Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Courts have already ordered hospitals to give Ivermectin to several patients. Is it simply at the judges discrimination? A judge just denied a case in Texas.
"Virginia law is clear, the attending physician and not the hospital has the authority to use the treatment they have deemed appropriate."
I do think states need to take control of this pandemic and quit relying on federal agencies.
If you were in the hospital with Covid, would you refuse Remdesivir or just go along with whatever?
How its working in Florida
"We have friends here in CA that went on vacation to FL. Got C0vid, and they can't say enough great things about the mAb treatment they got. Drive through, in and out, were better in a few days."
I read about the Texas judicial panel just a bit ago. The Houston based doc. who asked to administer Ivermectin has been stripped of privileges at Houston Methodist and now she can't give the guy in Fort Worth ivermectin. Her career is in tatters.......FWIIW she is an ear nose and throat doc.
No hospital in Virginia or anywhere else in the first world would agree with your quote above.
I'm lucky my daughter is an MS-2 at one of the best medical schools on Earth, my son is a PGY-4 neurosurgery resident and his wife is a third year IM resident who has treated (going into an oncology fellowship next July - she's treated untold covid patients in and out of ICU).........I'd do exactly as those three, especially the DIL, told me, no more no less.
I would file a malpractice case against a do tor that gave me ivermectin for Covid. Anyone who thinks ivermectin works is not playing with a full deck. There is not a single properly designed study that shows any efficacy whatsoever against covid with ivermectin.
I
I'm lucky my daughter is an MS-2 at one of the best medical schools on Earth, my son is a PGY-4 neurosurgery resident and his wife is a third year IM resident who has treated (going into an oncology fellowship next July - she's treated untold covid patients in and out of ICU).........I'd do exactly as those three, especially the DIL, told me, no more no less.
Per your question about Remdesivir, IIRC DIL does but I'll verify.
IMO your logic is a little off. Let's say Remdesivir didn't work. If that were the case it'd have no bearing on the fact the Ivermectin has been demonstrated not to work well enough for broad use per covid.
Per your question about Remdesivir, IIRC DIL does but I'll verify.
IMO your logic is a little off. Let's say Remdesivir didn't work. If that were the case it'd have no bearing on the fact the Ivermectin has been demonstrated not to work well enough for broad use per covid.
I posted a couple of links about Remdesivir, you should check them. Its amazing your healthy skepticism of one of the safest drugs, Ivermectin, disappears into nothingness when it comes to this other drug.
It does look like this is going to come down to state law, be nice to see all states pass something similar as a check and balance on our health agencies - link
"In the lawsuit, Dr. Marik argued that hospitalized patients have the right to choose what treatment they receive under the Virginia's Advanced Directive statute, just as long as the doctor deems it appropriate. The doctor's complaint argued that the statute does not say "as determined by the hospital," but instead says "as determined by (their) attending physician."
Whats missing in this article and others are the numbers.
It does look like this is going to come down to state law, be nice to see all states pass something similar as a check and balance on our health agencies - link
"In the lawsuit, Dr. Marik argued that hospitalized patients have the right to choose what treatment they receive under the Virginia's Advanced Directive statute, just as long as the doctor deems it appropriate. The doctor's complaint argued that the statute does not say "as determined by the hospital," but instead says "as determined by (their) attending physician."
Whats missing in this article and others are the numbers.
No, just as with marijuana laws that states pass there is federal law that Trumps state law. The federal Medicare laws state what it will pay for and what it won't pay for. If there is violations of federal law where a patient is not being given the standard of care then it will be cited for violation. If they ignore it then Medicare funding can be withheld to that hospital. I have seen it happen within the past ten years in my area. It was a for profit hospital and the quality of care was poor. They forced the sale of the hospital because not a dime went to it from Medicare and they couldn't survive without it. The federal government can put their foot down if they chose to do so.
The other aspect is that hospitals gain reputations good or bad and if others think that hospital is performing witchcraft rather than evidence based medicine then they won't go there. The reverse may also happen where people might flood that hospital for that particular treatment. Based on what I know I would not go to that hospital with that ICU being headed by that doctor.
I find it illogical and bizarre Dr Mariks actions and statements which is not in keeping with the practice of medicine nor the standard of care. It's like what is he doing?
Clinical studies are performed because one has questions about a certain treatment and one wants to get objective data. One needs to be blinded and remain objective. Instead he screws up the data to make outcomes look better. The publishers got cold feet based on the weirdness of the doctor and his doctored data.
Based on the hospitals reaction to the research I assume, I don't know it for a fact, but would assume that he did. not get permission to to do the research. All research should be approved and monitored for compliance.
