- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:04 am to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
A few are extremely risk averse and frankly scared of the potential side effects.
This would make sense in relation to the vaccine.
However, I don’t see how their objections would apply to drugs that have been around for decades with millions of doses distributed. If you had said “As it relates to malpractice litigation,” then their excuse for ignoring their Hippocratic oath may have been based in some semblance of common sense (not really because people will sue for basically anything anyway if that is their intent, but whatever).
Isn’t it ironic that the NIH just relaxed their stance on Ivermectin right before Biden was “inaugurated?” IIRC they “updated their guidelines January 14th, but didn’t make the update available to the public until the late afternoon of January 19th.
quote:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has upgraded their recommendation for ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19
quote:
“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use,” the statement said, “doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19.
quote:
“Ivermectin is one of the world’s safest, cheapest and most widely available drugs,” explained Dr. Kory, President of the FLCCC Alliance. “The studies we presented to the NIH revealed high levels of statistical significance showing large magnitude benefit in transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and death. What’s more, the totality of trials data supporting ivermectin is without precedent.”
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 9:07 am
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:07 am to the808bass
The main issue is liability. If a patient has a bad outcome from covid and you adhered to the standard of care, then it’s just an unfortunate outcome. If a patient is given ivermectin and has a bad outcome, then a physician could be liable and even be sued for malpractice even if the drug can’t definitely be proven to have caused the bad outcome. It’s just part of the screwy logic in medical tort.
Now all that being said, there’s no strong evidence ivermectin helps. The smaller studies have conflicting outcomes and the few larger studies generally showed no benefit or harm. The case in the OP is an absurd anecdote where the main issue isn’t even the use of the drug at all but a physicians withdrawal of treatment. And in that case, it’s merely an example of someone getting better from a low mortality disease while taking a medication. It’s impossible to determine the medication is what did it, especially with a sample size of 1.
Overall ivermectin is a pretty safe drug. It’s probably not going to hurt any given patient, though I have nothing to point to that constitutes good evidence it works. But our system has produced, almost by necessity, a completely risk averse healthcare industry.
Now all that being said, there’s no strong evidence ivermectin helps. The smaller studies have conflicting outcomes and the few larger studies generally showed no benefit or harm. The case in the OP is an absurd anecdote where the main issue isn’t even the use of the drug at all but a physicians withdrawal of treatment. And in that case, it’s merely an example of someone getting better from a low mortality disease while taking a medication. It’s impossible to determine the medication is what did it, especially with a sample size of 1.
Overall ivermectin is a pretty safe drug. It’s probably not going to hurt any given patient, though I have nothing to point to that constitutes good evidence it works. But our system has produced, almost by necessity, a completely risk averse healthcare industry.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 9:11 am
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:13 am to The Boat
Right to try generally comes into play with terminal patients wanting to take drugs under formal investigation but not yet approved by the FDA. It’s not a catch all “try anything” concept:
Posted on 1/30/21 at 4:11 am to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
That being said, I know several physicians--conservative republicans btw, whom I personally know to be caring ethical physicians and just good human beings in general--who won't prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Though I do not agree with them, their objections and concerns are not unreasonable, much less unethical.
A few are strict advocates of practicing "Evidence based medicine", meaning they only implement medications and treatments that are supported by research, clinical trials, etc.
A few are extremely risk averse and frankly scared of the potential side effects.
Are they scared of the side effects of the vaccines? Giving HCQ and zinc or Invermectin early would eliminate the need for a vaccine for 99.98% of the people. The vax side effects have already killed some people.
A true conservative would prescribe drugs necessary to prevent death. HCQ has been used for over 60 years every where in the world. These doctors have no common sense if they would not prescribe HCQ for a person who has COVID or malaria. African countries allow a person to buy this medicine over the counter.
If these doctors are only "evidence based DRs, and only implement medications and treatments that are supported by research, and clinical trials then they definitely will tell their patients to NOT get the vax. The vax has not been properly studied. They did not test it on animals. Years ago a company attempted to create a COVID vaccine. They tested it on ferrets. IT worked, but 2 years later every ferret caught COVID and every one of them died. Certainly these doctors know about this study, and will not recommend anyone get a vax that was not properly evaluated.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 4:33 am to jimmy the leg
He'll be cancelled shortly
Posted on 1/30/21 at 7:50 am to jimmy the leg
You can use the animal version in humans. It’s the same drug, you’d just want to use a lower dosage.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:13 am to Lima Whiskey
If it was dangerous for humans I would have been dead many many times while treating livestock. (I have a tendency to not use PPE.) I have some in the fridge right now. 1cc/100# body weight is the standard livestock and pet dosage.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:14 am to ImaObserver
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:24 am to obdobd918
quote:
Apparently, a doctor ordered the drug off-label in the intensive care unit (ICU), and as she improved, she was moved to another unit, and the doctor there stepped in and disallowed the use of the drug.
In other news, local doctor beat to death in parking lot robbery..
Posted on 1/30/21 at 11:39 am to obdobd918
quote:
If these doctors are only "evidence based DRs, and only implement medications and treatments that are supported by research, and clinical trials then they definitely will tell their patients to NOT get the vax. The vax has not been properly studied.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News