More COVIDiots: can a judge "compel" a hospital to administer something that doesn't work? An Ohio judge just did...

Would YOU decide to take horse dewormer because somebody on the Internet told you it can cure COVID? 

Before you said yes, remember many months ago someone said the same thing about hydroxychloroquine? It was touted by no less than Trump himself. That did not work. 

So why would you expect ivermectin to work? It doesn't either. 

There is ONE study in Egypt with positive results for ivermectin that was NOT peer-reviewed. Then the publisher retracted the paper. Turns out there are SERIOUS problems with the data, where there are signs that data have been copied between patients, among other problems. The entire study cannot be trusted. 

You can guess what the antivaxxers did... Scream "censorship", never mind the details. 

So what is this about a judge? Hold one for one more thing...

Ivermectin CAN be used on humans... for a MUCH reduced dosage... for parasites. It can be used topically for head lice, or internally for "river blindness", and so on. It was so useful, the team that found the human use got the Nobel Prize in 2015. Again, it kills parasites, not viruses. 

Now onto the judge. 

In Ohio, a woman, Julie Smith, has her husband in the ICU for COVID since July 15th, 2021. Julie, found a Dr. Fred Wagshul, supposedly an expert in treating COVID with ivermectin, who was willing to prescribe her husband ivermectin. The hospital refused. Thus the lawsuit. 

We have determined above that most studies regarding ivermectin are either inconclusive or flawed. There is little evidence to suggest Ivermectin can prevent or treat COVID. Yet its proponents continue to claim the proof is "irrefutable" and such that it works. 

Just think about it. Ivermectin has NEVER before been formal trial tested in ANIMALS OR HUMANS for fighting a virus, muchless COVID, until very recently. Suddenly, it works wonders... then THAT study was found to be potentially fraudulent. So what's the conclusion? 

Logically, it should be "I'll have to wait and see, as there's no evidence that it really works. If it worked that well, I'd want to see some MORE proof. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence."

Indeed, that's the current Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin and COVID conclusion based on all existing studies (will be updated as more studies are performed):

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19.

But now, just because some patient asked for this unproven treatment because she shopped for a doctor that will give it to her, does that means the hospital has to provide it? Apparently a judge decided that to be a "yes". Does a judge have the right to decide if a treatment is viable? Or can any patient walk into any hospital and demand a quack treatment just because she found a doctor willing to prescribe it? 

But hold on, it gets worse. 

The dose prescribed was "30 mg daily for 3 weeks". 

So what's a typical ivermectin dose? 

For intestinal deworming, the suggested dose is ONE, repeat ONE ONLY, dose of 200 mcg/kg. Assuming her husband is 100 kg (220 pounds), that's 20 mg dose.

This "doctor" has prescribed a dose 50% over that (30 mg), FOR 21 full days. 

Where did he even get this number? 

There is no science to his prescription. 

And I'll just leave you with this bit of news...

Anti-vax police Captain of Georgia town who touted ivermectin, taken quite a bit himself, and proud of his unvaccinated status, has died of COVID. 

Don't be a COVIDiot. Get vaccinated.