55 Comments

FDA still stands by its views on ivermectin. Credible sources do not support using it against Covid. Anyway have we debated that divisive topic enough? It’s history now, which is the main reason the FDA decided to stop litigating.

Expand full comment

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

Findings In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial including 1206 US adults with COVID-19 during February 2022 to July 2022, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days in the ivermectin group and 11 days in the placebo group. In this largely vaccinated (84%) population, the posterior probability that ivermectin reduced symptom duration by more than 1 day was less than 0.1%.

Expand full comment

I’d like to see the legitimate scientific evidence supporting this claim.

Expand full comment

I have begun to feel there is no such thing as legitimate scientific evidence any longer…..sad.

Expand full comment

Those republicans love that sheep dip.

Expand full comment

The CDC, FDA and WHO have irrevocably destroyed their credibility, joining the AMA and the APA.

When it comes to medical treatment, it really is a caveat emptor jungle out there. I always do a social media search on prospective health care providers. You'd be surprised how many doctors and nurses spew insane vitriol in public.

And, of course there is always a chance you'll catch them showing off their dancing skills in the ER.

Expand full comment

Studies has shown that Ivermectin designed for roundworm infections in humans and for horses and has no antiviral properties. To provide facts about medications and their appropriateness for which infections or other conditions based on peer reviewed research must be allowed and is part of the function of our drug regulatory agencies. To not warn about the inappropriately of Ivermectin for any viral infection since it lacks antiviral protection is a danger to the public. I’ve observed many physicians not well versed in infectious disease nor microbiology try to play an infectious disease specialist and in other specialties. These physicians are actually a danger to the public, but the sort of ruling handed down by judges without any medical, scientific, or statistical training is taking this country further down the anti science tract undermining scientific research and knowledge. This is a grave injustice to public safety.

Expand full comment

Then how come the U.S. Military was the first to suggest it right at the very beginning of the CORONAVIRUS issue

.

Expand full comment

Agree it is

Expand full comment

What studies has shown this, Gayle?

Expand full comment

I am a physician who also has a degree in medical microbiology and these studies have been in my medical journals and even some the peer review science journals have a medicine version with research. These studies have been done in more than one setting. I have had to treat some of these parasitic infections and of course COVID which requires antivirals along with dexamethasone for hospitalized patients (who are higher risk of dying if they are sufficiently ill to require hospitalization). We had high hopes when some poorly designed study suggested Ivermectin might help, but I knew it was designed for eukaryotic organisms of which viruses are not. There are more serious side effects, but when a person has a parasitic infection susceptible to Ivermectin it needs used. Are cells are eukaryotic just as are mold, fungi, and parasites which is why there risks to our other organs when on these drugs. But, thankfully we have some effective treatments for these infections unlike decades ago. I have been teaching faculty in the past and have had to give lectures. My prep for a one hour lecture involves many hours of reviewing the literature so I am in a position to answer other questions such as how does this drug work?

I have encountered physicians who are ethically challenged and when they see a money making opportunity marketing bogus treatments they jump on it and they spread misinformation to keep the money poring in. Fortunately, some have been brought to the attention of their state’s medical board and if their actions are deemed to be harmful to patients they lose their licenses to practice medicine. Not every state has a vigilant medical board to keep dangerous physicians from harming patients.

In every field as you probably know most do a good job, but there are always a few bad apples. As a physician and patient advocate it is my ethical duty to make sure any information I give to patients and even the public is accurate. I take my scholarly activity and my ethics very seriously. My duty as a physician is to keep my patients informed, explain in their language, and make sure they understand everything about their conditions and understand their meds. I am old fashioned in this way and I spend more time with patients especially the medically underserved.

I just lost my husband and hadn’t worked during his long illness so within the year I should be back at work. It is very satisfying to be able to be of use and service to people.

Expand full comment

Thank you Gayle, one of your fellow horse paste mockers provided a couple of examples of the research on Ivermectin use for Covid. The conclusion seems to be it is no more efficient at curing, or preventing Covid than any of the mRNA shots. The difference, as far as I can see is Ivermectin hasn't killed anyone, where mRNA shots have killed hundreds and crippled many young men with myocardia.

Personally, I dealt with Covid as I do with any flu virus. I contracted it, stayed in bed a couple days and was good to go...same with my wife.

You're right about dangerous doctors, though. There are many out there, for instance, gleefully butchering children's genitals because it's lucrative. Thankfully many states with sane, competent leadership (like mine) have outlawed the practice but the ghouls have several other venues to ply their disgusting trade. Hopefully the disgraceful practice will be outlawed throughout the US as it has been in several European countries.

Thanks for your response, condolences about your loss and hope you feel better soon.

Expand full comment

Let them take horse medicine. Idiots.

Expand full comment

I did read the article however I question non adherence to proven treatment protocols vs politically motivated dogma. What are the outcomes to patients who used only veterinary protocols on humans without vetted results in humans? We have a national health system that had among the lowest success rates in COVID treatment compared to other countries with similar healthcare access.

Expand full comment

I have the right to eat shit! Its inbthe consitushin, right under the entroduction of “one nation under GOD” suck it, libs

Expand full comment
Mar 28·edited Mar 29

How absurd that the FDA is constrained from warning against the inappropriate use of a drug effective against roundworm infestations inappropriately for a viral infection. This is ignorant political encroachment on an area, Clinical Medicine, where politics can only do damage.

Expand full comment

All while SCOTUS has sentenced women to death in order to try and preserve a parasite living in their uterus. Yup, sure, don’t tell the public a medication has not been proven effective for a specific use because God forbid the shareholders might not get their $$$, but don’t let the docs over here save women’s lives 😳🤦🏻‍♀️

Expand full comment

Agree!!

Expand full comment

It's not a Horse medicine. It was developed for humans, and it also happens to be used in animals. Just like lots of other veterinary medicine that was developed first for humans.

Expand full comment

So what, if all those types that take it need deworming, let ‘em have it. Frankly, I think they should have been using leeches; a better opportunity for a possible infection by “flesh eating” bacteria.

Expand full comment

Good. Here’s the problem though. They should’ve never done that in the first place! They cost more than 73,000,000 AROUND THE WORLD their lives. Not funny at all.

Expand full comment

Read the article. The issue basically was - did the FDA overstep their authority -the answer is, yes, they did. Therefore, their posts need to be removed.

Expand full comment

True

Expand full comment

The treatment was deadly to some people. In the very least it is malpractice. The constitution wasn’t written to verify common sense. The so called physicians are wrong. Fatal mistakes happen in healthcare accidentally. We don’t need to condone ambiguity that is politically motivated.

Expand full comment

Did you read the article? The issue is not about malpractice. The issue here - is did the FDA act out of their role? The answer is - YES

Expand full comment

According to what?

Expand full comment

In the article, it states the US Code, “The FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

Expand full comment

People died for taking an unapproved drug and the Constitution does NOT say that

Expand full comment
Mar 30·edited Mar 30

Cite your source that people died from taking ivermectin to treat Covid. I’ll wait.. Btw- people died from the jab.

Expand full comment

Wrong on both statements seems you watch too much fix news

Expand full comment

😂😂😂😂😂

Expand full comment

The U.S. Constitution.

Expand full comment

Don't forget the UV ass lights and the bleach, idiots.

Expand full comment

Haven't forgotten the idiots that believed that concocted story.

Expand full comment

Oh i forgot she thinks she has critical thinking There is NO scientific proof that the horse medicine cures covid. And those FDa post were appropriate when we have a clown in the white house , the only way to put some sense in people But u know what let them take the horse medicine

Expand full comment