Family sues hospital to allow administration of Ivermectin to save their father

[Howard]

The trained professionals are paid by the companies making the vaccines. I wouldn't trust them at all.

Yup, it's a damn conspiracy they don't allow witch doctors and faith healers in with the RN's and MD's 

[Howard]

He was dying without it.  Ivermectin has 40 years of history and is regarded as extremely safe.   Not administering a drug with a 40-year safety history totally negates the Dying Patients Right to Try.  The family offered to sign a waiver removing the hospital from any liability.  This is all about greed and control.

Ok on a serious note, here's the real deal.

If you or anyone else wants to self treat with their own methods, fine.
STAY home and use  leaches or magic herbs  you desire.

However, IF you go to a hospital, expect them to use accepted medical treatment.

IF, the person with covid doesn't want that kind of medical treatment, why do they go to a hospital?

[Dave D]

Ok on a serious note, here's the real deal.

If you or anyone else wants to self treat with their own methods, fine.
STAY home and use  leaches or magic herbs  you desire.

However, IF you go to a hospital, expect them to use accepted medical treatment.

IF, the person with covid doesn't want that kind of medical treatment, why do they go to a hospital?

Did you miss the part where the horse de wormer  saved his life AFTER the accepted treatment did not work?

The veterinary drug saved his life. Do you think it's because the patient was a centaur?

[Howard]

Did you miss the part where the horse de wormer  saved his life AFTER the accepted treatment did not work?

The veterinary drug saved his life. Do you think it's because the patient was a centaur?

Most of those who get covid will recover and NOT die.

There is NO legit study in any recognized medical journal  showing  ivermectin has any measured efficacy in treating covid. 

In humans, it's used for treatment on parasite infestation .

[Howard]

Howard, with all due respect you are not a doctor.  Check out the FLCCC website.  These doctors have treated tens of thousands of Covid patients with their protocol that uses Ivermectin as a main drug.   The new Pfizer drug has a pharmacological approach very similar to Ivermectin.   Since Ivermectin is essentially free and has 40 years of safe use history it makes no sense to censor news about its use.   Google Drs Pierre Kory and Paul Marek.

It's NOT used for covid treatment in any hospital or certified medical clinic .

The new Pfizer covid pill is an anti-viral and invermectin is used in humans for parasites. BIG difference.

What you're peddling is like saying , do curls to stimulate leg growth.

[Dave D]

Most of those who get covid will recover and NOT die.

You should have shared this information with the guy who’s family got the court order to save his life with the unapproved treatment of ivermectin.

[TheFranchise]

It actually has been used as an antiviral but don't let facts get in the way.

This x2. You have two old fags like a Howard and Prime jerking off to something they have no clue about.

[Howard]

This x2. You have two old fags like a Howard and Prime jerking off to something they have no clue about.

WTF?     I'm an expert on jerkin' my gerkin.

[AbrahamG]

This x2. You have two old fags like a Howard and Prime jerking off to something they have no clue about.

Neither, I believe are practicing homosexuals.  One is latent the latter is dormant.

[Grape Ape]

Fucking idiots do no research in this thread.

Ivermectin does have anti viral properties.  It's been administered over a billion times and the adverse effects numbers are less than 50.

It may or may not help covid, but it is a risk free proposition to try it.  They utilized it in z packs throughout India during the d variant run.

[OAK]

So ANTIVAXXERS won’t take the vaccine because they don’t want any “chemicals” in their body but they’ll pump themselves full of Ivermectin???

This makes NO sense!

🙄🙄🙄

[mac33]

So called "vaccine" was developed on the basis of data regarding the virus provided by the chinese government. No other real vaccine has as many side effects and deaths as this jab and this is considering the minimum amount of actual cases being reported at all.

It is still in experiment mode and you are the test bunny.

Ivermectin on the other hand has a history of credibility shown by statistics and low risks involved. But it is too cheap and anyone can produce it hence it is unwanted since there is no money to be made for the big boys.

Keep fooling yourself and abide by the rules of politicians, actors and media instead of looking at facts and listening to opposition in the science sphere...

