Free To Fly

[IFG]

13 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Now then.....just a sec.

May I first say that medical malpractice lawyers are few and far between. It requires a LOT of work and study to have any functional idea of the relationship between what occurred and the reasonable expectation of what SHOULD have occurred.

May I add that I have no clue as to the meaning of the first quoted sentence.

Continuing....I had maybe 10 medical malpractice cases. They were all defended out of one firm in Toronto. One of the defence lawyers I encountered was an MD as well as an LL.B 

One of my cases involved a lady who died of a heart attack. She was diagnosed by the emergency physician with indigestion. He conducted no blood tests and mis-read the ECG.

In another, my client was admitted for a tubal ligation. She almost died. The gynecologist cut a blood vessel during the operation that wasn't anywhere near the operative field. To get an expert for the plaintiff, I had to bring in a fellow from Chicago. No one local was prepared to testify though there were a number who were ready to help with one hand over their mouth.

Bottom line....as in every "trade", mistakes are made. Doctors tend to be a tad more protective of each other. Like some pilots....individually, they never err; but others do.

Yikes! Citing alternative statistics with a lowest estimate of 22000 deaths due to error hardly seems to me to trivialize the problem, but discrepancies orders of magnitude apart aren't trivial either, and could be counter-productive. So just to be clear, even the lowest of that range of estimates absolutely warrants serious consideration and effort. FWIW, my own experience with this involved my father - fortunately he weathered it, but the Doc's brought up DNR's as he lay in hospital. I do think these testimonials do more inflaming than informing, but (again FWIW) I'm neither bamboozled by MD's, nor heartless about tragedies caused.

You are of course correct that all 'trades' suffer from the group self-protection for error.

Nonetheless, and imperfect as pilots may be, we can take a little pride in ongoing efforts like improving SOP's, SMS, careful investigation etc. I believe the medical profession has already learned a bit from the aviation world about techniques for adherence to procedure during surgery (checklists etc.) Perhaps another direction to go would be a change of focus on error toward recognition and correction rather than blame and retribution, encouraging more open reporting etc.

Of course, as there is in the flying business, there would be some tension with the more litigious stake-holders. 

Cheers, IFG 

[Guest2]

[UpperDeck]

22 hours ago, IFG said:

Yikes! Citing alternative statistics with a lowest estimate of 22000 deaths due to error hardly seems to me to trivialize the problem, but discrepancies orders of magnitude apart aren't trivial either, and could be counter-productive. So just to be clear, even the lowest of that range of estimates absolutely warrants serious consideration and effort. FWIW, my own experience with this involved my father - fortunately he weathered it, but the Doc's brought up DNR's as he lay in hospital. I do think these testimonials do more inflaming than informing, but (again FWIW) I'm neither bamboozled by MD's, nor heartless about tragedies caused.

You are of course correct that all 'trades' suffer from the group self-protection for error.

Nonetheless, and imperfect as pilots may be, we can take a little pride in ongoing efforts like improving SOP's, SMS, careful investigation etc. I believe the medical profession has already learned a bit from the aviation world about techniques for adherence to procedure during surgery (checklists etc.) Perhaps another direction to go would be a change of focus on error toward recognition and correction rather than blame and retribution, encouraging more open reporting etc.

Of course, as there is in the flying business, there would be some tension with the more litigious stake-holders. 

Cheers, IFG 

Hmm! Seems as though you and I once again passed each other without effective communication; ie..our meanings were misunderstood.

I was ( as usual) ONLY remarking upon your reference to medical malpractice practitIoners which I interpreted as a suggestion that lawyers might see greater numbers of culprits than actually existed. I would not presume ( nay, never) to comment upon your statistical analyses. Some might...but never me.

Regardless, my very limited comment resulted in your recitation of safety practices. I just KNEW that DH would positively respond to the implicit suggestion that litigation ( or the threat thereof) was incompatible with incident-based learning; the promotion of disclosure as a prophylactic.

I'm not sure that the use of checklists in medicine can be attributed to pilot practices. Some might believe that the use of checklists in medicine AND aviation was an indirect result of those pestilent litigators. Having a recorded memo or independent log of compliance with protocol aids in the defence. For the same reason, grocery stores maintain an hourly log ( or more frequent) of " floor inspections" etc to establish the exercise of reasonable care. There are a LOT of " slip and fall" cases.

