In my torts class, I often compare the different approaches and doctrines in the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the most pronounced is the position and authority of physicians on issues like consent and malpractice. This week produced a particularly striking example. British doctors are seeking to take a 19-year-old critically ill female patient off the intensive care despite her objections and those of her parents. Unlike most such cases, the woman known only as “ST” is conscious and communicative. Yet, the doctors argue that she is not being realistic about her chances of survival from a rare disorder. Now a British court has agreed and ordered that she can be placed on end-of-life care against her will.
ST is suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative. The case has similarities to that of Charlie Gard, an infant who was removed from life support at the insistence of doctors despite objections from the parents. The Gard family was seeking to take Charlie to the United States for experimental treatment.
ST has been in the ICU for the past year, requiring a ventilator and a feeding tube. She also requires regular dialysis due to chronic kidney damage from her disease. She wants to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but the doctors oppose the plan and say that she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness. They say that she is “actively dying” without any hope of resuming life outside of intensive care.
Her deeply religious family have spent their entire life savings on her care and has complained that a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.
What is so remarkable about this case is that it is not an infant or a comatose patient. The court found that ST “is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists.” Moreover, two psychiatrists testified that she is mentally competent to make decisions about her own care.
Despite all the difficulties which currently confront her, ST is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists. Over the course of the last week she has engaged in two separate capacity assessments. I heard evidence from two consultant psychiatrists whose conclusions in relation to her capacity in both domains are set out in full written reports. . . .
She has been described by those who know and love her as “a fighter”. That is how she sees herself. At the heart of the issues in this case is what ST and her family perceive to be a ray of hope in the form of an experimental nucleoside treatment outside the United Kingdom which might offer her hope of an improved quality of life, albeit a life which is likely to end prematurely in terms of a normal life expectancy. She has told her doctors that she wants to do everything she can to extend her life. She said to Dr C, one of the psychiatrists who visited her last week, “This is my wish. I want to die trying to live. We have to try everything”. [Court’s emphasis] Whilst she recognises that she may not benefit from further treatment, she is resistant to any attempt to move to a regime of palliative care because she wants to stay alive long enough to be able to travel to Canada or North America where there is at least the prospect that she may be accepted as part of a clinical trial. . . .
ST is well aware that she has been offered a very poor prognosis by her doctors. She acknowledges that they have told her that she will die but she does not believe them. She points to her recovery from previous life-threatening episodes whilst she has been a patient at the intensive care unit. She believes she has the resilience and the strength to stay alive for long enough to undergo treatment abroad and she wishes the court to acknowledge her right to make that decision for herself.
Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.” The court appears to reject her ability to make this decision because she is making the wrong decision:
In my judgment . . . ST is unable to make a decision for herself in relation to her future medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors. Absent that belief, she cannot use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. This is a very different position from the act of making an unwise, but otherwise capacitous, decision. An unwise decision involves the juxtaposition of both an objective overview of the wisdom of a decision to act one way or another and the subjective reasons informing that person’s decision to elect to take a particular course. However unwise, the decision must nevertheless involve that essential understanding of the information and the use, weighing and balancing of the information in order to reach a decision. In ST’s case, an essential element of the process of decision-making is missing because she is unable to use or weigh information which has been shown to be both reliable and true.
Accordingly, the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.
Thus, the courts have declared that ST cannot choose to continue life-extending treatment and can be forced into palliative care against her will. The logic of the decision is chilling. The court is told that ST has cognitive and communicative abilities to make such decisions. However, because the court disagrees with her desire to continue to fight to live, she is treated as effectively incompetent. It seems like the judicial version of Henry Ford’s promise that customers could pick any color car so long as it is black.
Here is the opinion: In the Matter of ST
Brad- “But does anyone think private insurers are more generous than socialized medicine…”
+++
Not more generous but also not likely to block the exit when you want to go somewhere else.
You missed the point, I think.
And we all thought that the Spanish Inquisition was horrific for clinging to false ideologies…The prog/left of Europe has passed that goal and is well nigh on its way to infamy surpassing even the wildest dreams of the N*zis. My only true fear is how do you stop this or do we need to let this insanity burn itself out?
This is madness. What is it going to take for people in the West to wake up? How long before the left starts throwing older people off of cliffs a la Mao next?
One step closer to “the state” determining who dies and when. Anyone over 70 (like me) may one day be expendable or be deemed to be using up too much of the resources that are more beneficial to the state if used by younger people who at still productive on a full-time basis. I will not ;ive to see the state decide who should be allowed to die (hopefully), but it is “baked in” given the socialist trends and antipathy toward religion that are dominating our culture these days. We are observing the early days of that transition already. A society in which everyone thinks only of his or herself will devolve into lawlessness (think looting) and petty crime (mugging, etc.). Drug use will become a right, no matter how destructive. We are there. Ironically, it highlights the growing disparity between haves and have-nots. The elites (Hollywood, politicians who are subject to different rules, corporate kingpins, and athletes who are celebrated while living decadent, immoral lives) insulate themselves from the poor. We are a divided nation, and that serves the needs of the ruling party who gives the most stuff away and stays in power based upon winning the support of identity groups rather than acting in the best interests of everyone. The USA looks more and more like everyone else; lawless and Godless. Old folks (or in this instance young people who are very ill and using up precious hospital space and medicines) are encouraged to die to make way for someone the state determines to be more worthy of life.
So because she disagrees with the medical establishment and wants to try to stay alive the court rules her incompetent? Does this give anyone else a feeling like they are reading a Kurt Vonnegut novel. If you think you want to stay alive you must be crazy but if you ask to die you must be crazy and since she wants to stay alive she is crazy.
An addendum to my previous note. I have taken care of people who were awake and alert and competent and desired no more care. Always their main concern was to be allowed to die comfortably and peacefully. You can accomplish that in a terminal individual with kindness and no drugs or other artificial actions to hasten their death. But when a person, alive, alert and competent says I am not ready to die and do not turn off my respirator. If you do act in a manner to kill that patient by withholding care then you ar a murderer. Steven Hawking and many polio victims survived for decades on ventilators and / or iron lungs. Some with dialysis and with incurable diseases.
GEB: Yes.
Further, I find it amazing that, with abortion, self-autonomy and authority trumps (in varying state-by-state legal stages), EVEN WHEN/IF PREMISED only on emotional/personal reaction/rationale.
But in a decision involving potential life extension, at least experimentally possible, –in this case, that decision can be removed from ST because the judge appears to have premised his decision on ST’s emotional disbelief in some information presented to her.
Even if the transfer of the matter is to the Court of Protection, the delay is unforgivable, as this forum may decide that she is indeed mentally competent and is now free to either decide on her own or appoint a surrogate/durable POA.
But how much time was lost? And when she then passes, possibly or at least time-wise exacerbated by the delay, the original doctors who rejected her wish for further treatment will gloat with, “see, I told you so.”
“In the extreme southeastern part of Europe, known as the Caucasus, a silent genocide is looming. The Lachin Corridor that connects Armenia to Artsakh, the region in Azerbaijan where mainly Christian Armenians live, has been closed by the government for eight months. Supermarket shelves are empty; there is hardly any food, fuel, or medicine for the 120,000 Armenian Christians who live there, including 30,000 children and 20,000 seniors… a convoy of food and medicine has been standing in front of the border since July 25 [a month], but the International Red Cross is not allowed access to the inhabitants of Artsakh. According to journalists living in the area, most residents only get one meal a day. People in Artsakh queue for hours at night for bread, waiting for their daily rations. At the same time, sources within Artsakh report shooting at Armenians trying to harvest the land… in all probability bread will also soon be unavailable due to the shortage of fuel… Bakers can no longer heat their ovens.” — Sonja Dahlmans, Dutch journalist, ongehoordnederland.tv, August 24, 2023.
I have no details in this case to make a specific reasoned judgement, however, there are a few practical issues unadressed here.
I have no illusions about bureaucrats making wise judgments but it certainly makes sense from a business perspective that care should be called off in truly hopeless cases. It is done quite routinely — people are sent to hospice. Public funds are limited as are the funds of any private insurance.
However, if private funds otherwise are available, and if an experimental treatment is available, and if the patient in question is competent and willing to act as an experimental subject, and if such patient is actually a good test case for the treatment, then making a decision that prevents an alternative approach (like preventing fund raising) does harm including harm to society.
