Good grief. America's Frontline Doctors, a group of quacks who claim to know more than actual experts are pushing the use of ineffective parasite med to prevent and or treat COVID.
On a personal note, my hubby works for a farm store and has overheard customers explaining to each other how to dose animal wormer for people. This is in a community that is anti-mask, anti-vaccine, let's just all get infected. Up until, you know, they need hospitalization .
Brilliant. The orginal order should never have been made,
The studies available on the internet all say the same thing, while invermectin has shown some improvement in some covid cases the percentages arent high. Also randomised controlled studies are needed to verify whether the results can be replicated
Honestly, the effectiveness of the drug is nearly irrelevant. What matters here whether a provider not connected to the hospital care of the patient can dictate care. It would be an outstandingly bad precedent, and the judge who must have known it would be overturned, but hoped to reap the political benefit of this outlandish ruling.
I am not even sure it is ethical for a nurse to give a med ordered by a provider unqualified to make that call, who had never seen the patient.
Unfortunately, this will probably become the 18th right- right provider.
My brother-in-law ER doctor, who works in large east coast hospital, has prescribed Ivermectin to people with Covid 19 who wanted it. He said it was mostly nurses and doctors who had looked in to the research and requested it. There is some research on it. There needs to be more, but there is little financial incentive to do more research, as it is off patent. Just because it has not been "proven" effective in a study yet, doesn't mean it doesn't work. Also, in the correct dose and formulation, it has a long track record of safety.
WOW! ^^^^ I used to have an old left-over strip of ivermectin that I administered (and took myself) for facility-acquired scabies. The strip would have looooong expired but I could prob made a quick buck!
Honestly, the effectiveness of the drug is nearly irrelevant. What matters here whether a provider not connected to the hospital care of the patient can dictate care. It would be an outstandingly bad precedent, and the judge who must have known it would be overturned, but hoped to reap the political benefit of this outlandish ruling.
I am not even sure it is ethical for a nurse to give a med ordered by a provider unqualified to make that call, who had never seen the patient.
Unfortunately, this will probably become the 18th right- right provider.
The issue isn't whether the drug has value. The issue is antivaxxers treating themselves with veterinary medicine based upon dosing guidelines from social media accounts.
Your statement that you've been infected twice in 18 months or so suggests that natural immunity isn't long term. Previously infected individuals are encouraged to vaccinate.
The FDA literally creating a tweet conflating ivermectin formulated for horses with the ivermectin formulation for humans. Ivermectin has a high safety profile.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, lincoln77 said:
The FDA literally creating a tweet conflating ivermectin formulated for horses with the ivermectin formulation for humans. Ivermectin has a high safety profile.
Making excuses for self treating covid with ivermectin?
Yet most new outlets don't report this part of it. I even saw another post were a nurse states that she can't believe a Judge ordered a hospital to give it to a man on deaths door, when the FDA states it is not safe. She knows full well that they are talking about the over the counter version of the medicine, meant for horses, as I have read the full FDA warning myself. If anyone has a different statement from the FDA about the one that comes from the hospital and not the one intended for horses, please post it. I have not seen it. But this is part of the misinformation because I have found dozens of news station articles on that ruling and how it is against FDA warnings not to take the drug and they even show a picture of the medicine for horses in the article about the Judge ordering the hospital to give it, when this is not completely true. They are not giving that man the one meant for horses and the news media should not be that stupid that they don't know that.
She knows full well that they are talking about the over the counter version of the medicine, meant for horses, as I have read the full FDA warning myself. If anyone has a different statement from the FDA about the one that comes from the hospital and not the one intended for horses, please post it. I have not seen it. But this is part of the misinformation because I have found dozens of news station articles on that ruling and how it is against FDA warnings not to take the drug and they even show a picture of the medicine for horses in the article about the Judge ordering the hospital to give it, when this is not completely true. They are not giving that man the one meant for horses and the news media should not be that stupid that they don't know that.
The news organizations know, they want higher ratings.
I don't understand how a drug that is designed to treat parasites could be remotely effective against a virus. I mean the method of action is completely different
From the article: “Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent (Gonzalez Canga et al., 2008) that in recent years we, along with other groups, have shown to have anti-viral activity against a broad range of viruses (Gotz et al., 2016; Lundberg et al., 2013; Tay et al., 2013; Wagstaff et al.,”
From the article: “Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent (Gonzalez Canga et al., 2008) that in recent years we, along with other groups, have shown to have anti-viral activity against a broad range of viruses (Gotz et al., 2016; Lundberg et al., 2013; Tay et al., 2013; Wagstaff et al.,”
I thought it also had a slight pro-inflammatory action also to somehow naturally fight infections. But I think it's probably as effective as Tylenol for a migraine headache. It's that little grain of truth that less knowledgeable people latch onto.
Guest219794
2,453 Posts
Honestly, the effectiveness of the drug is nearly irrelevant. What matters here whether a provider not connected to the hospital care of the patient can dictate care. It would be an outstandingly bad precedent, and the judge who must have known it would be overturned, but hoped to reap the political benefit of this outlandish ruling.
I am not even sure it is ethical for a nurse to give a med ordered by a provider unqualified to make that call, who had never seen the patient.
Unfortunately, this will probably become the 18th right- right provider.