Judge Reverses Order Forcing Hospital To Give Ivermectin To COVID-19 Patient

[badger2]

The report from Belarus suggests yak as intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2. The Delta variant has two deletions at positions 156 and 157, E and F, respectively. The E coincides to yak at that position, though yak has I for position 157. Interestingly, in human coronavirus HCoV-NL63, the yak sequence (E156, I157) happens thus: E155, I156.

Sep 2020 Belarus

SARS-CoV-2: Structural diversity, phylogeny, and potential animal host identification of spike glycoprotein - PubMed

To investigate the evolutionary history of the current pandemic outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a total of 137 genomes of coronavirus strains with release dates between January 2019 and 25 March 2020, were analyzed. To investigate the potential...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[badger2]

Because similar to yak, bovine coronavirus spike is the same sequence at 156-157, suggested viewing is Robbin Williams on the beach with the cow. Cetacea includes cows and porpoises, therefore we now have more reinforcement for the suspicion of another intermediate host that was reported last year: Yangzte finless porpoise, Neophcaena.

 

[badger2]

Neophocaena

 

[badger2]

From Flutrackers.com, this ivermectin report:

Ivermectin: Summary of the Evidence

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

 

[Kilroy2]

So one judge ordered the freedom that would allow the patient to receive the medicine, and the other judge reversed the order that granted the freedom given by the 1st judge ???? I'm confused.

Well if the patient has the freedom you talk about then the hospital has the same freedom that you are talking about. He can ask for it but the hospital can refuse especially if the data does not support using the drug.

Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.


Fox news - hey our guest says it works and we believe him. No we do not have a guest who will do a rebuttal


The judge sided with the manufacturer of the product in question. Reasoning is that the manufacture has clearly stated that there is no benefit and no data to support the safety and effectiveness of the drug

Pointing to where people have received the drug and said they feel better now is not proof that it works

It just supports that most people infected do survive. and eventually feel better. Yet the covid survival rate is 99.8 percent but with age of patient it goes down to 94.6 for those over 70. So if this patient is under 70 his changes of survival are good. it still is good over 70 but yes not as good for under 70.

Finally if he really want the drug he can go someplace and find someone who will give it to him. My bet is with all this time that has passed that he has recovered or will recover soon without it.

 

[beagle9]

Well if the patient has the freedom you talk about then the hospital has the same freedom that your talking about. He can ask for it but the hospital can refuse especially if the data does not support using the drug.

Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.



The judge sided with the manufacturer of the product in question. Reasoning is that the manufacture has clearly stated that there is no benefit and no data to support the safety and effectiveness of the drug

Pointing to where people have received the drug and said they feel better now is not proof that it works

It just supports that most people infected do survive. and eventually feel better. Yet the covid survival rate is 99.8 percent but with age of patient it goes down to 94.6 for those over 70. So if this patient is under 70 his changes of survival are good. it still is good over 70 but yes not as good for under 70.

Finally if he really want the drug he can go someplace and find someone who will give it to him. My bet is with all this time that has passed that he has recovered or will recover soon without it.

What happened to "right to try" ????

Why did a hospital side with a corporation on a maybe ? If it makes other's feel better, then isn't that the same guage any medicine efficacy is based upon during trial's ?? The human being is the final proving ground, where as engineering, and lab test goes so far, but ultimately the test on a human being draws the final results.

 

[theHawk]

BULLDOG Correct that is one of three vaccines and they JUST approved Pfizer like a week ago.

Yea, rubber stamp approvals without any long term studies performed. All forced by bureaucrats and politicians, not science. They’ve essentially been told to skip the scientific method of testing and observation and jumped straight to the conclusion that these mRNA vaccines are “safe”.

 

[badger2]

Well if the patient has the freedom you talk about then the hospital has the same freedom that you are talking about. He can ask for it but the hospital can refuse especially if the data does not support using the drug.

Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.