Experimental treatments and procedures will remain experimental until enough experience is gained to constitute a fair test of effectiveness. Putting a panel of government experts in charge of these unusual decisions guarantees they will be made politically rather than wisely.
Sounds like a good scifi novel which, like many scifi plots, represents a very bad reality.. The UK is sick and getting sicker. The trend continues to be that, in retrospect, the American Revolution was an even better idea than it seemed at the time.
Turley– “Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.”
+++
Shocking and disgusting but not entirely unexpected.
We, our nation, just underwent similar abuse when hospital bureaucrats blocked doctors or family members from giving Ivermectin to Covid patients in their institutions, even going so far as to fight them in court. When did our institutions become Nazis?
Some families resorted to smuggling it into the hospital. The improvement was apparent within 24 hours although, to hospital staff, inexplicable for a patient they assured family was dying and beyond help.
I suspect the treatment plan was based on money, arrogance and more money rather than the good of the patient or medical knowledge and ethics.
Thanks to our treatment paradigm our death toll from Covid is apparently higher than that of African nations.
And I suspect that the Covid death rate in our ‘homeless’ population is lower than that seen among people who could afford to have hospitals kill them.
“Thanks to our treatment paradigm our death toll from Covid is apparently higher than that of African nations.”
Could that be because many there are on anti-malarials and our government decided to prevent their use?
August, 2021, tweet from Dr. Robert Malone (top graphic): death rate almost negligible in African countries that dispense Ivermectin to fight malaria and various tropical infestations:
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1432300579141865479
S. Meyer: That is exactly the reason! Moreover, few took the horrible vaccines.
Thanks.
“COVID-19 cases among vaccinated seniors soared in 2021, according to newly disclosed data that was acquired by U.S. health agencies but not presented to the public.
Humetrix Cloud Services was contracted by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data. The company performed a fresh analysis as authorities considered in 2021 whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters were necessary amid studies finding waning vaccine effectiveness.
Humetrix researchers found that the proportion of total COVID-19 cases among the seniors was increasingly comprised of vaccinated people, according to the newly disclosed documents.”
S. Meyer,
It is admitted now that the vax can cause myocarditis and pericarditis but there are also reports of autoimmune diseases and turbo-cancers among the vaccinated. One vaccinated friend of ours just died when his cancer in remission roared back very aggressively. I don’t know if the vax was a factor but judging by reports it might have been.
Meanwhile, it is amazing to note how many things that were censored as misinformation have proven to be true.
You keep banging this fear-mongering tribal drum. As I have stated to you many times, the data does not support your tribe.
“At least 270,227,181 people or 81% of the population have received at least one dose.
Overall, 230,637,348 people or 70% of the population are considered fully vaccinated.”
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states
Beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillin, cephalosporins, carbapenems) are wildly used in America despite 10% of Americans having an allergic reaction to them particularly the deadly anaphylaxis. There are roughly 336 million Americans. If 10% are allergic to Beta-lactam antibiotics, that means 33 million are afflicted; 1% would equal 3.3 million. No one makes a peep about Beta-lactam antibiotics yet here you are over and over fear-mongering about a phantasm
So if 10% of 270 million COVID mRNA vaccine recipients died, where are the 27 million dead bodies? if 1%, that means 2.7 million died. Again, where are their dead bodies?
The vax can “cause” myocarditis just like crossing the street can “cause” getting hit by a truck.
As for the vax causing myocarditis, it isnt the vax that is problematic. Other vaccines are associated with adverse events because of individual polymorphisms in Toll Like Receptors like me, e.g. Shingles vaccines x 2 resulted in a hellish reaction a few months ago, a very uncommon thing.
Pellegrino P, Falvella FS, Cheli S, Perrotta C, Clementi E, Radice S. The role of Toll-like receptor 4 polymorphisms in vaccine immune response. Pharmacogenomics J. 2016 Feb;16(1):96-101. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2015.21.
Ovsyannikova IG, Haralambieva IH, Vierkant RA, Pankratz VS, Jacobson RM, Poland GA. The role of polymorphisms in Toll-like receptors and their associated intracellular signaling genes in measles vaccine immunity. Hum Genet. 2011 Oct;130(4):547-61. doi: 10.1007/s00439-011-0977-x.
Estovir–
The Pfizer Fact Sheet states that the vaccine is associated with heart problems.
Before mass Covid vaccination it was rare for a young athlete to drop over on the field. Now I read of incidents like that nearly every day. Coincidence? Maybe. But it is a coincidence that should be looked at closely but there seems little interest in pursuing it. Lots of money can do that.
The VAERS reports for the Covid vax exceed by many times all the reports for all other vaccines combined. Another coincidence that generates no curiosity despite the fact that the Swine flu vax [another one I skipped] was stopped after comparatively few adverse reports.
Almost everything we were told about the Covid vax proved to be untrue, beginning with the claim it would stop Covid cold and that it was safe. Nobody could know that it was safe because it was new technology that had not been fully tested. It is still experimental. The Pfizer statement includes the recognition that its long term effects are unknown–that would be because at this point they are unknowable. By contrast Ivermectin has had over a billion doses over decades and has proven, with actual results, to be one of the safest drugs in the world.
Meanwhile, insurers have noticed a big uptick in ‘all cause’ deaths in the countries with high vaccinated rates. Again, no official curiosity. Strange. Even if it isn’t the vaxx it is something we normally would want to know more about. Unless, of course, ‘they’ know and don’t want to admit killing so many people by accident.
If you have a drug like Ivermectin that is demonstrably safe and effective that treats Covid why would you choose to accept unknown risks and consequences with an unproven and new, experimental technology?
That was not a hard choice for me at all and it worked out just fine for me, my family and many friends.
Provide links to evidenced based data (e.g. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus). Anecdotal is a fool’s game. Even Google Scholar is decent. As for lay news outlet, they all rely on the above sources. I never rely on lay news outlets for science, and lately not even current events. Sad but necessary
AlRyalat SAS, Malkawi LW, Momani SM. Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. J Vis Exp. 2019 Oct 24;(152). doi: 10.3791/58494. PMID: 31710021.
real numbers are real data. ten percent of the US population being allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics is a huge number, yet you nor anyone else raises concerns about these drugs, rightly so.
everyone’s immune system is different. I already stated I had a severe reaction to Shingles Vaccine (Shingrix), a bona fide adverse event. I would never suggest those vaccines should be removed from the market, though it would have been nice if the COSTCO pharmacist had told me i could be the one clown case that would get really sick for 48-72 hours: fevers, chills, sweats, fatigue, swollen lymph nodes….dreadful. But now I know and educate my patients about getting Shingles vaccine
Ivermectin is neither here nor there re: mRNA vaccines. I’ve always been of the position in medicine to use whatever works, barring deaths and medmal lawsuits
Something interesting about the attack on Ivermectin:
https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/the-unforgivable-ivermectin-swindle
Estovir– “Anecdotal is a fool’s game.”
+++
Pasteur would probably disagree, as would many other great discoverers.
I did the homework for you to show you something. recall I worked for Big Pharma at one time
https://www.fda.gov/media/167212/download
Side effects that have been reported with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent,
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, or COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)
include:
• Severe allergic reactions
• Non-severe allergic reactions such as rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the face
• Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle)
• Pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
• Injection site pain/tenderness
• Tiredness
• Headache
• Muscle pain
• Chills
• Joint pain
• Fever
• Injection site swelling
• Injection site redness
• Nausea
• Feeling unwell
• Swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
• Decreased appetite
• Diarrhea
• Vomiting
• Arm pain
• Fainting in association with injection of the vaccine
• Dizziness
• Irritability
research the same for Aspirin, Ibuprofen, Statin, any herbal supplement, any hypertension drug, any Diabetes Type II drug, any alcoholic beverage, and you will see a similar long list of woulda, coulda, shoulda.
any of the conservative news websites invariably is populated with really obnoxious ads for common maladies (e.g. nail fungus, tinnitus, low testosterone levels, etc). All of the links to their recommendations involve drugs or herbal supplements that involve many risks. Alex Jones website is particularly guilty of this bait/switch sales quackery
Living involves risks. Getting sick involves risks. Taking prescription drugs involves risks. Crossing the street, getting out of bed, having sex with your partner, all involve risks. As the kids today say, YOLO! (you only live once!)
joking, not joking
Estovir– “research the same for Aspirin, Ibuprofen, Statin, any herbal supplement, any hypertension drug, any Diabetes Type II drug, any alcoholic beverage, and you will see a similar long list of woulda, coulda, shoulda.”
