Butler County judge orders West Chester Hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite

Oh stop it!

 

and now you can link to the post from me making it political.

 

In my recent 3 day stay I only know what the Nurses did. I saw early on a Surgeon. She told me she would do her best not to put me under the scalpel. After the first day, I never saw her again.

 

She did not have to leave. The judge ruled in her favor.

 

That is how it works, most people see the doctor for 15 min twice a day and the nurse does the rest. But that nurse follows the orders from the doctor that actually saw the patient, they do not give in to every whim by the patient nor do they follow anything from doctors outside of the hospital.

 

Wrong, I simply told the truth so you got angry. Will you please stop with the insults?

 

Yes he did, now we have the legal precedent of a judge dictating what medicine and procedures a hospital must use.

I think that is a bad thing, you all are jumping up and down with joy over it.

When a judge orders a hospital to preform an abortion on a patient, will you still be so very joyful?

 

If you do not wish to be insulted, do not ****ing insult me first.

It is a simple concept, give it a try and see how it works.

 

Yes it does.

 

I am not jumping up and down. I do not have a dog in this fight you keep having here.

 

You were not insulted by me.

 

of course I was, and you very well know it. You just cannot take what you dish out.

 

Prove you got insulted by me.

 

The judge ruled that the wife had standing as to how her husband would be medicated. That is, the judge was not acting as treating physician, he was merely affirming the wife's right to determine how her husband should be medicated.

My niece just went through a similar process, but no judge was involved. She was hospitalized in Miami, presumably with Covid, was a nurse herself, and demanded she be treated with Ivermectin. It worked.

That so many in the Medical Industrial Complex are down in Ivermectin means it works. The MIC simply is doing all it can to suppress the truth, as it has been doing for a long damn time.

 

All you did was debunk an instagram post whoopie.

 

Why should i when i was quoting the OP article that is seems neither he nor you read...

 

It's almost like the CDC and anti-Ivermectin folks want people to die.

Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Sixty-nine patients were enrolled (mean [SD] ages: ivermectin, 47.63 [22.20] years; control, 45.18 [23.11] years; P = 0.65). Eighteen patients (51.4%) in the ivermectin group and 18 (52.9%) in control group were male (P = 0.90). The mean durations of dyspnea were 2.6 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group and 3.8 (0.4) days in the control group (P = 0.04. Also, persistent cough lasted for 3.1 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group compared to 4.8 (0.4) days in control group (PP = 0.019). The mean durations of hospital stay were 7.1 (0.5) days versus 8.4 (0.6) days in the ivermectin and control groups, respectively (P = 0.016). Also, the frequency of lymphopenia decreased to 14.3% in the ivermectin group and did not change in the control group (P = 0.007).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
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.

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 72% [55‑82%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 27 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion.

Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393

Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065103/
Interpretation: Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

 

You have what 20ish posts leaving out important information like a Doctor prescribing the treatment. Why do you want the reputation for lying by omission?

 

But not the doctor/nurse that is being forced to administer it, so it changes nothing about the case. The judge is still dictating the procedure the hospital must do. The doctor that did the prescribing of the treatment has never seen the patient and is not going to the hospital to administer the treatment.

 

We are 100% in agreement with your first paragraph... But do you think a hospital should be forced to medicate based on a doctor not working at that hospital??

I have no problem whatsoever with the wife getting her husband an unproven treatment for his illness... I just don't think a hospital should be forced to provide it if it is against their treatment protocols and medical recommendations.

I'm 100% for the first and 100% against the second....

 

All of your links talk about using it early in the treatment when the patient has mild symptoms. None of them speak to giving it to a patient on a vent

 

Stick with that argument... that's the winner here...

 

I would like to point out again, this thread is not about if ivermectin works or not, it is about if a judge should have the power to dictate to a a hospital and its staff what procedures and medicines to use.

 

Most treatments fail by the time you've reached intubation, including the failed treatment the hospital was trying in this case. Why are you against trying something that is safe and might work?

You want the patient to die?

The hospital very literally may have killed this man by not trying it earlier on.