someone who wants to take Ivermectin against the policy of a particular hospital is free to do the same.

It's very unusual, especially the fact they are still fighting it.

[Ken]

You're very confused about provider autonomy and consent, which is odd because you're always talking about your wife who is a doctor.

Off-label use is common, and the liability falls on the provider who is prescribing. You've even conceded in that past that there is also no risk to Ivermectin when it's taken under the supervision of a medical provider.

Try harder next time, you're just confirming my bias

I have admittedly not followed all of these Ivermectin cases as closely as you have. But the ones that I have read about you have patients who are admitted to a specific hospital and who are under the care of a specific doctor who has admitting privileges or actually works for the hospital in question (some doctor is always the signatory on every patient’s chart). And then you have family find outside doctors who do not have any association or admitting privileges to that particular hospital writing prescriptions for a patient who is not actually under their care. And that is what results in the clash.

If my wife was the primary physician for a particular hospital patient who disagreed with her prescribed treatment. She might consider the alternative treatment suggested and if she thinks it is a reasonable alternative she might go along and change the orders to reflect that. But if she strongly disagrees then she won’t back down and the patient will need to find a different doctor or possibly a different hospital all together. She isn’t going to put her signature on a treatment plan that she disagrees with strongly.

Likewise, hospitals themselves are free to establish their own standards of care for the facility. They may choose to ban acupuncture or homeopathy or other forms of alternative medicine. They may ban specific procedures like abortions. They may ban specific treatments they believe are unapproved. Like pot therapy for cancer. Or taking LSD for psychiatric care. None of this is unusual or remotely controversial. Someone who wants to treat their stage 3 liver cancer with pot instead of radiation or chemotherapy is free to check out of that hospital and find a facility that will accommodate them, or do it at home. Just like someone who wants to take Ivermectin against the policy of a particular hospital is free to do the same.

It's very unusual, especially the fact they are still fighting it.

I think you misunderstand how hospitals work.

Hospitals aren’t a hotel room where you can check in, bring in whatever of your own doctors, nurses, and medicines that you want, and do your own thing.

Every patient who is checked into a hospital is done so either under the care of an outside physician or physician group that has admitting privileges at that hospital. Or they are admitted under the care of hospitalist doctors who work directly for the hospital in question. There is a physician or team of physicians who are responsible for determining each patient’s treatment regimen.

Earlier this year I was admitted to the hospital for open heart surgery (valve replacement) and there were a team of 3 doctors who were responsible for determining my treatment regimen, the surgeon, the cardiologist, and the internist (hospitalist) and each had specific responsibilities. I was taking at least 6 different prescribed medications (or the nurses were coming around to administer them). If my wife or I had said no, I don’t want those 6 medications, I want this different other treatment regimen and I have this internet doctor from out of state who is willing to prescribe this alternative care plan. My team of doctors might have been willing to discuss and consider alternatives, and be willing to amend my treatment plan if they agreed. But if not they would rightfully not have signed off on it and the hospital nurses would rightfully would not have administered that alternative set of medications that were not on my chart or part of my care instructions. The nurses pull up my electronic chart and see the prescribed treatment plan and follow it to the letter without deviation. Or they will lose their jobs. They have a bunch of security checks to make extra super sure they give each patient the exact right medications in the exact right dosages and intervals. And they don’t involve some internet doctor with no connection to that hospital inserting in some additional or different prescription and treatment plan. And if I didn’t like it I would have been free to find a different facility to have my surgery.

[Josh]

The idea of worrying about malpractice for ivermectin is absurd.