+++
True. I have looked at those lists before BUT, I don’t recall that after introduction of those drugs that kids started falling over with heart attacks or that i saw a big surge of ‘all cause’ deaths in heavily vaccinated countries.
Do you?
Does it not make any impression that Dr. Malone who worked on the basic technology on mRNA drugs warns that they are unsafe?
Finally, are the risks of the vaccine worth the benefit? NO
Does it keep you from getting Covid? NO
Does it keep you from spreading Covid to others? NO
Are there safe alternatives such as inexpensive, in- home treatment? YES
Would you use amputation of your foot to get rid of a treatable blister on your toe? Probably not. So why choose a potentially dangerous EXPERIMENTAL drug when a safe and gentle alternative treatment is available?
At least foot amputation would actually get rid of the blister on your toe, there’s that going for it, but the Covid vax doesn’t even work. And it could kill you.
Does it not make any impression that Dr. Malone who worked on the basic technology on mRNA drugs warns that they are unsafe?
anecdotal is not a good look.
do you enjoy looking like a fool and boot licker when referencing someone of whom you know little? I told you the following about Malone months ago when we had this same exact colloquy. But apparently you forgot. Do you have dementia due to aluminum in antiperspirants or from cast iron cookware? See how silly anecdotal stories look?
this is the same Malone who worked on the basic “technology” IN THE 1980s as a graduate student, had conflicts with his faculty, dropped out of graduate school, went to medical school, and his former faculty mentors, unlike Malone bona fide career research scientists, continued doing mRNA research and hence took out a patent and made bank. Meanwhile Malone looked like the fool that he is for not doing further work as a scientist, getting funding, made enemies in the field and hence blew his opportunity to make a name for himself with mRNA technologies.
so of course he whines about
his ego sabotaging his missed opportunities in not taking mRNA vaccines seriously as a graduate studenttheir safety profile….not that he can lay claim to mRNA vaccines science as a has been mRNA vaccine research and a drop out grad studentYoung, get to know Isaac Newton’s third law of motion:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
You’re welcome
The tangled history of mRNA vaccines
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
Estovir–
Here’s a study reporting a 74% decrease in Covid deaths with Ivermectin
https://slaynews.com/news/ivermectin-reduce-excess-deaths-74-percent-new-study
Here is a study on why taking unlimited number of illegal drugs, running around naked with 70,000 others in a Nevada desert, and burning a wooden man is deemed to be fun, liberating and empowering…unless if it rains and getting stuck in the desert mud ruins your psychedelic utopian dreams
note: dont try this at home even if first world problems are considered trendy
Death at Burning Man investigated as rain-soaked festival asks attendees to shelter in place
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/burning-man-attendees-advised-shelter-place-conserve-food-water-due-he-rcna103127
NB: still waiting for links to scientific studies ala evidenced based data
NB2: cherry picking sources might work in legal circles but not in the sciences
Young, the problem I have with that study is when I compare the number of deaths in Peru to other nearby countries. Peru was high in comparison.
S. Meyer– “Young, the problem I have with that study is when I compare the number of deaths in Peru to other nearby countries. Peru was high in comparison.”
+++
Probably was. It was originally high and then the government introduced ivermectin treatment and the cases plummeted. An election brought in a new, far left, government that withdrew the use of ivermectin and the cases soared again. Pretty good experiment to demonstrate the effectiveness of ivermectin but unfortunate for those who were denied treatment with it.
I have seen several graphs of it, but don’t feel up to looking for it now. Maybe later.
Here’s an interesting case that was told to someone close to me by the former patient. Though I know, I can’t, or won’t, say where or when. Besides, I didn’t speak to the person myself.
He was in the hospital and dying of Covid, according to his doctors. His wife was desperate and she did something I would not recommend to anyone, but she was desperate. She actually obtained veterinary ivermectin in some sort of solution. I don’t know what it is used for, maybe large animals.
She took it to the hospital and was asked what was in the bottle. She said, “Just essential oils”. They let her in. I think ‘essential oils’ are bunk, but apparently essential oils and crystals and crap like that were okay. Ivermectin, an actual medicine, couldn’t get in the door.
She massaged her husband’s body with the ivermectin ‘essential oils’. I didn’t imagine it could be used topically like that.
However, the next day he showed marked improvement. Within a week he was discharged, not dead. He told the story himself under circumstances that make it probable it was true.
Here is another peculiar thing. When I was in the grocery I stopped at the pharmacy in the chain store where they give Covid shots. Out of curiosity I asked for a copy of the informed consent form the used when giving the shots. They went online, took awhile, and only gave me a freshly printed copy of the Pfizer Fact Sheet.
I said, “No, I want a copy of the informed consent you use.”
“I don’t know what an informed consent is,” was the response.
When they dispense drugs pursuant to a doctor’s orders that is fine but I think that when they undertake to actually give injections of anything, much less injections of an experimental Emergency Use substance, they cross into treatment and really should get a valid informed consent before sticking a needle into anyone’s body. I suppose they say ‘it’s safe and effective’ if they say anything at all.
But if it were my business I would obtain informed consent before injecting this crap, making sure that it is more than just signing a form and I would cover risks, consequences, benefits, alternatives, and likely outcome if not taken. I would also make sure they understand that it has not gone through the complete approval process, is not actually approved, and is used only under an emergency authorization.
But, probably nothing will happen until it does, as 3 hospitals in Fresno have learned.
Estovir; “why taking unlimited number of illegal drugs, running around naked with 70,000 others in a Nevada desert, and burning a wooden man is deemed to be fun, liberating and empowering”
+++
You don’t think that’s fun??? What’s wrong with you??? Old fogey!!
S. Meyer,
You can find graphs on Peruvian cases in Harper’s summary of his principal article here:
https://philharper.substack.com/p/ivermectin-and-a-very-powerful-lobby
Scroll down.
Estovir,
Is the Covid vaccine safe?
Is the Covid vaccine effective?
safety / efficacy profile:
COVID mRNA Vaccines ☑️
Young’s comments on science ❌
Young says: September 3, 2023 at 10:27 PM Old fogey!!
I just qualified for senior citizen meal discount because I turned 60 recently.
The pain is real which is why I am going to the gym this Labor Day morning. You should too to strengthen your immunity
😉
Estovir–
Here’s an interesting article. I noticed as an aside that a patient felt better after the first dose of Ivermectin. Something I and many others have reported.
Whom will you believe, recovered pstients or Fauci who treats no pstients and who has had nasty bouts of Covid 3 times despite being fully vaccinated.
https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-doctor-claims-hes-treated-3000-covid-19-patients-with-human-version-of-ivermectin/39302154
S. Meyer,
Yes, I think that is a factor and much smarter people than I have concluded the same.
Something similar was seen on a smaller scale in France. A nursing home with an outbreak of scabies responded with the standard treatment, Ivermectin for staff and patients. When Covid swept through other nursing homes had a high death rate but this unit was spared.
However our official [government funded] treatment protocol was to wait at home until you begin to struggle with breathing and then go to the hospital. Once there you are given Remdesivir, a drug that has little impact on Covid and has a nasty tendency to cause organ damage. Next sedation and ventilation and death. The Nazis used to kill infants with birth defects with sedation alone. See “The Nazi Doctors”.
Waiting at home until you have breathing problems is bad advice. Actual doctors [in contrast to bureaucrats with eyes on dollars] who treated thousands of Covid patients successfully, learning as they went along evaluating results, say that treating Covid early, before it can do harm, is important. They use HCQ or Ivermectin or a combination of both along with a few other things. You can find one protocol that I used for my own Covid at FLCCC. I also combined it with what Dr. Fareed and Dr. Tyson used to safely treat more than 10,000 Covid patients in California. They have a book out describing their approach.
When I took Ivermectin at first confirmed diagnosis I felt better the next day. I suspected it was a placebo effect, my imagination at work, but I have since heard the same from many others, including Prairie Rose who posts here. Objectively my temperature, oxygen levels and other measures returned to normal overnight. It was impossible to tell I was sick by my vital signs.
Why not use Ivermectin or HCQ widely? Probably not enough money in it.