[Humble Narcissist]

Yup, it's a damn conspiracy they don't allow witch doctors and faith healers in with the RN's and MD's 

You are ignoring the very respected medical professionals on the opposite side of the argument. This is understandable since they are banned from social media, Youtube and the MSM. No debate, just banned.

[Tapeworm]

Most of those who get covid will recover and NOT die.

There is NO legit study in any recognized medical journal  showing  ivermectin has any measured efficacy in treating covid. 

In humans, it's used for treatment on parasite infestation .

Logical responses like yours and mine are a waste of time and energy among the illogical vocal majority on Getbig.

Gentlemen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054936/

This was just the first result from a google of 'ivermectin 3cl inhibitor.' There's lots.

You're allowed to be in favor of shots as well as ivermectin, you understand. It's ok.

[Grape Ape]

Gentlemen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054936/

This was just the first result from a google of 'ivermectin 3cl inhibitor.' There's lots.

You're allowed to be in favor of shots as well as ivermectin, you understand. It's ok.

First line:

Ivermectin (IVM) is an FDA-approved drug that has shown antiviral activity against a wide variety of viruses in recent years.

[Howard]

So called "vaccine" was developed on the basis of data regarding the virus provided by the chinese government. No other real vaccine has as many side effects and deaths as this jab and this is considering the minimum amount of actual cases being reported at all.

It is still in experiment mode and you are the test bunny.

Ivermectin on the other hand has a history of credibility shown by statistics and low risks involved. But it is too cheap and anyone can produce it hence it is unwanted since there is no money to be made for the big boys.

Keep fooling yourself and abide by the rules of politicians, actors and media instead of looking at facts and listening to opposition in the science sphere...

The 1st 2 covid vaccines were rigorously derived via messenger RNA .
The "spike" on the covid 19 molecule , is protein based with an amino acid sequence.

The rapid release of the covid 19 DNA sequence allowed scientists to develop
the mRNA sequence that could attack the protein spike and render it harmless.

Trials for these mRNA vaccines were done with thousands of test volunteers in a
double blind study . The results were reviewed several times via medical experts and
medical boards.

The safety and efficacy of these initial covid vaccines have been proven safe and effective.
They have already been in bodies of several million people worldwide.

Ivermectin is NOT an anti-viral and has no direct impact on the covid-19 virus.
It's use in humans is strictly for pest infestation.

[Grape Ape]

Ivermectin is NOT an anti-viral and has no direct impact on the covid-19 virus.
It's use in humans is strictly for pest infestation.

This is why people think you're oak = you just ignore data presented and post the same things.

It does have anti viral properties, and is a risk free proposition.

[OAK]

This is why people think you're oak = you just ignore data presented and post the same things.

It does have anti viral properties, and is a risk free proposition.

An antivaxxer claiming someone else is ignoring data?

How ironic.

😆

[Grape Ape]

Just a guess based on the timing of the post above, but someone should remind Oak how the ignore feature works.

But I'm sure it was insightful.....

[Slapper]

When talking about this drug as it relates to medicine in general… one must understand a few things first:

1. Modern science isn’t the science of the past. Modern science is infested, INFESTED, with group think, collaborative groups and other consensus-driven protocols. TRUE science isn’t based on consensus. True science is based on exhausting all iterations to someone’s thesis and proving that you cannot prove the opposite. You don’t need to know the guy, don’t need to suck his cock or pork his wife.

2. If the effectiveness of a drug isn’t within the 95% distribution bell, it’s considered to need “more testing.” Which is legalese for “it’s good to go but I don’t want to get sued if you grow a second penis when you take the pill.

I think Ivermectin is a good example of 1 & 2. On the one hand, lots of people use it and rave about it and on the the other hand, the field of medicine is throwing caution to the wind. This is the problem: if you have the God-given receptors for Ivermectin, do you really give flying fuck that the field of medicine hasn’t put its stamp of approval on the drug?