"Stake-holders"? We're ALL interested in aviation safety; and automobile safety; and boating safety; and....etc

However, we do not all agree on how that common goal is best-achieved. I am sure you know that but for civil litigation, many of the safeguards we now take for granted in transportation would not exist.

At the end of the day, commercial pilots and others similarly situated are "mere" employees. They operate the equipment they are given. Decisions on whether or not innovative techniques are adopted to enhance pax safety are oft-times solely based upon a cost and risk assessment by "management". Lawyers ....good lawyers....by staying at the forefront of change tend to ensure that the cost of NOT making the "right" choice is cost prohibitive.

No....not for altruistic reasons....no one works willingly for free unless it's in their best interests. Their incentive is compensation but the end result (hopefully) is enhanced public safety.

[Seeker]

You have to ask yourself;  if the first 3 tries didn't work - maybe it was either wrong to begin with or wrong to be doing now?

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/09/04/israel-should-begin-preparing-for-rollout-of-4th-vaccine-dose-pandemic-czar-says/

Israel Should Begin Preparing for Rollout of 4th Vaccine Dose, Pandemic Czar Says

 

‘Given that that the virus is here and is here to stay, we must also ready ourselves for the fourth jab’

Israel should begin preparing for the eventual rollout of the fourth dose of the coronavirus vaccine, the national pandemic coordinator said on Saturday, without specifying when this is likely to occur.

“Given that that the virus is here and is here to stay, we must also prepare for the fourth jab,” Dr. Salman Zarka told local radio.

The next booster shot should be modified to offer better protection against new variants of the coronavirus, such as the highly transmissible delta strain.

“This is our life from now on, in waves,” Zarka said.

Israel, a world leader in the vaccination against the virus, is nevertheless struggling to contain the fourth wave of morbidity in the country, driven by the delta variant.

So far, over 6,000,000 Israelis, the vast majority of the state’s population, have received at least one shot of the Pfizer vaccine, while over 5,500,000 have received two. Upward of 2,500,000 have already received the third jab.

[UpperDeck]

I wonder about "cause and effect"; do we contribute to mutations by reason of targeted vaccines?

I thought the vaccines delivered the "message" to the immune system to develop antigens to recognize the Covid virus, "assisting" those whose own immune system would not otherwise react quickly enough.

If you require a vaccine for every variant and we decide everyone has to be vaccinated and not just the "immune deficient", we'll be pin cushions!

HIV mutates rapidly but I understand it's the transfer process itself that generates "errors" which result in the mutations. In the case of Covid, mutations seems "designed" by the virus itself to increase transmissibility.

To my mind, the focus should perhaps be on identifying the "weakness" in the immune systems of those in the population who are vulnerable.

It was of interest to learn that the black and latino populations were more susceptible to hiv just as they are more susceptible to covid. Very different viruses and yet there is a common path somewhere that affords those viruses access.

[FA@AC]

8 hours ago, Seeker said:

You have to ask yourself;  if the first 3 tries didn't work - maybe it was either wrong to begin with or wrong to be doing now?

One could also ask why those who are filling the ICUs and dying of what you claim to be a “minor medical issue” are almost all unvaccinated.

[Seeker]

11 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

One could also ask why those who are filling the ICUs and dying of what you claim to be a “minor medical issue” are almost all unvaccinated.

I don't want to start the whole argument again.  I will say, however, that pulling snippets out of a different conversation months ago in a different context isn't playing fair.

 

[FA@AC]

Months ago?  I have no idea what conversation you’re referring to.  You proclaimed covid-19 to be a minor medical issue on this thread a few days ago.

[Don Hudson]

On 8/31/2021 at 8:48 PM, Seeker said:

Here's the important thing about Ivermectin - it costs pennies and has virtually no downside.  Everybody suspected of Covid should be prescribed Ivermectin without question - great benefit, small benefit, no benefit - just take it.

The above statement is misinformation, and is on a public forum.

As a member of the AEF I object to the use of this forum for this purpose.