Meanwhile, along with many others, I have lost trust in corporate medicine. I used to get vaccinated for everything, flu, shingles, pneumonia, the works but skipped the Covid vax. Too new and relatively untested. As more information about vax injuries is leaking out, I am glad I did. I have lost faith. I am skipping the routine flu vaccine this year. I simply do not trust them. To think we let a bureaucrat who calls himself “The Science” but never treats actual patients run our Covid response.
“Why not use Ivermectin or HCQ widely? Probably not enough money in it.”
IMO, that was the reason.
Some argue that if there was a treatment available it would not be possible as a matter of law to get emergency use authorisations for vaccines.
Remdesivir was approved for use and immediately declared by Fauci to be “standard of care” on the basis of weak evidence that it reduced days to release from hospital, despite substantial evidence of dangerous side effects. Remdesivir was on patent whereas ivermectin and HCQ were not.
A hospital in Fresno is being sued by families whose members died from Remdesivir and sedation and intubation, Fauci’s standard. It will be interesting to see how it works but I would not be surprised if it were settled with a non disclosure agreement.
Is the hospital part of a chain, or an individual one? If it is part of a chain, they might not be able to settle because that will lead to suits in all the chain’s hospitals.
You say “Fauci’s standard”. Even if the care was wrong, if it was the standard of medicine, there was no malpractice. Of course, the jury can decide differently.
I think it is not a chain. I believe it is St. Agnes hospital in Fresno.
Here is an article about the case I just found.
https://www.theflstandard.com/california-lawsuits-claim-hospitals-killed-covid-patients-with-remdesivir-and-death-protocols
If true it was much worse than I thought.
A close friend of ours who was very liberal and wouldn’t consider HCQ when he got sick because Trump suggested it, followed the protocol and went to this hospital.
He is the only person we know who died with/ from Covid.
We got updates during his time there and I was puzzled when he went into organ failure…I thought Covid attacked the lungs, when did kidneys get involved?
When I read about this suit I checked his obituary to see where he died. It was in this facility. Until then we didn’t know he was getting Remdesivir. Maybe that explains his organ failure.
I am convinced now that if he had taken HCQ or Ivermectin he would not have gone to the hospital and would still be alive. I have seen those medications work on family and friends too many times not to be confident of it. So far as I know his family are not plaintiffs in this suit and I am not going to ask. Too hard and painful to think his death was probably avoidable.
Young, who gave you the medication?
a veterinarian?
He likely got better because of his immune system just like 99% of Americans. He could have been applying eye of newt, bat wings and secret sauce, and laid claim to those. But perhaps Young is an authorized deal of Alex Jones potions and perhaps he is pushing Ivermectin much like Amway.
this whole discussion is so typical of Young…off the rails deserves off the rails
S. Meyer- “Young, who gave you the medication?”
+++
I had a doctor’s prescription that I filled at an independent compounding pharmacy.
The chains were bullied into refusing valid physician prescriptions for Ivermectin and HCQ, but I think most compounding pharmacies still fill them. As the FDA lawyer said in court, the FDA knows it is lawful for the scrips to be written and filled for Covid.
Estovir– “He likely got better because of his immune system just like 99% of Americans”
+++
That sounds like a good reason for 99% of Americans to avoid an experimental drug with no history of risks or consequences.
Why take the chance when you have a 99% chance of getting better without it.
S.. Meyer– “You say “Fauci’s standard”. Even if the care was wrong, if it was the standard of medicine, there was no malpractice. Of course, the jury can decide differently.”
+++
Doctors establish the standard of care in medicine, not bureaucrats who have their faces in front of cameras and who don’t treat patients.
In court the standard of care is established by expert witnesses who are normally physicians. Which experts to believe is up to the jury. I was impressed with how slippery Fauci was when testifying in Congress–kudos to him–but a prepared attorney could wrap his guts around the judge’s bench in an actual trial. His weaseling would work against him. I would also want to get in that he receives royalties from big drug companies but not from doctors or patients. I would want him to weasel on those questions…looks guilty.
In medicine there are multiple standards of care and government agencies have produced protocols. I would be hard pressed to find the physician guilty if he followed protocols or the reasonable standards of care.
If in the exercise of due care the physician knew, or ought to have known, that the experimental vaccine was not rigorously proven to be safe and was only allowed as an emergency, and was showing ineffective, I think I would be willing to find the doctor or hospital liable. “Just following orders” is historically a bad excuse when you are in a position where you are expected to think.
This isn’t hard. A company makes a new product that has not been thoroughly tested according to industry standards, wants and gets immunity from liability, and wants to hide its documentation for 75 years, and works to crush any experts who dare to question anything about the product. That was more than enough for me to take a pass. How many danger signals does one need to step back and look for alternatives?
It isn’t even science; more like swerving to avoid a giant sinkhole in the highway.
Young, we differ. Such litigation solves nothing while leaving in its wake an impossible system. The idea behind malpractice is to constrain the physician from dealing in his own interest or being careless. The interests of society are not satisfied by such litigation.
The Covid vaccine does not represent how manage other matters in medicine. Remember, people were forced to take the vaccine and the government overstepped is boundaries.
Apparently the Austrian Minister of Health declared last year that doctors are responsible for vax injuries if they failed to warn patients of the dangers of the vax. Sounds reasonable to me. Doctors have the last clear chance to avoid harm.
The Austrian Minister was wrong and self-serving. Isn’t this shifting of the blame by the Austrian Minister not meaningful? He is a politician, and they seldom take responsibility for their mistakes.
S. Meyer: “The idea behind malpractice is to constrain the physician from dealing in his own interest or being careless…”
+++
Not really. The idea behind tort litigation is to make a wrongly injured party whole insofar as a money judgment can make him whole.
The focus should be on the person injured, not a notion of making the world in general a better place. Imagine you are trying to rescue a child from a precarious, high ledge. Your thoughts shouldn’t be, “Society will be better if I can rescue this child.” Instead, it should be more along the line of, ” How in hell am I going to get this kid off there without killing both of us?” Focus on individuals rather than the masses. Sometime you may have to choose between doing the best for your client or society as a whole. You choose your client. Recently doctors have had to make a similar choice, ” Do I treat my patient with a protocol I know will work and buck the system or do I follow the Fauci protocol that I see isn’t working every day?” Your duty is to your patient.
“Not really. The idea behind tort litigation is to make a wrongly injured party whole insofar as a money judgment can make him whole.”
That is a part of malpractice as well. But we cannot make people whole, so the next step is to prevent the loss from happening.
The builder was sloppy and didn’t care. A person walks into the building, and something falls on his head. An ambulance takes him to a hospital where a neurosurgeon at 3 AM saves the person’s life, but in the process, nicks a nerve leading to a compromised limb, which sometimes happens in the nebulous surroundings of brain and spinal tissue.
The loss is in the millions. The builder living in a $20 million home is exempt from suit, but the company he owns is. That company has little assets but carries a $20,000 liability policy paid to the claimant.
The neurosurgeon living in a $3 Million home is left paying the rest of the loss. His insurance company pays, and since the amount wasn’t sufficient, he is responsible for the rest.
Professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants. etc.) are sued personally without corporate protection. Builders are mostly protected when incorporated.
That tells me medical malpractice liability is different from nonprofessional liability.
” Do I treat my patient with a protocol I know will work and buck the system or do I follow the Fauci protocol that I see isn’t working every day?” Your duty is to your patient.”
The duty is always to the patient. The neurosurgeon did his duty to the best of his ability while rushing to save the man’s life at 3 AM. Yet he has lost his home and has to start anew.
S. Meyer– “The Austrian Minister was wrong and self-serving. Isn’t this shifting of the blame by the Austrian Minister not meaningful? He is a politician, and they seldom take responsibility for their mistakes.”
+++
The Austrian Minister was right about doctor responsibility and you are right about his being two-faced and trying to shift blame for his own actions. His department would have attacked a doctor who did what he is blaming them for not doing now. As I said before, there are times when you need to remember that your primary duty is to your patient and if the government is pressuring you to do something harmful you don’t do it.
Doing right may cost your job but not doing it costs your soul. In the US there have been a number of doctors who stood up for what is right and several have paid for it. But they saved lives.
“The Austrian Minister was right about doctor responsibility”
Yes, doctors have an ethical responsibility, but often, there is more than one path from which the doctor chooses. The alternative for the physician is to put down the scalpel and walk away.
If that is your choice, you will find it difficult to find medical care.
Aside from the Covid vaccine, no physician can completely advise patients. You are advocating the end of the medical profession.
Man is imperfect and will always be, even if his entire lifetime is spent attempting a perfect life.