A practicing physician waits until all of the studies confirming the efficacy and safety of the treatment. He weirds out again and says no I am using the treatment because I think and I alone have the sole authority based on state law to determine that. If that is what the state law says that the patient can choose any treatment he wants then get rid of medical boards then and get rid of the standard of care required by both state and federal law. A patient can choose any treatment just as long as it is the standard of care and the insurance will pay for it. Insurance will not pay unless there is an A or B evidence based recommendation. The A is the highest level of evidence presented through RCT. The B grade is less quality but still substantial. Down the list and at the bottom is expert opinion on what the treatment should be. Nobody out there is recommending Ivermectin. Not the WHO. Not the NIH. Not the IDSA specialists based on the lack of the quality of the studies which have been poor.
He and his group then start to promote and package sound bits and newsreels. The hospital I am sure is not too happy about that.
He weirds out again and says no I am using the treatment because I think and I alone have the sole authority based on state law to determine that..
I dont think he was doing this, but I agree with your statement. I would not want to be treated with just any protocol he came up with on a whim - https://ivmmeta.com
The hospital should be allowed to try and peddle their poiso.. err I mean Remdesivir for the nice kick back as part of the informed consent.
I dont think he was doing this, but I agree with your statement. I would not want to be treated with just any protocol he came up with on a whim - https://ivmmeta.com
The hospital should be allowed to try and peddle their poiso.. err I mean Remdesivir for the nice kick back as part of the informed consent.
Here's the problem. The data on Ivermectin was and is tainted. If you recall hydrozychlorochine and Ivermectin were both at one time given EUA early on in the pandemic. What that did is pretty much kill any good study from being performed. Nobody wanted to be in the placebo group.
Those are ethical debates that occur whenever we are confronted with a killer virus and we panic into doing something that might work. It happens with ebola and the use of convalescent sera treatments. If you got sick with it then you got the plasma but good luck figuring out if it worked or not. We still don't know. What we know know about COVID is that convalescent plasma has to be given early for it work.
Nobody wants to join a study and be a control group when the publicity all stated that the drug worked. All studies were open label and not blinded. Large RCT's were nonexistent. They also were not controlled by giving patients a whole list of drugs, medications, vitamins and mineral like zinc. They threw the whole book at the virus and called them Ivermectin studies. As it turned out one drug on the cocktail list were steroids. Most of the positive results were from the steroids. The designs were poorly written and performed. There was biased introduced from beginning to end.
Later studies were blinded and better controlled and performed once the hysteria wore off. They showed that the drug sucked with no great impact on mortality and so they lowered the bar and studied it with moderate disease and it still sucked and then on to mild asymptomatic cases and it still didn't hit anything out of the ball park.
In my opinion the reason why Remdesivir is looked upon differently is because 1. No studies were withdrawn like with Ivermectin especially the latest study out there from Egypt. 2. From the get go the studies for Remdesivir were more professionally done thus more believable because they were done the regular conventional way. No health care professional thinks that Remdesivir is a great drug that will hit a home run. Better than Ivermectin yes.
The people promoting Ivermectin is comprised of a few actually true believers but predominantly is comprised of an unholy alliance of anti-vaccine, political operatives, anarchists, right wing religious groups and alternative health practitioners.
How do you feel about this drug?
"PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT CANDIDATE REDUCED RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION OR DEATH BY 89% IN INTERIM ANALYSIS OF PHASE 2/3 EPIC-HR STUDY"
I read about the Texas judicial panel just a bit ago. The Houston based doc. who asked to administer Ivermectin has been stripped of privileges at Houston Methodist and now she can't give the guy in Fort Worth ivermectin. Her career is in tatters.......FWIIW she is an ear nose and throat doc.
I wish the headlines about that story weren't so misleading. She's not a Methodist employee; she's in private practice. What most stories referred to as her resignation was her giving up her very recently granted admitting privileges at Methodist downtown (as all the outlying hospitals refer to the Medical Center, LOL) that they had already temporarily suspended. What's concerning about her is not that she has reservations about vaccine mandates and/or criticism of Covid policy (I actually know many physicians with similar opinions), it's that she's a trained and boarded Otolaryngologist treating patients for a condition that should be handled by specialists in Internal Medicine- Allergy & Immunology, Pulmonology/Critical Care etc. Why is she seeing patients for anything Covid related at all? She's not trained to do so. It would be easy to dismiss her as a quack, but she's actually got excellent credentials, as you know, ENT is highly competitive and she trained at Stanford.
But still.....stay in your lane.
Last edited by Texas Ag 93; 11-20-2021 at 06:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