Fox news - hey our guest says it works and we believe him. No we do not have a guest who will do a rebuttal


The judge sided with the manufacturer of the product in question. Reasoning is that the manufacture has clearly stated that there is no benefit and no data to support the safety and effectiveness of the drug

Pointing to where people have received the drug and said they feel better now is not proof that it works

It just supports that most people infected do survive. and eventually feel better. Yet the covid survival rate is 99.8 percent but with age of patient it goes down to 94.6 for those over 70. So if this patient is under 70 his changes of survival are good. it still is good over 70 but yes not as good for under 70.

Finally if he really want the drug he can go someplace and find someone who will give it to him. My bet is with all this time that has passed that he has recovered or will recover soon without it.

The ‘scientific basis for potential therapeutic effect’ (above) is the physical attachment of ivermectin to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which cannot be (disproven [italics]) in vivo.

Sep 2020 Icahn Medical School, Mt. Sinai, New York

Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2 - PubMed

The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Turtlesoup]

Given the side effects of Ivermectin include nausea and vomiting, how well are these symptoms handled by people with a breathing tube in their airway? After all, a feeding tube can be, and usually is present during intubation.


.

There is medication that can and do give for nausea and vomiting hun......many medical procedures cause nausea and vomiting and do have to prevent them in order to do their jobs.

 

[badger2]

The Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 contains the mutation W258L. This compares with yak coronavirus spike which is, without mutation, L258.

 

[Kilroy2]

What happened to "right to try" ????

Why did a hospital side with a corporation on a maybe ? If it makes other's feel better, then isn't that the same guage any medicine efficacy is based upon during trial's ?? The human being is the final proving ground, where as engineering, and lab test goes so far, but ultimately the test on a human being draws the final results.

This case does not apply to right to try as certain criteria have to be meet first

To be eligible for Right to Try, a patient must meet the following conditions:

• Be diagnosed with a life-threatening disease or condition;
• Have exhausted approved treatment options;
• Be unable to participate in a clinical trial involving the eligible investigational drug, as certified by a doctor, who is in good standing with her licensing organization and will not be compensated directly by the manufacturer for so certifying; and
• Give written informed consent regarding the risks associated with taking the investigational treatment.

Doctors are subject to malpractice suits and their license is on the line. So it would seem to me that they should be careful of what they do or it may come back to bite them.

 

[Kilroy2]

The ‘scientific basis for potential therapeutic effect’ (above) is the physical attachment of ivermectin to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which cannot be (disproven [italics]) in vivo.

Sep 2020 Icahn Medical School, Mt. Sinai, New York

Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2 - PubMed

The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

So do you have these trials that prove the point that docking is relevant.

You post something that just show docking and immediately it is proof that ivermectin works but they do not say that in what you posted. you using incomplete data as proof. Using this as proof when it clear is not proof of anything than a simple beginning. Potential is what potential is and is not proof that can be extrapolated to go beyond that it seems to bind. It does not show that it an effective treatment it just something that needs to be looked at more closely. Or it will be taken out of context.

Yet as excited as you are with this the manufacture still reserve the right to their opinion. They are not impressed and have public states so. Now it does not mean that if additional proof is provided that can make them change their position. They will as it means more money honey. But they will not be willy-nilly about it.

 

[badger2]

Recalling that geraniin is contained in the fruits that the Nipah virus vector bat eats, the FDA is also not approving quercitin against SARS-CoV-2, the spike locations of attachment are important because they coincide with monoclonal antibody attachment. The following study details many attachment sites on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Readers may compare ivermectin attachment locations on the spike protein:

SARS-CoV-2 / Geraniin / Quercitin / Kaempferitrin / Kaempferol

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov33287311

’....hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine inhibit viral entry by interfering with the phage-host fusion mechanism through glycosylation of ACE2 receptor and spike proteins, and by altering the pH of lysosomes, thereby deteriorating viral proteins.’

 

[badger2]

Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

So do you have these trials that prove the point that docking is relevant.

You post something that just show docking and immediately it is proof that ivermectin works but they do not say that in what you posted. you using incomplete data as proof. Using this as proof when it clear is not proof of anything than a simple beginning. Potential is what potential is and is not proof that can be extrapolated to go beyond that it seems to bind. It does not show that it an effective treatment it just something that needs to be looked at more closely. Or it will be taken out of context.