S. Meyer,
Now the PM of New Zealand is trying to wash the government’s hands for responsibility for vax injuries. This one is blaming individuals rather than doctors. Ultimately it was an individual decision to get the vax, he says.
https://rumble.com/v3elgdb-new-zealand-pm-on-people-harmed-by-the-jabs-they-ultimately-made-their-own-.html
B.S. of course. Individuals in New Zealand and elsewhere were lied to by their doctors [some of them] and government and corporate media. Informed consent isn’t valid if you have been misinformed purposely.
Safe and effective! ????
I doubt many doctors lied about the vaccine to their patients. Not everyone agrees with you. I am quite skeptical of the vaccine, but if placed in such a situation I would probably advise the old and sick to get the vaccine. They were very vulnerable and though I cannot be sure, for that group I believe the vaccine probably saved lives.
Why is the Federal Govt even involved in health & gambling through Insurance industry?
Seems to me both should be under the complete authority of each state except for states themselves organizing certain basic standards.
*****
4.26 minutes, scroll down to it.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/elon-musks-x-deletes-video-of-rfk-jr-exposing-deadly-pfizer-jabs-see-it-here/
The federal government is over involved in healthcare. Any involvement it has should be minimal.
S. Meyer– “it you provided proof that the alternative treatment would be good enough to keep them alive, I would change my mind, but I have looked at a lot of the literature, and it is very conflicting.”
+++
I did give you information on Ivermectin as a treatment. You evidently didn’t look at it.
Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Andrew Hill are both well known researchers in the UK. Watch the conversation I posted earlier discussing their research.
I also gave you a link to Phil Harper who has a substack “The Digger” which has a long version of his analysis and a summary that is easier to read.
Dr Fareed and Dr Tyson have sucessfully treated over 10,000 Covid patients using a combination of HCQ and Ivermectin. Their book “Overcoming the Covid Darkness” is readily available and goes into some detail about how they developed their protocol. Dr Fareed, a Harvard graduate and former professor, knew long before Covid hit that Ivermectin in vitro stopped Corona virus so it was natural to try it with Covid patients. Both quickly saw that it saved lives. I used part of their research nd treatment assembling my personal Covid treatment kit because it worked on actual people.
Dr Pierre Kory has been at the front of the battle, and has written “The War Against Ivermectin”`which is informative. He helped create the FLCCC site which has been very valuable as a source of information, some of which I adopted.
Others have posted on the ‘studies’ that claim Ivermectin is ineffective and they appear designed to fail. Some used very low doses for only a short time.
You could ‘prove’ no antibiotics work using the same design.
Some didn’t administer it until late in the illness. All the actual protocols call for early administration of Ivermectin. One I saw in JAMA said in its title that their study showed Ivermectin was ineffective. The abstract said the same. Usually I stop there but one of the real researchers looked at the actual study below the abstract. The Ivermectin group had significantly fewer deaths than the control group. I wondered, ” How in hell does this show Ivermectin is ineffective? The results show it is effective.” But if the title and abstract reflected the actual results I suspect the study would not have been published. The ‘Together Study’ received a lot of press but smart people looking carefully at it tore it apart. They don’t just say it is flawed; they SHOW you how it is flawed.
You are very smart and it bothers me that the campaign to distract and confuse us on HCQ and Ivermectin has continued to be so effective. But then, much of it specifically targets very smart people.
By the way Prairie Rose who posts here used Ivermectin for her Covid with good results. Like me she noticed feeling better within 24 hours. When she said that, I had previously suspected my feeling better was a placebo effect and all in my mind. She got me thinking it wasn’t. Since then I have heard the same from nearly everyone else who has used it.
I wonder, at what point does actual experience outweigh theory and propaganda? If a friend bites into a candy bar and tells you it tastes like crap and the attractive wrapper says it is delicious, which do you believe?
You can try it yourself but don’t talk yourself into thinking it is delicious when it really is just crap.
Theory and reality are not the same thing.
French Nursing Home Ivermectin
“The rate of Covid19 infection were 1.4% in that care home compared to 22.6% in 45 home cares including 3062 resident people of the same French department of Seine et Marne near Paris”
https://www.clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-7-202.php?jid=jide
Other sites mention a 30% infection rate in Parisian nursing homes and very many deaths.
Death rate was near normal in the nursing home with Ivermectin.
Residents in their eighties.
S. Meyer: “but if placed in such a situation I would probably advise the old and sick to get the vaccine. They were very vulnerable and though I cannot be sure, for that group I believe the vaccine probably saved lives.”
+++
Would you still recommend an unapproved, experimental vax if you knew there was a safe alternative treatment?
Remember that a nursing home in France where staff and residents were being treated for scabies with Ivermectin was entirely spared when a Covid wave slaughtered people in other nursing homes in the region.
Here’s a comment that excess deaths are high in vaccinated countries and the proportion of those deaths matches the extent to which the population has been vaccinated.
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/more-canadians-dying-in-2023-canadian
“Would you still recommend an unapproved, experimental vax if you knew there was a safe alternative treatment?”
If you provided proof that the alternative treatment would be good enough to keep them alive, I would change my mind, but I have looked at a lot of the literature, and it is very conflicting.
If you are so convinced, would you put all your assets up, just in case you are wrong?
Your examples are anecdotes unless you can provide the demographics and locations of all patients and those involved. I would search the 85y/o population to see where they were living and their circumstances. We know some of the characteristics of the virus and what are favorable and unfavorable to survival. Start by telling me about the French nursing home and how you verified your information.
S. Meyer–
Pub Med
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33454964
“Oral ivermectin for a scabies outbreak in a long-term care facility: potential value in preventing COVID-19 and associated mortality”
“Some argue that if there was a treatment available it would not be possible as a matter of law to get emergency use authorisations for vaccines.”
Daniel, I heard it but discounted it because I didn’t hear anything that would make me believe it was true, so I am interested in the possibility. Considering the accepted opinion at the time, I don’t think that would block vaccine use.
I don’t think Remdesivir had better proof than the other medications.
The government frequently lacks common sense.
S Meyer,
An Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for an experimental drug is not available if there is a treatment available with an approved drug.
If there is a safe, off the shelf, treatment available then there is no ’emergency’ and no legal need for an EUA.
That appears to be the reason reports of Ivermectin have been censored as ‘misinformation’ and doctors have been punished for promoting it. Billions are at stake.
In court the other day an FDA lawyer said that the FDA acknowledges that a doctor can legally use Ivermectin for Covid.
A few days later I searched for an article on it and my page was flooded with Fact Check and other articles declaring that “No, the FDA did not approve Ivermectin for Covid.”
I thought that was fast and it looked as if the Empire struck back in a coordinated attack.
It was also dishonest.
The FDA does not need to expressly approve Ivermectin for Covid. It is already an approved drug and it can be prescribed off label at a doctor’s discretion. About 30% of all prescriptions in the US are off label. That was the point the FDA lawyer was making in court.
The other day a court of Appeals rebuked the FDA for basically trying to practice medicine on this very issue. Ultra vires. But then, sooner or later every power granted to a government will be abused. The sooner the Supreme Court gets rid of the Chevron Doctrine the better. That will clean one of many filthy stables. Justice Thomas is our Hercules.
“The FDA does not need to expressly approve Ivermectin for Covid. It is already an approved drug and it can be prescribed off label at a doctor’s discretion”
Though many views exist, the above statement is why I don’t think the following applies.
“An Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for an experimental drug is not available if there is a treatment available with an approved drug.”
Theoretically there is no treatment available and no evaluation of its effectiveness.
S. Meyer: “Theoretically there is no treatment available and no evaluation of its effectiveness.”
++
In reality there is a treatment. But if you have a billion dollars at stake you can afford to make people pretend there is no treatment.
Didn’t you see Dr. Lawrie’s video letter to Andrew Hill? They corroborated on a meta study of Ivermectin effectiveness and found it was very effective. Then Hill allowed someone to edit the paper to say it needed more study, killing its use.
Watch:
https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html
“In reality there is a treatment.”
Young, in the confines of the medical doctor, however, I think the reality is when the pharmaceutical is approved.
I have no answers to the questions because comparing studies while accounting for the variables is extremely difficult and error-prone. Things are worse because of the censorship and denial by those in power. Historically, government management was terrible as it failed to assess the variety of available treatments while refusing to create comparable studies.