Don Hudson

 

From Health Canada:

Quote

Ivermectin not authorized to prevent or treat COVID-19; may cause serious health problems

Report a Concern

Starting date:

August 31, 2021

Posting date:

August 31, 2021

Type of communication:

Advisory

Subcategory:

Veterinary Drugs

Source of recall:

Health Canada

Issue:

Unauthorized products, Important Safety Information

Audience:

General Public, Healthcare Professionals

Identification number:

RA-76365

Last updated: 2021-08-31

Summary

• Product: Ivermectin (veterinary or human versions), an antiparasitic agent (tablets, paste, oral solution, injectable solution, medicated premix or topical).
• Issue: Consumers, are purchasing veterinary ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.
• What to do: Do not use veterinary ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. If you have purchased ivermectin for this purpose, discard it immediately. Consult a healthcare professional if you have used this product and have health concerns.

 

• Issue
• What you should do
• Media enquiries
• Public enquiries

Issue

Health Canada has received concerning reports of the use of veterinary ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. Canadians should never consume health products intended for animals because of the potential serious health dangers posed by them.

In this light, Health Canada is advising Canadians not to use either the veterinary or human drug versions of Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that ivermectin in either formulation is safe or effective when used for those purposes. The human version of ivermectin is authorized for sale in Canada only for the treatment of parasitic worm infections in people.

The veterinary version of ivermectin, especially at high doses, can be dangerous for humans and may cause serious health problems such as vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, allergic reactions, dizziness, seizures, coma and even death. Ivermectin products for animals have a higher concentrated dose than ivermectin products for people.

The Department is aware of multiple reports of patients in the U.S. who have required medical support and been hospitalized after using ivermectin intended for horses.

Health Canada is closely monitoring all potential therapeutic treatments for COVID-19, including treatments being studied in international clinical trials. To date, Health Canada has not received any drug submission or clinical trial application for ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

For drugs that have the potential to be helpful in treating COVID-19, Health Canada encourages drug manufacturers to conduct clinical trials. This would provide an opportunity for the healthcare community to collect information on the effectiveness of the treatment and its associated risks.

Should a manufacturer provide a submission to Health Canada related to the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, Health Canada would conduct a scientific evaluation of the evidence to determine the drug's quality, safety and effectiveness.

Health Canada will continue to monitor the situation and will take appropriate and timely action should new information become available, including any information regarding the illegal advertising or sale of ivermectin. Health Canada will also communicate any new safety information to healthcare professionals and consumers.

Health Canada has previously warned Canadians about products making false and misleading claims to treat or cure COVID-19. For information on Health Canada authorized vaccines and treatments, visit Canada.ca.

Background

Ivermectin, a prescription drug product, is authorized for sale in Canada for the treatment of parasitic worm infections in humans, specifically intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, and should only be used for this purpose, under the supervision of a healthcare professional. A veterinary version of this medication is available to treat parasitic infections in animals. People should never use the veterinary version of this product.

What you should do

• If you have purchased ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19, stop using it and discard it:
  • Follow municipal or regional guidelines on how to dispose of chemicals and other hazardous waste; or
  • Return the product to the point of sale for proper disposal.
• Consult a healthcare professional if you have used ivermectin and have health concerns.
• Report any side effects from this product directly to Health Canada.
• Submit a complaint to Health Canada should you have any information regarding the illegal advertising or sale of ivermectin or any other health product using its online complaint form.

Media enquiries

Health Canada
(613) 957-2983
media@hc-sc.gc.ca

Public enquiries

(613) 957-2991
1-866 225-0709
hcinfo.infosc@canada.ca

 

From the U.S. FDA

Quote

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
• Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.
• Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
• If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed. 
• Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous. 

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea. 

Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe? 

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay. 

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. 

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in  products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Options for Preventing and Treating COVID-19

The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance.

Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.

 

[deicer]

[Seeker]

1 hour ago, Don Hudson said:

The above statement is misinformation, and is on a public forum.

As a member of the AEF I object to the use of this forum for this purpose.

Don Hudson

 

Hello Don, thanks for your contribution.  I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote.

There are various opinions on the validity of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid but none that say Ivermectin is dangerous when prescribed and used in proper dosages.  Ivermectin has been used for 40 years and has a well-established safety profile.  My point is that, even though the benefits are not clearly defined, the downside is minimal so you might as well take it just in case.

Your links about the danger of using veterinary Ivermectin are totally legit but a separate issue.  I did not say that someone/anyone should self-dose with veterinary grade Ivermectin _ that's crazy talk.

