Ivermectin

[GaryK]

I didn't say most doctors prescribe it. I said most who prescribe it. There are probably more doctors prescribing it than you think. The NYT reported 4 days ago that "Prescriptions for ivermectin have jumped to more than 88000 per week". Should these doctors prescribing it be trusted to know what's best for their patients?

If they are prescribing medication in ways that the manufacturer and pretty much every medical authority says are bad, I would expect them to:

1. Explain that to their patient.
2. Explain the concerns that Merck and the medical associations are raising.
3. Explain why they are choosing to go against this advice.
4. Explain what the other options are and what the real risks are.

And I do trust some doctors more than others. Maybe I'm not alone.

I think I would trust them to do just like they do for every other off-label prescription they prescribe.

[Ken]

The NYT article is paywalled but I found the above quote by googling "ivermectin prescriptions 2021". BTW, I'd encourage you to do some research on FLCCC. I'm pretty sure they are not the group you mention in your reply to Josh.

I don't object to doctors prescribing Ivermectin. A doctor who is the attending physician for a patient should have autonomy (within certain professional boundaries) do do what they think best. The doctor who's signature is on the patient's chart is the first one who is going to be sued for medical malpractice if something goes wrong. That is why the Ohio lawsuit that mandated Ivermectin against the expressed wishes and opinion of the attending doctors was misguided. The doctor who wrote the prescription was not that patient's attending physician and did not even have privileges to work at that hospital. If the patient wanted to switch doctors the correct thing to do would have been to transfer them to a doctor and hospital that was more to their liking rather than going to court to overrule the existing doctors. In this case the patient was unconscious and it was the spouse who was suing and didn't want to move her spouse to a different hospital for whatever reason. It goes both ways.

As for the FLCCC. I may be mixing them up with "America's Frontline Doctors" I don't know if there is overlap between those two groups that both have "Frontline" in their name.

[GaryK]

The NYT article is paywalled but I found the above quote by googling "ivermectin prescriptions 2021". BTW, I'd encourage you to do some research on FLCCC. I'm pretty sure they are not the group you mention in your reply to Josh.

I don't object to doctors prescribing Ivermectin. A doctor who is the attending physician for a patient should have autonomy (within certain professional boundaries) do do what they think best. The doctor who's signature is on the patient's chart is the first one who is going to be sued for medical malpractice if something goes wrong. That is why the Ohio lawsuit that mandated Ivermectin against the expressed wishes and opinion of the attending doctors was misguided. The doctor who wrote the prescription was not that patient's attending physician and did not even have privileges to work at that hospital. If the patient wanted to switch doctors the correct thing to do would have been to transfer them to a doctor and hospital that was more to their liking rather than going to court to overrule the existing doctors. In this case the patient was unconscious and it was the spouse who was suing and didn't want to move her spouse to a different hospital for whatever reason. It goes both ways.

As for the FLCCC. I may be mixing them up with "America's Frontline Doctors" I don't know if there is overlap between those two groups that both have "Frontline" in their name.

Why not check out the FLCCC? You may be surprised at what you find. Here are some links to get you started.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/t ... hysicians/
https://covid19criticalcare.com/network ... -alliance/

[GaryK]

Here is the latest FLCCC "Summary of the Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19"

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... E-BASE.pdf

[Josh]

It's different.

The manufacturer says "don't do this". So do all the major medical associations.

That's true of every other off-label use.

And it's not true that "all major medical associations" say don't do this. Japan says "do do this" (Japan is where ivermectin was discovered):

In Dr. Ozaki’s recent speech, he declared that ivermectin has demonstrated significant benefits in reducing infections and deaths where the regimen is prophylactically administered for another indication. The head of the Metropolitan Medical Association declared that while clinical trials were important, it was time to greenlight doctors to prescribe ivermectin in association with giving the patient informed consent.

And it's especially problematic if they take something that doesn't work instead of something that does. Lots of people are dying of Covid-19 or being hospitalized for it, the number of people taking ivermectin who need medical help is probably much fewer.

What is "something that does"? What's the currently recommended treatment you have in mind for someone who has an active COVID case?