It’s all getting stupid beyond belief. Just today, CNN were criticizing people who use the drug because “we don’t know what the effects are,” WHICH IS A FUCKING LIE, and that the side effects could be bad. Cut to commercials and boom: Cialis commercial in which half of the talking points are about its side effects. The field of medicine is a fucking joke.

General medicine, as a field, is not scientific at all. You have a head ache? Advil. Your foot hurts? Advil. Anything general as it pertains to health just fucking sucks. That’s why, when you develop something really nasty they quickly refer you to a specialist (meaning a a REAL doctor).

[Howard]

When talking about this drug as it relates to medicine in general… one must understand a few things first:

1. Modern science isn’t the science of the past. Modern science is infested, INFESTED, with group think, collaborative groups and other consensus-driven protocols. TRUE science isn’t based on consensus. True science is based on exhausting all iterations to someone’s thesis and proving that you cannot prove the opposite. You don’t need to know the guy, don’t need to suck his cock or pork his wife.

2. If the effectiveness of a drug isn’t within the 95% distribution bell, it’s considered to need “more testing.” Which is legalese for “it’s good to go but I don’t want to get sued if you grow a second penis when you take the pill.

I think Ivermectin is a good example of 1 & 2. On the one hand, lots of people use it and rave about it and on the the other hand, the field of medicine is throwing caution to the wind. This is the problem: if you have the God-given receptors for Ivermectin, do you really give flying fuck that the field of medicine hasn’t put its stamp of approval on the drug?

It’s all getting stupid beyond belief. Just today, CNN were criticizing people who use the drug because “we don’t know what the effects are,” WHICH IS A FUCKING LIE, and that the side effects could be bad. Cut to commercials and boom: Cialis commercial in which half of the talking points are about its side effects. The field of medicine is a fucking joke.

General medicine, as a field, is not scientific at all. You have a head ache? Advil. Your foot hurts? Advil. Anything general as it pertains to health just fucking sucks. That’s why, when you develop something really nasty they quickly refer you to a specialist (meaning a a REAL doctor).

Ok, fair enough.

Are you suggesting, modern medicine is rife with corruption and near useless in treating disease?
Do you really believe  we're better off to do our own research and treat ourselves ?

If that's your actual position , that's fine and our debate ends .
Your side can simply go it alone, and treat themselves at home by their own means.
If that's what you advocate, you'll get no argument from me.

However, IF you decide to access medical care in a hospital, it's a different situation.
By checking in , you agree to allow them to treat you.

Now, the medical profession allows you to REFUSE various treatments .
For example, a Jehovah Witness may refuse a blood transfusion.
They have a signed waiver of damages for the medical staff .
If they die , they can't sue the hospital for malpractice or wrongful death.

What you CAN'T do, is tell the medical staff to treat with an unapproved drug or procedure.
This is exactly what the family tried to do ,in this posted case.

Since they didn't agree with the hospital's treatment, it was their right to check him out.
He survived with their home treatment. That was the best possible result.

However, the  hospital  is required to use proven , accepted treatments or they get sued for malpractice.

I'm NOT saying the medical field is perfect and always gets the best possible result.
So, what's the alternative ?  I believe you're advocating using our own research and treatment.
Sounds tempting and promotes  independence, which is admirable .

So, the next time you read some "research" about Ivermectin or new miracle cure, consider:

* Will they be responsible for any problems that arise from using it ?

THAT cuts to the real deal. The medical field is accountable to its patients .
The miracle potion folks don't take responsibility for problems and say ..." You're on your own"

It's a lot easier to shout about being right, when they're no consequences for being wrong.

[Grape Ape]

Ok, fair enough.

Are you suggesting, modern medicine is rife with corruption and near useless in treating disease?
Do you really believe  we're better off to do our own research and treat ourselves ?

If that's your actual position , that's fine and our debate ends .
Your side can simply go it alone, and treat themselves at home by their own means.
If that's what you advocate, you'll get no argument from me.

However, IF you decide to access medical care in a hospital, it's a different situation.
By checking in , you agree to allow them to treat you.

