No, they shouldn't. The evidence going through this was poor.
Initially, support was based on laboratory tests. There's a reason we do human trials. Lab tests don't tell the full story and are never sufficient evidence for mainstream treatments. NIH says "clinical trials only." That's appropriate.
Later, we started to get evidence from small trials from around the world. This meta-analysis was created, updated, and widely circulated. If you look at the evidence, it is mixed results, small sample sizes, inconsistent methodology. That's not very convincing to any medical professional. Some are more risk-tolerant than others.
By late 2021, we were getting results from the TOGETHER trial and the ACTIV-6 trials among others. These were larger trials, 700-800 patients in the experimental group. Neither showed any statistically significant benefit with a 400 mcg daily dose given for 3 days. No reduction in symptom length or severity. No reduction in the rates of patients who required hospitalization for worsening symptoms. These were high-quality, large sample size clinical trials. They're the kind of evidence we look for, and the results were negative.
Yes, there was a lot of anecdotal evidence floating around on social media. People said they used horse paste and it worked for them. But how do you quantify that? Are these bots? Liars? Exaggerators? Did they even have a COVID diagnosis? How much did they use? How long? Obviously, the evidence here is of poor quality.
So, if you're a doctor in a high litigious society and you've got hospital administrators, legal, the licensing board, your employer, etc all breathing down your neck and threatening your employment, privileges, license, and career, do you hang your hat on anecdotal evidence or do you go with what the big clinical trials show?
There's not a jury in the world, who, confronted with the totality of the situation with the context I just described (and cited), who would convict a doctor for malpractice for choosing not to prescribe ivermectin.
Weight based is 3 mg. per around 30 pounds, if I recall. I would have to look it up to be precise. So a 150# person would need about 15 mg. When you see that what you are doing isn’t working, you don’t continue and expect a different outcome, i.e. remdesevir=organ failure=intubation and ventilation=death. Instead you research what is out there, you call your colleagues who are reporting success. The AMA, AAP, ANA, Hospitals, Big Pharma, CDC, NIH, FDA, HHS, The Lan et, The NEJM, Doctors, nurses have effectively destroyed any trust and have become supportive murderers. So yes, they should lose their licenses, spend time in prison and pay huge fines, hospital should lose their licenses to operate, and in some cases people should be executed (scientists involved in the experiments development, gain of function, distribution, falsifying records to knowingly distribute a killer drug).
It's called 'field' medicine. You have an emergency and the doctor uses their clinical judgement to best serve their patients. It's an old practice still appropriate today. That is what the FDA, CDC, Imperial, Fauci, media and all their sheeple tried to stop good medics doing. It is criminal - crimes against humanity. And it's still happening right now.
#1 There were no real human trials for the Covid shot, but that didn’t stop the FDA, CDC, NIH, Military, HHS For having businesses mandate it.
#2. The Lancet and NEMJ deliberately falsified studies and printed them as truth, slandering ivermectin and hydrochloroquine to promote the agenda of world wide vaccination
#3. Ivermectin has been safely used for decades, so it should have been allowed under “Right to try” with those nearing death
#4. Any other vaccine with as many adverse side effects and deaths would have been pulled. Instead the U.S. government is still cranking out propaganda commercials for the boosters.
No, they shouldn't. The evidence going through this was poor.
So, if you're a doctor in a high litigious society and you've got hospital administrators, legal, the licensing board, your employer, etc all breathing down your neck and threatening your employment, privileges, license, and career, do you hang your hat on anecdotal evidence or do you go with what the big clinical trials show?
There's not a jury in the world, who, confronted with the totality of the situation with the context I just described (and cited), who would convict a doctor for malpractice for choosing not to prescribe ivermectin.
Wait, 400 microgram? I thought the effective daily dose was at least 3 milligrams.
Weight based is 3 mg. per around 30 pounds, if I recall. I would have to look it up to be precise. So a 150# person would need about 15 mg. When you see that what you are doing isn’t working, you don’t continue and expect a different outcome, i.e. remdesevir=organ failure=intubation and ventilation=death. Instead you research what is out there, you call your colleagues who are reporting success. The AMA, AAP, ANA, Hospitals, Big Pharma, CDC, NIH, FDA, HHS, The Lan et, The NEJM, Doctors, nurses have effectively destroyed any trust and have become supportive murderers. So yes, they should lose their licenses, spend time in prison and pay huge fines, hospital should lose their licenses to operate, and in some cases people should be executed (scientists involved in the experiments development, gain of function, distribution, falsifying records to knowingly distribute a killer drug).
It's called 'field' medicine. You have an emergency and the doctor uses their clinical judgement to best serve their patients. It's an old practice still appropriate today. That is what the FDA, CDC, Imperial, Fauci, media and all their sheeple tried to stop good medics doing. It is criminal - crimes against humanity. And it's still happening right now.
#1 There were no real human trials for the Covid shot, but that didn’t stop the FDA, CDC, NIH, Military, HHS For having businesses mandate it. #2. The Lancet and NEMJ deliberately falsified studies and printed them as truth, slandering ivermectin and hydrochloroquine to promote the agenda of world wide vaccination #3. Ivermectin has been safely used for decades, so it should have been allowed under “Right to try” with those nearing death #4. Any other vaccine with as many adverse side effects and deaths would have been pulled. Instead the U.S. government is still cranking out propaganda commercials for the boosters.
Thank you for making sense.