Yet as excited as you are with this the manufacture still reserve the right to their opinion. They are not impressed and have public states so. Now it does not mean that if additional proof is provided that can make them change their position. They will as it means more money honey. But they will not be willy-nilly about it.

Disphit, docking is relevant. What part of that eludes you? Ivermectin cannot be disproven in vivo, either. You thus have no basis for argument.

 

[beagle9]

This case does not apply to right to try as certain criteria have to be meet first

To be eligible for Right to Try, a patient must meet the following conditions:

• Be diagnosed with a life-threatening disease or condition;
• Have exhausted approved treatment options;
• Be unable to participate in a clinical trial involving the eligible investigational drug, as certified by a doctor, who is in good standing with her licensing organization and will not be compensated directly by the manufacturer for so certifying; and
• Give written informed consent regarding the risks associated with taking the investigational treatment.

Doctors are subject to malpractice suits and their license is on the line. So it would seem to me that they should be careful of what they do or it may come back to bite them.

The criteria outlined is exactly done in order to allow "right to try", otherwise without the risk of lawsuit's and such.

So otherwise it clears the way for "right to try", not obstructs it.

Wonder if all criteria is needed in unison above or just the main one (written consent), that clears the way where as the rest are just final formalities needed or maybe not needed depending on the physician ??

 

[badger2]

There is clearly nazi-style political fascism involved. Rodishi’s German article about dandelion (Taraxacum) mentions the major mutations of SARS-Cov-2 in the human host, though anything related to it has been scrubbed from the National Library of Medicine (Pubmed). Therefore, we more rigorously scrutinize the plant chemistry that specifically binds to the communist Chinese virus.

 

[badger2]

Rodishi’s dandelion links the chlorine in its leaves (5300-22,000 ppm) to the chloVid2020 of the Egyptian report, linking one of the major mutations at position 417 which is also targeted by monoclonal antibodies:

Egypt

CoViTris2020 and ChloViD2020: a striking new hope in COVID-19 therapy - PubMed

Designing anticoronavirus disease 2019 (anti-COVID-19) agents is the primary concern of medicinal chemists/drug designers nowadays. Repurposing of known active compounds against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new effective and time-saving trend in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

’....unique interaction forces created between its chlorine atom and residues K417 and N418 of chain A.’

This is the location on the spike that the CDC changed on their webpage, removing the N (asparagine) from the P.1 Brazil-Japan variant.

 

[badger2]

Position 417 (above) was the one the CDC was tempering with on their webpage, a tampering we cannot prove because apparently no one else noticed the change. This (K417N/T) is what the CDC originally published, and it‘s reproduced here precisely for the P.1.Brazil-Japan variant:
Monoclonal Antibodies

Complete map of SARS-CoV-2 RBD mutations that escape the monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555 and its cocktail with LY-CoV016 - PubMed

Monoclonal antibodies and antibody cocktails are a promising therapeutic and prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) can render monoclonal antibodies ineffective. Here, we completely map all...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

‘....K417N/T.’
Which means that the virus can choose either N or T for this mutation.

Australia Bans GPs from Prescribing Ivermectin

GPs banned from prescribing drug for Covid

Australian doctors have been banned from prescribing a controversial drug for Covid after a significant spike in scripts in recent months.

www.perthnow.com.au

 

[badger2]

We don’t know how long political forces can keep up the masquerade. The reader can see “scabies” in the Australian report, and it precisely happens in a proven SARS-CoV reservoir. What does SARS-CoV do then?

Jan 2013 Yokohama, Japan: Sarcoptes / Paguma-Nyctereutes

Epidemiology of sarcoptic mange in free-ranging raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Yokohama, Japan - PubMed

Free-ranging raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) from Nogeyama Zoological Gardens, Kanazawa Zoological Gardens, and Yokohama Zoological Gardens frequently rescued dogs having Sarcoptes scabiei infestation. However, the epidemiology of S. scabiei infestation has not yet been elucidated. In...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[badger2]

We mentioned Selamectin (Pfizer, Ltd.) used in civet cats on 24 Jun 2021, post #521:

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/covid-19s-biological-politics.854736/page#27post-27351711