Chris Heimerdinger responds to critics

[Philo Sofee]

So he went to the hospital, didn't get the medicine he wanted, but did get the treatment that saved his worthless life, and now he has been advised to sue the hospital, and he is actually thinking of doing so?
Gawd damn how stupid can a human get? How clueless have Mormons been made into? Well, I mean we see Midgley and Peterson, Kiwi57, and Nelson, so my rhetoric runs amok here...

[Alphus and Omegus]

In the case of HCQ, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and other approved FDA drugs, a doctor or hospital could be held liable for not trying these drugs if in the case where nothing else is working. However, in the case where there are alternatives, my guess at this point, without researching further, that a hospital could refuse certain treatments under its roof. However, why would it refuse an off label treatment if the proposed treatment is proven to not harm at the prescribed dosage?

As you note above in your first sentence, a number of various covid treatments have already been demonstrated to be effective, so there is no liability exposure in refusing various lunatic treatment ideas.

On the opposite side, if you as a doctor do not believe a treatment to be effective, you actually expose yourself to malpractice suits if you administer it, especially if it is not part of standard of care procedures. Even if you do believe in the treatment, however, doctors prescribing non-standard medicines and procedures expose themselves to liability.

All of the various drugs favored by yokels (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc.) can have very real side-effects. Doctors who cater to suckers risk losing their medical license and put themselves at risk of malpractice legal judgements.

[Moksha]

If his doctor prescribed horse deworming as a therapeutic, there is nothing the hospital could have done to stop it.

Excellent point. It would have been fitting to load him up on horse suppositories. Medications given for political/religious reasons could have him prancing and feeling his oats. Put tennis shoes on his hooves.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's kind of like me getting a headache, and taking a Tylenol, a Benadryl, a Prozac and a Tums, and deciding it must have been the Tums that got rid of the headache (gastric headaches are a thing, after all).

I’d like Dr. Exiled to follow up on Dr. Steuss’ post. Personally, I’d love it if Ivermectin were an effective treatment. I don’t care what the product is as long as it’s efficacious and doesn’t cause significant side effects.



- Doc

[Bought Yahoo]

In the case of HCQ, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and other approved FDA drugs, a doctor or hospital could be held liable for not trying these drugs if in the case where nothing else is working. However, in the case where there are alternatives, my guess at this point, without researching further, that a hospital could refuse certain treatments under its roof. However, why would it refuse an off label treatment if the proposed treatment is proven to not harm at the prescribed dosage?

As you note above in your first sentence, a number of various covid treatments have already been demonstrated to be effective, so there is no liability exposure in refusing various lunatic treatment ideas.

On the opposite side, if you as a doctor do not believe a treatment to be effective, you actually expose yourself to malpractice suits if you administer it, especially if it is not part of standard of care procedures. Even if you do believe in the treatment, however, doctors prescribing non-standard medicines and procedures expose themselves to liability.

All of the various drugs favored by yokels (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, etc.) can have very real side-effects. Doctors who cater to suckers risk losing their medical license and put themselves at risk of malpractice legal judgements.

A hospital would not be liable if the treating physician prescribed these drugs. Hospitals do not prescribe drugs. Only doctors and their staff do.

[Dr Moore]

I appreciate Chris for letting me know in sentence 1 (“China Virus”) whether he’s worth reading or not. Saved me the trouble and time wasted listening to another true idiot.

[Dr Exiled]

My point is this. Why not pursue ivermectin's usage for those who consent after adequately being informed? Here is a published meta analysis of ivermectin studies across the world: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

The scientists involved concluded that:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Those opposed to it merely claim that it hasn't been proven to be effective and so let's not pursue it except in clinical trials. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... t-covid-19. However, the AMA also doesn't prohibit ivermectin use after careful consideration and informed consent. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-car ... y-pandemic

Here is a letter to the AMA from a large physicians group where they ask the AMA some good questions: https://aapsonline.org/aaps-letter-to-a ... and-covid/

Let's pursue it instead of prohibiting it, under the guidance of physicians. Let's not put physicians' licenses at risk or hospital privileges at risk because they wish to try something on willing patients. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/te ... d-rcna5588

As to Dr. Steuss' point,

It's kind of like me getting a headache, and taking a Tylenol, a Benadryl, a Prozac and a Tums, and deciding it must have been the Tums that got rid of the headache (gastric headaches are a thing, after all).

