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 .
Physicians prescribe ineffective medications all the time at the request of patients or for sheer greed. Witness the use of antibiotics for viral URIs … when we’ve known about the danger of antibiotic overuse for over 50 years (I know because I learned about it in nursing school in 1970.)
Because the people who make it say it’s not for humans? Because people have died due to its toxic effects? Because there is zero evidence that it’s effective?
The question is not about nursing.
It's about being center stage.
Think about that kid who makes so much noise, the grownups can't have a meaningful conversation.
If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.
Because the people who make it say it’s not for humans? Because people have died due to its toxic effects? ...
Are you referring to ivermectin in general? Or the use of veterinary preparations? If the former, this isn't correct, although I will agree that it isn't approved as a treatment option for COVID.
1 hour ago, Hannahbanana said:
... Because there is zero evidence that it’s effective?
Agreed. Legitimate study is required to determine this, and, as I understand is currently ongoing.
ETA: And, I agree it is concerning that there are those that are using the veterinary formulation.
Specializes in Physiology, CM, consulting, nsg edu, LNC, COB.
46 minutes ago, chare said:
1 hour ago, Hannahbanana said:
...Because there is zero evidence that it’s effective?
Agreed. Legitimate study is required to determine this, and, as I understand is currently ongoing.
There have been studies already, with preliminary reports already out.
from Cochrane Review: bottom line :
Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
2.Can you clarify the point about the unavailability of the vaccine before FDA approval?
1. We is the American public. Who did you you mean by we in this post?
4 hours ago, jive turkey said:
1. I made a point earlier that we were OK using the vaccine before it's FDA approval so it's a double standard to use that as an argument against ivermectin.
2. So you believe there are doctors and patients reporting positive results and making it up? Physicians are prescribing it just because? It's not worth considering?
What you should understand is I'm not saying whether it works or not because I'm no doctor and I've never taken it. I don't see the value in being closed minded about it or anything else that may safely address this issue in addition to vaccination. Considering some sources people are using to say it isn't effective are the same one's getting funding from vaccine companies and lobby congress.
There are doctors and patients who are reporting that patients who took ivermectin did not eventually die of Covid, although 49 of 50 who have Covid and don't take ivermectin won't die regardless of ivermectin, so the fact that there those who took ivermectin and then didn't die is scientifically meaningless.
When treating Covid patients, there's a complex risk vs benefit calculation that occurs with each patient relative to their treatment options, with their renal and hepatic impairment being a primary factor. We know when the effects on renal and hepatic functioning outweigh the benefits they provide for a variety of Covid treatments, we also know where these scales tip when it come to ivermectin which is prior to any ivermectin being given since it offers no known benefits.
15 minutes ago, jive turkey said:
I want to make sure I understood you correctly. As it pertains to Ivermectin, your objection is, people are deferring on vaccination with the idea in their mind they'll just take Ivermectin if they get sick? That's the only way I can see someone choosing it over vaccination because it's not being prescribed as a prophylactic.
I'm not making the argument Ivermectin is superior to or should be used in place of a vaccine. I don't think it's wise we balk at the drug without confirming it is absolutely ineffective.
This is the legal definition of reckless endangerment, plainly stated by yourself.
We don't simply assume that every known medication is effective against any known disease or medical condition until proven otherwise, that is absurd.
No reasonable provider writes an order that says "one of every medication in the pyxis" for any condition for which each of the medications has not been sufficiently proven ineffective by your standards.
I've met plenty of patients repeating the same pseudo-science that you're offering, and I doubt any of them got those ideas directly from you, but contributing to and supporting misinformation makes you no less guilty of the eventual results.
What I don't get is how medical professionals aren't able to see logically that it's method of action during its normal usage just doesn't gel with how would it possibly work against a virus?
I mean how does nerve and muscle interruption in bugs etc correlate to killing a virus? And if it was so effective, where was its usage for Mers and Sars except in really high dosages if I remember correctly and only experimentally? By that reasoning, it's sort of kill the host along with the organism! But, I guess by some logic, you did kill the virus ?????
Also think of all the expensive antiviral drugs out there, you don't think for a second that the manufacturers or patent holders would have killed their mothers if it had shown some promise for Sars or Mers?
Comm'on, I expect the dumb public, but us? Just work it out! Even common sense trips this drug up, re working on viruses!
And for those of you pro choice for Ivermectin, just neigh ?? or tap out your approval and stop scratching for Christ's sake ???
A emergency approval is not the same as a full approval for use. Just like using other medications off label.
I never stated emergency approval was the same as full approval. But stating that the vaccines were not approved is factually incorrect.
And using a medication for an approved use is not the same as using it off-label.
Yes, I know that many medications are prescribed off-label. I am not sure how are prescribed in that manner after the manufacturer and the FDA has both advised against their use for a specific condition.
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,113 Posts
Opiods