Yes, Health Canada has not approved Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid.  You know what else?  Heath Canada has not approved Pfiser as a treatment for Covid.  It's "authorized" because it kinda/sorta looks like there's some benefit.  Well, Ivermectin kinda/sorta looks like it has some benefit too.

My point.  The point you replied to - is that Ivermectin costs virtually nothing and has no downside implications when prescribed by a proper Doctor in the proper doses so even if the benefit is unknown (though suspected to be positive) you might as well take it.

That's simply opinion and not misinformation.

Don, you may wish to watch this video:  

 

 

 

 

[Seeker]

27 minutes ago, deicer said:

Or, some people might say, the dog could put out the fire with a bucket of water and avoid being subjected to the carcinogenic fumes from the fire extinguisher.

[UpperDeck]

This is crazy!! The forum is intended for the honest exchange of opinion and any attempt to muzzle the expression of honestly and reasonably held opinions is offensive.

Do your own research, for God's sake. Don't just parrot what others say!

When hydroxychloroquine was touted, fools began to ingest chlorine. Public announcements about guidances are designed to be consumed and understood by the masses; to prevent confusion and protect people from the consequences of their own ignorance.

Ivermectin has potential benefits. The extent of those benefits are unproven but there is "reasonable confidence" that in PROPER dosages, Ivermectin MAY have significant therepeutic benefits.

SO SAYS THE CDC!!

The "problem" arose because fools began hunting down and ingesting dosages intended for livestock.

DH...you "preach" safety. Do a little research on the negative impact on humans of ingestion of Ivermectin in appropriate dosages and for a restricted time.

How do I know? Some years ago, I took Ivermectin as a preventative measure suspecting the possibility of a tapeworm infection.

Apart from that extra finger...there were no side effects.

The developers of Ivermectin received the Nobel Prize in 2015 because of the innovative treatment of roundworm.

Of course, you all knew that because you're computer literate and familiar with Google.

I for one agree with Seeker. I would consult with my doctors first but having done so I know; I would take Ivermectin in controlled amounts and in dosages appropriate for humans if I contracted Covid.

[IFG]

13 hours ago, Seeker said:

You have to ask yourself;  if the first 3 tries didn't work - maybe it was either wrong to begin with or wrong to be doing now? ....

Oh for Pete's sake, Seeker, you don't "have to ask yourself" anything of the kind. The premise is patently absurd. A vaccine showing 80-90 percent effectiveness is working beyond the wildest dreams that preceded them.

I'll fix it for you. 

If the first three vaccinations are not working as perfectly as we'd like, maybe we should try a fourth one?

There. We might even arrive at the same conclusion. 

23 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

Hmm! Seems as though you and I once again passed each other without effective communication; ie..our meanings were misunderstood ....

Hi again, UD - That reference to malpractice lawyers was nothing more than a gentle dig, born of the fact that some of the sites I hit citing that 6-figure estimate in fact belonged to that tribe. IAC, irony and subtlety just don't carry well on this medium. No worries. In fact, my own genealogy is quite polluted with lawyers (the rest much taken up with journalists - there is no hope for me)  .

Same with my little stake-holders comment, although I do suggest its simply true as stated, and not judgmental at all.

But!! I just knew that you would respond .... the promotion of litigation as a prophylactic. 

Seriously, yes, litigation can play an important role, but it doesn't always. Of course, in a world without civil litigation, many good things would not have happened. We're not in that world. In our real world, the threat of sometimes opportunistic or frivolous lawsuits really does hamper good safety initiatives. Not making some no-chance case for eliminating it (in either aviation or medicine), just expressing frustration at collateral damage.

re: Your paean to the good works of management in approving safety programs - of course they're not demons, but you elide the fact that many of efforts were 'approved' after strenuous advocacy from the ranks. I can testify that some in management have not let go of an almost primal need to view safety lapses through a crime-and-punishment lens. Lots of Pilots too. The FAA's reporting procedure is colloquially referred to as the get-out-of jail-free-card. 

Cheers, IFG 

[neverminds]

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

Or, some people might say, the dog could put out the fire with a bucket of water and avoid being subjected to the carcinogenic fumes from the fire extinguisher.

A bucket of water would be far less effective than the fire extinguisher. 

[Seeker]

9 hours ago, IFG said:

Oh for Pete's sake, Seeker, you don't "have to ask yourself" anything of the kind. The premise is patently absurd. A vaccine showing 80-90 percent effectiveness is working beyond the wildest dreams that preceded them.