Compare government action during the height of Covid to the creation of drugs to treat leukemia fifty years ago.
S. Meyer– “Young, in the confines of the medical doctor, however, I think the reality is when the pharmaceutical is approved.”
+++
It IS approved! Ivermectine IS approved.
Once a drug has gone through the whole approval process doctors are free to prescribe it off label when they deem it appropriate. About a third of all prescriptions are prescribed off label, that is for something other than the condition for which the drug was originally approved. An FDA lawyer said in court that Ivermectin can be legally prescribed for Covid.
What is NOT approved is the Covid vax. It is emergency use only.
We crush an approved, historically safe drug that consistently saves lives so we can make billions selling an unapproved shot that doesn’t work and causes heart problems.
Time to wonder how we got an emergency. We were bombarded with fear porn from corporate media and government until we thought the Black Death was upon us. Emergency! I believed it too to a degree but I recall looking at a homeless camp in California and wondering, “Why aren’t all of them dead?” My grandson said a lot of his classmates had had Covid and gotten over it without difficulty. None of them seemed terrified. Church is very dangerous but BLM riots are safe. What’s going on?
Looking at the Amish now, or Africa, who weathered it just fine without Fauci, it seems that our reaction and money grubbing killed more people than the virus.
“It IS approved! Ivermectine IS approved”
Ivermectin is approved for other uses, not for the specific use under discussion.
I don’t disagree with you about the politics involved with the vaccine or the disease.
S. Meyer– “Ivermectin is approved for other uses, not for the specific use under discussion.”
+++
The FDA lawyer disagrees. Once a drug is approved it is approved. It is up to the doctor to decide how or for what it will be used on a given patient.
The FDA does not generally go back and re-do the entire approval process every time it is discovered that a drug can be used for something else.
One third of all prescriptions are for uses other than what a drug was originally approved to treat. What a waste of resources to think the entire cumbersome bureaucratic process must be repeated for every new use of an already approved drug. Even our government isn’t that stupid.
Viagra was approved to treat high blood pressure and angina. Then it was seen to help erectile dysfunction. And then pulmonary hypertension and more. Can’t you use it for anything but blood pressure until the entire bureaucratic machinery grinds through approval of each and every beneficial effect that practicing doctors discover? Geeezz!
Viagra wasn’t originally approved for erectile dysfunction but we didn’t see a massive media campaign against it because there was money to be made…lots of it. But when Ivermectin is seen as a treatment for Covid there are billions to be lost on the EUA unapproved Covid vax and we are hit with a staggering campaign against Ivermectin. It’s the money.
Viagra is approved for angina and can be used off label–like erections–at a doctor’s discretion.
Same with Ivermectin. It is misleading to say Ivermectin wasn’t approved for ‘the specific use under discussion’.
When it is approved it is approved for a doctor’s use, not approved solely for the disease in the original application.
Young, you lost site of the discussion. A doctor can use the drug, but below is the discussion.
—
Though many views exist, the above statement is why I don’t think the following applies.
“An Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for an experimental drug is not available if there is a treatment available with an approved drug.”
Theoretically there is no treatment available and no evaluation of its effectiveness.
S. Meyer– “Theoretically there is no treatment available and no evaluation of its effectiveness.”
++
Really? What theory is that?
Ivermectin is available as a treatment and it has been shown to be effective many times. Even if I were to ignore studies pro and con I would not ignore that in my circle of acquaintances everyone who treated Covid with Ivermectin felt better the day after the first dose and recovered in about a week. The one person who died rejected what he thought were Trump’s recommendations and took the Fauci path to his grave.
I am not very good at ignoring what I can see for myself just because of some theory or model.
“Ivermectin is available as a treatment “
It is available but not proven for Covid use. Though I would like to see it used, I don’t think it meets the standard of the law.
“An Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for an experimental drug is not available if there is a treatment available with an approved drug.”
I think the law means approval as a cure for Covid.
You believe it means approval for use. By that criteria, almost any compound permitted on the market could be called a treatment available.
S. Meyer– “Theoretically there is no treatment available and no evaluation of its effectiveness.”
+++
Really? What theory is that?
S. Meyer– “I think the law means approval as a cure for Covid.
You believe it means approval for use. By that criteria, almost any compound permitted on the market could be called a treatment available.”
+++
So off label use isn’t legal? That means a third of all prescriptions in the US are illegal.
That’s not the law. Why is that so hard to understand? Even the FDA doesn’t claim that.
Almost any approved drug available to doctors could be called an available treatment. Fluvoxamine has been shown to be an effective treatment in the last few months. Do doctors have to let patients die until the FDA gets around to processing and approving it for Covid?
This devotion to government bureaucrats is one of the reasons socialized medicine is so terrible and deadly.
The critical issue isn’t whether some lard butt, donut munching bureaucrat has finally gotten around to deciding its okay. The critical issue is whether it works and saves lives.
Sheesh!
“So off label use isn’t legal? That means a third of all prescriptions in the US are illegal.”
Young, no one is debating that off-label is not legal. The question is whether off-label use constitutes an available treatment. Since off-label use lacks specific approval for treatment, it fails to meet the availability criteria under the law.
That people believe it is a treatment does not alter the law for emergency use. Moreover, I do not think the law took account of the emergency statute, further demonstrating their point.
You are entitled to your point of view, but I think it is wrong.
S. Meyer– “Since off-label use lacks specific approval for treatment, it fails to meet the availability criteria under the law.”
+++
It is lawful to use Ivermectin off label to treat Covid. Even the FDA claimed that in court.
It seems it legally has all of the approval it needs to be available for treatment of Covid.
What are the ‘available legal criteria’ that you say it lacks?
The FDA lawyer who told the court that it was legal to use Ivermectin for Covid would love to hear from you.
Apparently she and the judge and plaintiffs’ counsel missed some secret law or regulation that you know about.
This is one of the problems with administrative law. Bureaucrats assume powers and authorities they never really had and engage in ultra vires acts. Unfortunately, too many people take it for granted that they really do have ‘available criteria under the law’ that they were never granted.
That was the ‘comeuppance’ the court gave to the FDA when they tried to pretend that they never really ordered people to stop using Ivermectin for Covid.
They did, however, and the court reminded them that their job was to review drugs for safety and efficacy and not to practice medicine by telling doctors what approved drugs to use in the actual practice of medicine.
Ivermectin is legally available for treatment of Covid. Big pharma may fight it because they don’t want to lose their EUA and immunity from harms they cause, but the law is the law. Not that that means much these days, particularly when you make up ‘available legal criteria’ as you go along. Read “The War Against Ivermectin” by Dr Kory to see the lengths that have been gone to to suppress the evidence that Ivermectin is effective.
Question. Do you think that if the Covid vaccines went through the same rigorous testing and approval process that Vioxx went through it would pass and be approved for use without an Emergency Use Authorization?
Question. People get outraged over the Tuskegee syphills study which injected nobody with anything and coerced nobody. It was only an observational study of the course of a disease. So why no outrage over the coerced, mass injection of a novel, experimental drug with no informed consent, no safety history and no idea of its possible harm in either the short or long term? That seems almost like a Dr Mengele project. Somewhere in Hell Dr Mengele is smiling.
“It is lawful to use Ivermectin off-label to treat Covid. Even the FDA claimed that in court.”
Young, I think you are confusing two issues.
1) The effectiveness of Covid drugs.
We both think there is significant proof that the drug is effective. To what degree is unknown, but we need to do more and better studies earlier and now. I would have used Ivermectin in multiple nursing homes as part of a study based on choice. The drug was proven to have the desired effect in vitro.
Ivermectin is not proven enough for a manufacturer to list in the Physician Desk Reference as a cure for Covid, but its use off-label is permissible.
2) EAU
EAU involves science and bureaucracy. I do not generally concern myself too much about the Covid vaccine approval because the bureaucracy makes up its rules, and if one fails to work, another will. In this case, the bureaucracy says: “An Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] for an experimental drug is not available if there is a treatment available with an approved drug.”
I agree with their logic that Ivermectin was not approved. It lacks listing in the PDR as a treatment for Covid.
That is the end of my agreement with the FDA. Yes, I think producing the vaccine was a good idea, and I think giving the vaccine to the elderly and sick was also correct. Under no circumstances should the vaccine have been given to the young, nor should it have been made mandatory.
Studies should have started long before the vaccine was released to see if Ivermectin (and others) worked. You are hanging your shingle on the EUA procedure, which, to me, is a meaningless fight against a bureaucracy one can not win.