Maybe ivermectin is like tums in the above example or maybe it is like tylenol. Let's see. Let physicians prescribe it after careful consideration and keep politics out of it. Let's not let the idiot that is the subject of this thread poison the well with his idiocy.

[master_dc]

That published meta analysis, if I remember correctly, does not hold up to scrutiny due to issues with some of the data used. Here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y is a response with concerns about that study, and others. I think enough time has now passed that if ivermectin was a legit response to covid, it would be apparent. There are numerous studies that are being conducted, but still no major push from these groups to promote the use of the drug. The new Pfizer drug will hopefully placate this ivermectin push,

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

Ivermectin is not authorized or approved by FDA for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.govexternal icon has listings of ongoing clinical trials that might provide more information about these hypothesized uses in the future.

Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse and overdose are increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and more people experiencing adverse effects.

So, I went to clinicaltrials.gov and can’t find anything definitive with regard to Ivermectin being beneficial. I mean, if we’re seriously saying using a placebo is beneficial to patients then that’s a slippery slope I don’t want our hospitals going down.

That said. If Ivermectin ends up showing correlated beneficial results through clinical trials then awesome. I’m all for it. But I don’t think people should be dosing anti-parasitic drugs for a virus infection if there’s no way for the drug to help the body fight it. It seems to me you could be layering a problem for the body to solve on top of an existing problem.

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

I was admittedly pretty (and by pretty, I mean mostly) ignorant of what clinical trials (verses ROS) had been conducted for Ivermecin. Most of my knee-jerk reaction was based on the myriad of other similar ROS’s for other compounds that have shown the same promise, but have failed to show any evidence for efficacy once randomized double-blind placebo trials (here on out DBP for brevity) started being conducted.

Some quick summaries of the first few studies that pulled up on a search through NIH.

First one isn’t a DBP. But I found it really interesting, so wanted to share, because it looks at the question of not whether Ivermecin works against COVD, but instead whether concentrations can be achieved in the target tissues for it to work. It was computer modeling based on just pharmacology. It found that the approved dose of Ivermecin couldn’t reach the needed plasma concentrations in the lungs to have any therapeutic benefit.
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d ... 2/cpt.1889

This study found no significant difference for symptom resolution in patients who received a 5-day course Ivermecin vs. those who received a placebo. This was a study only focused on “mild” cases.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2777389

Unlike the above, this DBP included patients that had to be hospitalized. The Ivermecin group had a slightly lower hospitalization rate. There was no statistical difference between the two groups when it came to time to hospitalization. The time until invasive mechanical ventilation (MVS) had to be initiated was pretty significant between the two groups. Average time to have to be placed on MVS for the Ivermecin group was 5.25 days. The placebo group was 10 days. Essentially, taking this study alone, you might be slightly less likely to end up in the hospital if you take Ivermecin, but you’re twice as likely to have to be placed on MVS. For those who aren’t familiar with being placed on MVS -- *if* you survive (and that is, unfortunately, a significant if), you’re looking at a looooong rehab.
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/ ... c7RcafX2Qc

PDF Warning for this next one. This DBP found an increase in negative PT-PCR test results for Ivermecin patients, but not enough to be of any statistical significance. When they looked at viral load, there was no difference between the Ivermecin group and the placebo group.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/ ... latest.pdf

I will try to look at more if anyone is interested, but the chances are admittedly slim as I’m hitting my laziness threshold, and the evidence is seeming pretty solid that there is no statistically significant difference, when it comes to treating COVID, between being given Ivermecin, or being given a placebo.

[ETA: One of the studies above was done in Columbia, one in India, and one in Argentina.]