Giving people advice that might land them in the hospital or kill them? Probably not a good idea.

Who's landed in the hospital or been killed from taking ivermectin?

[Josh]

The NYT article is paywalled but I found the above quote by googling "ivermectin prescriptions 2021". BTW, I'd encourage you to do some research on FLCCC. I'm pretty sure they are not the group you mention in your reply to Josh.

I don't object to doctors prescribing Ivermectin. A doctor who is the attending physician for a patient should have autonomy (within certain professional boundaries) do do what they think best. The doctor who's signature is on the patient's chart is the first one who is going to be sued for medical malpractice if something goes wrong. That is why the Ohio lawsuit that mandated Ivermectin against the expressed wishes and opinion of the attending doctors was misguided. The doctor who wrote the prescription was not that patient's attending physician and did not even have privileges to work at that hospital. If the patient wanted to switch doctors the correct thing to do would have been to transfer them to a doctor and hospital that was more to their liking rather than going to court to overrule the existing doctors. In this case the patient was unconscious and it was the spouse who was suing and didn't want to move her spouse to a different hospital for whatever reason. It goes both ways.

Interestingly, that patient recovered and is out of the hospital now.

The hospital continued to appeal the case and went to a higher court. That court issued yet another injunction, to deprive the patient of ivermectin.

Fortunately the patient recovered and got out of the hospital before they could stop treating him per his doctor's orders. I find that a bit disturbing. The higher court basically wanted him dead.

[Bootstrap]

BTW, I'd encourage you to do some research on FLCCC.

I have done a little. They presented their findings to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They did not find it convincing.

On 6 January 2021, the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and Hill presented their findings to the US National Institutes of Health, which ruled “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance.”

I think the requirement to prove drugs are safe and effective before promoting them is important. These days, sadly, people who fail to show that their drug or treatment works can set up a website and take to the media.

FWIW, this organization was founded in 2020, it is not a longstanding medical organization. I generally look for organizations that have been around a while, organizations that rely on the scientific review process and avoid going directly to the public before proving something is safe and effective.

[Josh]

On 6 January 2021, the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and Hill presented their findings to the US National Institutes of Health, which ruled “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance.”

I think the requirement to prove drugs are safe ...

But with off-label uses, the drug is already safe. That's not of concern here.

and effective before promoting them is important. These days, sadly, people who fail to show that their drug or treatment works can set up a website and take to the media.

Effectiveness is another matter. However, there isn't too much risk in using an ineffective treatment.

Putting people on ventilators is also ineffective (and indeed often kills them). I don't see how you can argue ivermectin is any better than ventilators for covid.

FWIW, this organization was founded in 2020, it is not a longstanding medical organization. I generally look for organizations that have been around a while, organizations that rely on the scientific review process and avoid going directly to the public before proving something is safe and effective.

Well, Moderna hasn't ever delivered any drugs before 2020, yet using their medicine has basically been mandated on much of the population. I would agree I prefer long-standing organisations and long-standing research - but with covid, we're expected to accept vaccines that have barely been tested for safety at all.

Why can't other therapies meet the same very low standard the vaccines do?

[RZehr]

However, there isn't too much risk in using an ineffective treatment.

Where I'd see the risks to primarily be, (beyond overdose) is if someone who would have benefitted from other more preventative effective actions, instead chooses to do nothing, because they think that if they do get sick, Ivermectin is a surefire cure. Or if someone takes an ineffective treatment in lieu of something that may have worked better.

Maybe Ivermectin is the best we have. I don't know. I'm just commenting about the general risk of taking something, anything, that proves to be actually ineffective.

[Josh]

However, there isn't too much risk in using an ineffective treatment.

Where I'd see the risks to primarily be, (beyond overdose) is if someone who would have benefitted from other more preventative effective actions, instead chooses to do nothing, because they think that if they do get sick, Ivermectin is a surefire cure. Or if someone takes an ineffective treatment in lieu of something that may have worked better.

I agree. But what other preventative effective actions are there to take once someone finds out they have a positive COVID test?

Currently, the standard treatment is "stay home and rest".