The real fight occurred much earlier when they told us HCQ did not work and was dangerous. It was at that time that pharmaceutical companies were investing in the drug. To cover potential losses, the government prepaid speeding up development. That way, the pharmaceutical companies did not face potential losses, and the public could get the vaccine earlier. They were worried that existing drugs could destroy the need for a vaccine. The companies hoped to vaccinate up to 100% of the population in the US and more elsewhere.
The projected profits were huge, but the longer it took to create the vaccine, the more likely it was to find a cure, ending the profit stream. I guess the pharmaceutical companies decided to discredit all of these drugs.
This scenario played nicely in the political arena because after paying the drug companies in advance so they did not worry about the losses, they now saw an opportunity in the political sphere to protect potential future profits.
Trump was talking about HCQ, along with other cures. If they worked, the drug companies would not get their hoped-for profits. In order to destroy Trump, the left focused on eliminating the possibility that these medications could work. If they make them look stupid, they made Trump look similarly for talking about them.
It worked, and we see that on the blog where people are ignorant of what Trump said and think he was advising people to drink bleach. What the Democrats did to destroy potential benefits was criminal.
If you remember, Pfizer held off the release of the vaccine to hurt Trump’s chances of winning, and they supported Biden in every way. Once Biden, known to be corrupt, won the election, I believe they satisfied Biden’s desires directly and indirectly, and the war against alternative treatments continued.
The vaccine was out, so they had to ensure vaccinating the public continued. Biden, Democrats, and the left did their bidding. That is the timeframe Rogan speaks about when discussing EUA, but that is late in the game and, to me, unimportant. They forced the vaccine on the population and attempts to use alternatives stopped.
Our government took part in trying to prevent the alternative treatments from being available and protected immense profits for Pfizer, Biden, and Democrats, who are likely responsible for massive deaths in the world.
Trump’s responsibility is he failed to see what was happening, and this likely was his worst mistake, though understandable. We know it was a mistake because he left Fauci in charge of centralizing decision-making under him. But what made his mistake possible were the Never Trumpers in the Republican Party, weak Republican leadership, and the news media.
Our country shot itself, and we are still bleeding. Until and unless we end Democrat control, we will continue bleeding and eventually exsanguinate.
Young, are we now on the same page?
S. Meyer–
Yes, we are on the same page and I am glad for it. I value your comments and thinking on many things.
The situation is still evolving and Steve Kirsch [inventor of the optical mouse among other things] believes he sees an indication that vaccination in nursing homes increased the death rate. I have no opinion on that and maybe never will but I think it possible. Here is his substack comment:
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/cdc-nursing-home-data-the-vaccine
With you I think it reckless to give the vaccine to kids. It is well established now that they do not get very sick from Covid. Igor Chudov says on his site that there are indications that the vax impairs the immune system of children. Don’t know. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
.
What is shocking is that they are pushing the experimental vaccine on pregnant women. Did they learn nothing from thalidomide? Already problems are showing up.
Kirsch was an MIT student and a hall there is named after him for his generous donation. He reserved it for a talk but when they learned he was going to talk about vaccine dangers the reservation was cancelled.
There is a very heavy hand crushing every attempt to think about these things.
Young, I value your opinion as well and pleased that we are on the same page.
Pregnant women: My rule. Never use 100% of the population as guinea pigs. It can wipe out an entire population. Childbearing women should be protected from crazy science, as should potential fathers, but they are not as critical.
I doubt the vaccine hurt more than it helped in nursing home patients, but I am firm on nothing.
I am sure the government intentionally lied to us because otherwise, they wouldn’t be canceling people. If their ideas were good, they would have more praise than complaints. They love praise.
S. Meyer,
Here is a short clip of Bill Maher and Joe Rogan discussing this very issue:
https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1698074910654861538
You might be interested in this article.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/florida-doctor-reinstated-after-losing-board-certification-for-criticizing-covid-19-vaccines-5480957?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-04&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-04&utm_medium=email&est=UDfvr2ViC059zuV5ta%2Bx7Ediz6h%2BnJLzBJMV8HHQIGrAUQ4jQu6U3Qek7EGvs4EwENs%3D
Florida Doctor Reinstated After Losing Board Certification for Criticizing COVID-19 Vaccines
Thanks, it is a good article. Dr Nass in Maine has been undergoing a months long star chamber proceeding for prescribing Ivermectin. No patients complained. In fact they are quite happy to say they are pleased with their Covid treatment, which was successful. Some unidentified third parties complained.
I don’t think any of the many board proceedings against doctors were initiated by patients or evidence of injuries. Someone else is behind it. In Arizona a state senator held a session on treatment and vaccines in which Dr Kory, Dr McCullough and Dr Fareed offered expert testimony. The proceeding was attacked in Rolling Stone and several other publications almost immediately. One attack linking the hearing to Q-Anon, whatever that is, came out before the hearing. There is enormous influence behind promoting the experimental vaccine and discrediting the treatments that are available.
Did you see the information I posted about the French nursing home that was spared when a Covid wave was slaughtering residents of other homes in the same area?
Yes, I read about it from a news article sometime back. If it were up to me, I would have offered the drug prophylactically to nursing home patients in NYC. A study could have been done in that population which would have provided good science and good recommendations.
Companies are always asking for volunteers. If Ivermectin were a billion dollar drug, the study would have been performed.
S. Meyer– “If Ivermectin were a billion dollar drug, the study would have been performed.”
+++
Yes! And instead of smothering the existing studies showing it is effective the studies would be shouted in the NYT and from the mouths of Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid and Whoopi Goldberg…all of them renowned doctors and research scientists we would be told.
It is very hard to be too cynical and sarcastic when on this subject.
The information I posted about the French nursing home was a medical journal article.
Young, I looked at yours as well. It appeared to be more of an observational piece, that I thought was a good alert for those wishing to put 2+2 together. Thanks for it and the other one. I think I looked at everything you said including the Joe Rogan-Bill Mahar discussion. Thanks.
You have done a lot more research than it seems the guys at the CDC did.:-)
“You have done a lot more research than it seems the guys at the CDC did.:-)”
+++
In truth I relied heavily on the very good work of others.
Early on it wasn’t an academic exercise; I wanted to know how we could save our lives…prepper thinking in a way. We had one home destroyed by a hurricane and learned the value of thinking independently and being prepared. Seeing Covid coming was like watching Andrew coming. Get ready any way you can.
Were you in the Homestead area?
Yes, Homestead. Looked like an atomic bomb had gone off. Eye passed right over. Destroyed the airbase too. First things, you need to get used to no A/C, bugs biting you, cooking on a Coleman stove, stepping on nails
[from roofing shingles everywhere], Beanie Weenies, boiling water, losing weight, no showers and stinking, insurance adjusters, cheating contractors, crazy roofers, and watching out for looters. Otherwise it was kinda fun. Never lived in that house again
Who expected the storm to wreck an area so far inland? I knew someone who lived there and recounted that their piano was flying in their living room.
Was your house totally destroyed?
What is amazing is that more people weren’t killed.
Was Andrew the reason you left Florida? It’s a great state and getting greater.
Not totally destroyed but not livable for a couple more years. Homestead wasn’t really very far inland. A hurricane decades before flooded the entire area but Andrew was fast, Cat 5, and relatively dry. A couple weeks later a tropical storm dumped a lot of rain and what was left of the roof on houses leaked. Soggy drywall would crash down from the ceiling. We left Florida for other reasons. The piano story isn’t surprising. Not many people killed. We evacuated, friends who hunkered down said they would never do it again. Would go to the center of the country instead. Traffic lights were down and some folks were killed in accidents in the weeks after the hurricane.
S. Meyer-
Here is an excellent review of the Ivermectin situation:
https://philharper.substack.com/p/the-very-unusual-paper-part-1
A person of considerable note, personally known to me, in a field of endeavor and interest common to thousands across the planet, succumbed to his prostate cancer this week. He was a life-long resident of the UK. He had shared his battle with many of us through his FB page, and his suffering was clearly documented for his ‘friends’. In short, the NHS in Great Britain is an abomination, particularly in the area of the management of patients afflicted with diseases having a terminal prognosis. It is an abomination from the top down, clinically and administratively, in any respect that one might shine the light on such an organization.