I'll fix it for you. 

If the first three vaccinations are not working as perfectly as we'd like, maybe we should try a fourth one?

 

"If it's not working as perfectly as we'd like."  Now that's an interesting way to phrase it.  It's quite obviously not working as perfectly as we'd like. 

Somewhere early in the process we were told that we (society) could throw a bunch of money and our best experts at the problem, have an expedited vaccine ready in a year or so, vaccinate 75%-80%, achieve herd immunity and then Build Back Better.

How foolish we have been.  Look, I'm not blaming the experts - we just really underestimated the problem or overestimated our ability.  Really - not blaming anyone for this.  We're all in it together and it turned out to be harder than we thought.

So we went from 2 vaccinations to 2 vaccinations with a booster (just another shot of the same stuff) to 2 vaccinations with 2 boosters and the latest from Fauci is talking about boosters every 5 months.

And you don't think any of this is worth a second thought?  Just carryon and don't ask questions. 

In my earlier post I posted; "You have to ask yourself;  if the first 3 tries didn't work - maybe it was either wrong to begin with or wrong to be doing now?"  I don't know why this question should ellict such a strong response from you?

At what point do you think it's appropriate to start to ask questions?

[Rich Pulman]

59 minutes ago, Seeker said:

"If it's not working as perfectly as we'd like."  Now that's an interesting way to phrase it.  It's quite obviously not working as perfectly as we'd like. 

Yabut… mathematically, it’s working just as perfectly as it can given the vaccinated/non-vaccinated ratio.

[Seeker]

38 minutes ago, Rich Pulman said:

Yabut… mathematically, it’s working just as perfectly as it can given the vaccinated/non-vaccinated ratio.

I'm not going to post anything - don't want to be accused of spreading misinformation.  

[UpperDeck]

3 minutes ago, Seeker said:

I'm not going to post anything - don't want to be accused of spreading misinformation.  

Fox News: Rolling Stone forced to issue an 'update' after viral hospital ivermectin story turns out to be false.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false

[deicer]

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19

In 2021, poison control centers across the U.S. received a three-fold increase in the number of calls for human exposures to ivermectin in January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline.
In July 2021, ivermectin calls have continued to sharply increase, to a five-fold increase from baseline. These reports are also associated with increased frequency of adverse effects and emergency department/hospital visits.

In some cases, people have ingested ivermectin-containing products purchased without a prescription, including topical formulations and veterinary products. Veterinary formulations intended for use in large animals such as horses, sheep, and cattle (e.g., “sheep drench,” injection formulations, and “pour-on” products for cattle) can be highly concentrated and result in overdoses when used by humans. Animal products may also contain inactive ingredients that have not been evaluated for use in humans. People who take inappropriately high doses of ivermectin above FDA-recommended dosing may experience toxic effects.

Clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates.

Examples of recent significant adverse effects reported to U.S. poison control centers include the following:

• An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness,  visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for nine days.
• An adult patient presented with altered mental status after taking ivermectin tablets of unknown strength purchased on the internet. The patient reportedly took five tablets a day for five days to treat COVID-19. The patient was disoriented and had difficulty answering questions and following commands. Symptoms improved with discontinuation of ivermectin after hospital admission.

Recommendations for Clinicians and Public Health Practitioners

• Be aware that ivermectin is not currently authorized or approved by FDA for treatment of COVID-19. NIH has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19.
• Educate patients about the risks of using ivermectin without a prescription, or ingesting ivermectin formulations that are meant for external use or ivermectin-containing products formulated for veterinary use.
• Advise patients to immediately seek medical treatment if they have taken any ivermectin or ivermectin-containing products and are experiencing symptoms. Signs and symptoms of ivermectin toxicity include gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea), headache, blurred vision, dizziness, tachycardia, hypotension, visual hallucinations, altered mental status, confusion, loss of coordination and balance, central nervous system depression, and seizures. Ivermectin may increase sedative effects of other medications such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates. Call the poison control center hotline (1-800-222-1222) for medical management advice.
• Educate patients and the public to get vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination is safe and the most effective means to prevent infection and protect against severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including the Delta variant.
• Educate patients and the public to use COVID-19 prevention measures including wearing masks in indoor public places, physical distancing by staying at least six feet from other people who don’t live in the same household, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and frequent handwashing and use of hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol.