Now, the medical profession allows you to REFUSE various treatments .
For example, a Jehovah Witness may refuse a blood transfusion.
They have a signed waiver of damages for the medical staff .
If they die , they can't sue the hospital for malpractice or wrongful death.

What you CAN'T do, is tell the medical staff to treat with an unapproved drug or procedure.
This is exactly what the family tried to do ,in this posted case.

Since they didn't agree with the hospital's treatment, it was their right to check him out.
He survived with their home treatment. That was the best possible result.

However, the  hospital  is required to use proven , accepted treatments or they get sued for malpractice.

I'm NOT saying the medical field is perfect and always gets the best possible result.
So, what's the alternative ?  I believe you're advocating using our own research and treatment.
Sounds tempting and promotes  independence, which is admirable .

So, the next time you read some "research" about Ivermectin or new miracle cure, consider:

* Will they be responsible for any problems that arise from using it ?

THAT cuts to the real deal. The medical field is accountable to its patients .
The miracle potion folks don't take responsibility for problems and say ..." You're on your own"

It's a lot easier to shout about being right, when they're no consequences for being wrong.

Why might an approved drug be used for an unapproved use?
From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

[Howard]

In my opinion your getting lost in the proverbial weeds here and missing the main issue.
Yes, it's true ,  special situations require a "fast track" to treat some patients .

( Again) The licensed docs and hospitals are responsible for any problems that may occur from treatments & procedures.
On line medical advice via web sites and social media with some miracle potion sales doesn't adhere to the same regulations.
They simply say ; " It's YOUR choice" which means if things go bad, you're on your own.

...so you may need to go to the hospital ER 

[Dave D]

In my opinion your getting lost in the proverbial weeds here and missing the main issue.
Yes, it's true ,  special situations require a "fast track" to treat some patients .

( Again) The licensed docs and hospitals are responsible for any problems that may occur from treatments & procedures.
On line medical advice via web sites and social media with some miracle potion sales doesn't adhere to the same regulations.
They simply say ; " It's YOUR choice" which means if things go bad, you're on your own.

...so you may need to go to the hospital ER 

To sum up all these posts, ask your doctor.

But here’s why they should tell what I believe.

[Slapper]

Ok, fair enough.

Are you suggesting, modern medicine is rife with corruption and near useless in treating disease?
Do you really believe  we're better off to do our own research and treat ourselves ?

If that's your actual position , that's fine and our debate ends .
Your side can simply go it alone, and treat themselves at home by their own means.
If that's what you advocate, you'll get no argument from me.

However, IF you decide to access medical care in a hospital, it's a different situation.
By checking in , you agree to allow them to treat you.

Now, the medical profession allows you to REFUSE various treatments .
For example, a Jehovah Witness may refuse a blood transfusion.
They have a signed waiver of damages for the medical staff .
If they die , they can't sue the hospital for malpractice or wrongful death.

What you CAN'T do, is tell the medical staff to treat with an unapproved drug or procedure.
This is exactly what the family tried to do ,in this posted case.

Since they didn't agree with the hospital's treatment, it was their right to check him out.
He survived with their home treatment. That was the best possible result.

However, the  hospital  is required to use proven , accepted treatments or they get sued for malpractice.

I'm NOT saying the medical field is perfect and always gets the best possible result.
So, what's the alternative ?  I believe you're advocating using our own research and treatment.
Sounds tempting and promotes  independence, which is admirable .

So, the next time you read some "research" about Ivermectin or new miracle cure, consider:

* Will they be responsible for any problems that arise from using it ?

THAT cuts to the real deal. The medical field is accountable to its patients .
The miracle potion folks don't take responsibility for problems and say ..." You're on your own"

It's a lot easier to shout about being right, when they're no consequences for being wrong.

There isn’t such a thing as “modern medicine.” What you have is general medicine, which is utter shit and “specialist medicine,” which is the real deal. Even the medications have eerily similar ingredients. It’s an extortion racket.

Where the difference lies is in that general medicine practitioners hide behind the science AS IF that gives their profession more credibility. They even have the audacity to criticize PROVEN methods like acupuncture or alternative therapies.

It’s madness.