If someone has their own funds they should be allowed to spend them as “foolishly” as they want. God knows plenty of people do. But it’s unrealistic to expect the taxpayers to lavish enormous amounts to keep someone in this state when that money could be used to save and improve lives elsewhere.
@Skirmisher – “Are there no workhouses?” That’s what I hear you saying. Someone is poor, so to he77 with them. Wonderful attitude there.
Rush (Band) ‘ Losing It ‘ (w/Lyrics)
There ought to be, it seems to me, that when the local doctors have given up, it is the patient’s right to get another opinion. The patient apparently doesn’t want to give up — will do anything with a chance to work — regardless of the physician’s _opinion_.
Socialist medicine at its best.
What troubles me is the legal hand-waiving used by the court to find this woman essentially incompetent due to….something or other. Aggravated Foolishness in the First Degree, perhaps.
It is sad but true that no system of insurance, or government program, can provide an unlimited amount or type of health care regardless of cost or efficacy just based on the wishes of the patient. If the court had merely ruled that the NHS didn’t have to continue the ICU level of care because that’s just one of the hard decisions that has to be made, that would be at least understandable.
But based on the court’s reasoning here, even if this woman had millions of dollars available to cover all costs, she would not be “permitted” to seek treatment elsewhere because it would constitute Aggravated Foolishness.
This flies in the face of what we know as “informed consent” in American ethics and law. While the professor’s summary of the case does not indicate whether there were “psychiatrists” who testified with opposing opinion on the other side, and who found that ST was NOT “mentally competent to make decisions about her own care,” -the bottom line is that denial of her decision was not the appropriate next step. The next step should have been the appointment of a patient surrogate, who would make final decisions for her, after hearing the same information as provided to ST.
The judge’s opinion itself is equivocal and ill-grounded. The judge states,
“Whilst she recognises that she may not benefit from further treatment, she is resistant to any attempt to move to a regime of palliative care because she wants to stay alive long enough to be able to travel to Canada or North America where there is at least the prospect that she may be accepted as part of a clinical trial. . . ”
Following this, the judge declares,
“In my judgment . . . ST is unable to make a decision for herself in relation to her future medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.”
The proper criterion is NOT whether she “believed” any information presented to her, but whether she received sufficient information of the pros and cons, risks and benefits, in order to make an informed decision.
Here it appears that she had been (since she was made aware of alternate experimental treatment regimens in Canada/US).
There have been many, many patients in America, who have signed “informed consent” documents that they were provided sufficient information, questions answered, etc., -but who chose either to reject treatment offered, or chose non-approved alternate treatment. Some have died because of their choices. But that was their decision, not ours.
regime, not regimen.
(either is correct)
“The next step should have been the appointment of a patient surrogate, who would make final decisions for her, after hearing the same information as provided to ST.”
Why does a competent patient need a surrogate to make such decisions? She needs a good defense lawyer used to dealing with capital cases, but I thought the British already abolished the death penalty.
Socialists have a problem being consistent. Therefore, rule is by despot prevails.
S. Meyer: You are correct, but remember, the judge here HELD that she was “unable to make a decision for herself.”
THIS is what I was addressing. Based upon his ruling (notwithstanding appeal), the next step would be a surrogate and presentation of surrogate’s conclusion/finding. I am not familiar with the appellate process in UK
Lin, you provided the correct legal answer, but a judge is not supposed to put himself in a psychiatrist’s shoes. We have seen this craziness before where the British government attempts to preserve its dignity at the expense of patients and physicians. I remember a specific case of a British doctor who was pilloried by the authorities rather than the authorities admitting they created a horrid situation..
he did not put himself in a psychiatrist’s shoes. He apparently ignored the two psychiatrists’ opinions and decided on his own that she was not capable of making decisions for herself.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/euthanasia-rise-culture-death-creates-high-tech-sarcophagus/
Some of those ‘informed consent’ documents have more pages than DoJ discovery in Trump’s ‘boxes of papers’ case (ie. 11.2 million pages).
Also, some particularly spurious Senior/Nursing care documents assign all the patients assets, property and hereditary title to the Care providers upon termination of the .. . contract.
>”The next step should have been the appointment of a patient surrogate, who would make final decisions for her, after hearing the same information as provided to ST.”
I believe Turley addressed that: “the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.”
Assuming, of course, the UK Court of Protection means a ‘patient surrogate’ instead of surrogate for The Crown and Commonwealth. Lest we remain two peoples separated by a common language.
It would seem, at a minimum, Prof Turley and bloody British are two peoples separated by common Torts.
*https://genius.com/Johnny-cash-the-battle-of-new-orleans-lyrics
dsnowden: You are correct that the government-funded Court of Protection has the authority to decide cases of questionable mental capacity.
However, and again, my issue was that the judge seems to acknowledge her capacity, supported by two psychiatrists (more qualified than a judge to make that assessment), –but then the judge offers equivocal language saying she is not capable of making such a decision. The delay in decision authority has at least the potential of serious consequence. The record notes that her mother was there to interpret and assist. Could her mom have served as surrogate so that an immediate decision on future Tx be made?
dsnowden: I add that a surrogate is akin to Durable Power of Attorney/Patient Representative. Whereas, the Court of Protection is more akin to a court-appointed guardian. It does not look by the judge’s words that he found ST legally incompetent,-(more like, clouded by emotion maybe). She was certainly competent enough to appoint someone else to make her medical decisions. Do you see the difference?
The only distinction I see is King George III’s grubby barrister performing triage off the battlefield without a medical license or moral authority.
trē-ˈäzh
NOUN
the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors
*God save the Queen .. .
…
Lets drop the emotion an soundbites and look at facts.
1. She has been in the ICU for a year.
2. Her doctors (who are the experts and have consulted other experts) know she will not improve.
3. She does not have another facility or doctor willing to take her.
4. She does not have the financial resources to pay for it.
5. There is no right, either in the US or UK, to receive any medical treatment you want. Doctors and hospitals may refuse to provide it, and insurance companies or NHS may refuse to pay for it.
Given those facts, the ruling is correct. The same ruling would have been made in the US under similar circumstances. People get denied medical care all the time, and commonly for even treatable and not expensive conditions.
“1. She has been in the ICU for a year.”
Sammy, you have been braindead for many years.
“2. Her doctors (who are the experts and have consulted other experts) know she will not improve.”
You will not improve either. Additionally a person who is old and lost the ability to live on his own will not improve either. You are a murderer because you wish to kill people based on your personal whims.
“3. She does not have another facility or doctor willing to take her.”
You don’t know that.
“4. She does not have the financial resources to pay for it.”
Do you have the financial resources to pay for the most expensive treatments? No. Let’s push you off a roof.
“5. There is no right, either in the US or UK, to receive any medical treatment you want.”
It should not be up to government to make that decision. But we already know where you stand. Stalin is your idol.
Your contention is that people in the US have been extubated, against their will, just because they couldnt afford it???
Kill The Redcoats!
Well, this just shows that the British still have learned little since our revolution. There is no “We the people” in Britain. Parliament and its appendages are the ultimate decider of all things. Not even a plebiscite can overturn the power of parliament. They have no real protector of patient’s rights. And doctors can essentially make the decision, as in this case, for patients and against their wishes. I was a physician for 46 years and I never made a decision to put to death someone who was conscious and mentally competent. In spite of the Judges decision, if 2 psychiatrists / neurologists determine a person is awake and competent then they are conscious and competent. Most people do not know that psychiatrists are also trained as neurologists and their Board is Psychiatry and Neurology. You cannot get more basic than the desire to live.
My prescription for this judge is that he should have to be present when the patient is disconnected from the ventilator and IV’s. He should have to hold her hand and note the changes as she slips away. The skin starts to cool, the pupils dilate, all limbs start to become flaccid, the eyes (if still open) stare into infinity, and the breath slowly becomes less and less apparent, the pallor spreads over the entire body and they are gone. Every thought, hope, love, plan, memory slowly leaves and it is gone FOREVER. I have been there and it is the saddest thing I have ever seen when a life slips away.
Somehow I don’t think the Rights of Man (which Britain subscribes to) would cover this action by the court.
They should have to be in the room so she can curse them to hell for stealing life’s precious moments from her. With “doctors” like this, my dogs get better care.
Unfortunately for this young lady and so many others these days we now live in alternate reality world fraught with jurists so drunk with power they would get off on the opportunity to be there and see her death so they could validate in their own minds how much they are exactly like God, Who decides who is worthy of life and all it has to offer, and who is not.