Recommendations for the Public

• Be aware that currently, ivermectin has not been proven as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19.
• Do not swallow ivermectin products that should be used on skin (e.g., lotions and creams) or are not meant for human use, such as veterinary ivermectin products.

• Seek immediate medical attention or call the poison control center hotline (1-800-222-1222) for advice if you have taken ivermectin or a product that contains ivermectin and are having symptoms. Signs and symptoms include gastrointestinal effects (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea), headache, blurred vision, dizziness, fast heart rate, and low blood pressure. Other severe nervous system effects have been reported, including tremors, seizures, hallucinations, confusion, loss of coordination and balance, decreased alertness, and coma.
• Get vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination is approved by FDA and is the safest and most effective way to prevent getting sick and protect against severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including the Delta variant.
• Protect yourself and others from getting sick with COVID-19. In addition to vaccination, wear masks in indoor public places, practice staying at least six feet from other people who don’t live in your household, avoid crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer that has at least 60 percent alcohol.

[UpperDeck]

• Do not swallow ivermectin products that should be used on skin (e.g., lotions and creams) or are not meant for human use, such as veterinary ivermectin products.

Pretty sure that reflects what I said above.....people have to be told not to ingest body lotions and drugs intended for animals. Ivermectin has not been PROVEN to prevent Covid or as an effective treatment. Testing continues.

[UpperDeck]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Deicer.....I 'm not pasting the whole article but this is a report of the results (preliminary) from initial clinical trials published over a year ago.

Like the CDC consumer ( emphasis!) release you quoted, there is a similar release by the FDA. Both are focussed on human consumption of a drug manufactured for animals. Both urge prior consultation with a physician and strict compliance with dosage directions before taking Ivermectin.

Personally...I think that's a reasonable course of action before taking ANY drug.

[UpperDeck]

A drug-related story that may be of general interest.

Many years ago, a frequent contributor to this forum was diagnosed with a particularly lethal form of cancer.

While I began working on his eulogy, he began his research. This fellow has always been keen on the acquisition of knowledge and unrelenting in his search for answers. 

Very quickly, he became very knowledgeable about our immune system and how it could be protected and even enhanced to resist the spread of his cancer.

He essentially became a drug expert and bio-chemist as he fought against both the disease and the medical establishment.

Eventually, he devised a "drug cocktail"; a combination of drugs for an "off label" use that he was certain would prolong his life. And then began the hard slog to "sell" his idea to the doctors who could prescribe the medications.

It was at times almost over-whelmingly frustrating trying to convince doctors to push the envelope....to test the limits....and it was HIS body he was putting at risk.

Eventually but in time...he got the emergency authorizations required and took that cocktail.

He prevailed.

When I last saw him a few years ago, he was still pedalling as hard as he could and revising drugs as needed to re-build or reinforce the dams he had constructed.

That was almost 20 years after I did a first draft of that eulogy.....one I never had to finish.

[deicer]

31 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Deicer.....I 'm not pasting the whole article but this is a report of the results (preliminary) from initial clinical trials published over a year ago.

Like the CDC consumer ( emphasis!) release you quoted, there is a similar release by the FDA. Both are focussed on human consumption of a drug manufactured for animals. Both urge prior consultation with a physician and strict compliance with dosage directions before taking Ivermectin.

Personally...I think that's a reasonable course of action before taking ANY drug.

Reading the article you provided, the main thing that keeps popping up is 'in vitro'.  It is not proven at this time to be effective against covid.

It is approved for human use for parasitic infections.  Nothing else.

To draw a simple analogy, bleach is also shown to be effective against covid 'in vitro'.

 

[UpperDeck]

27 minutes ago, deicer said:

Reading the article you provided, the main thing that keeps popping up is 'in vitro'.  It is not proven at this time to be effective against covid.

It is approved for human use for parasitic infections.  Nothing else.

To draw a simple analogy, bleach is also shown to be effective against covid 'in vitro'.

 

Repetition is not correlated with persuasion. Bleach is to Ivermectin what a bucket of water is to a fire extinguisher.

Deicer...Ivermectin is currently being used by numerous physicians to treat Covid. That is simply a fact.

Why is that so bothersome? Is there a fear that if an effective treatment is found (proven) then there will be greater resistance to vaccination?