Wednesday, September 8, 2021

Coronavirus Update 9-8-21: Ohio court reverses itself, orders that hospital does not have to administer ivermectin to its Covid patient

Last week I reported on a trial court case out of Butler County, Ohio, in which a common pleas judge granted the wife of a hospitalized Covid patient an order requiring the hospital to administer ivermectin (a livestock de-wormer approved for human use in small doses for the very limited purpose to treat certain parasites and skin conditions) to her husband at her (and her doctor's) request.

On Labor Day, a different judge of that same court reversed the prior ruling and denied a preliminary injunction to the wife. You can read Judge Oster's full order here.

The (loaded) question the court faced was as follows:

Should an injunction be granted to force a hospital to honor the prescription of a doctor that has not seen a patient and has no privileges at said hospital thus forcing the hospital to give ivermectin to a patient when the hospital's doctors, the FDA, CDC, and the AMA do not believe ivermectin should be a recommended way to treat COVID-19?

Here are the key provisions of the court's ruling:

After considering all of the evidence presented in this case, there can be no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. While there are some doctors and studies that tend to lend support to ivermectin, the Plaintiff has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits. With the evidence presented to the Court, the Plaintiff simply cannot meet this burden. 

- and -

The studies that tend to give support to ivermectin have had inconsistent results, limitations to the studies, were open label studies, were of low quality or low certainty, included small sample sizes, various dosing regimens, or have been so riddled with issues that the study was withdrawn. As such, based upon these limitations, the medical community does not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 at this time.

- and -

Plaintiff's own witness, Dr. Wagshul was only able to say that Jeff Smith "seems to be" getting better after receiving ivermectin. Dr. Wagshul further testified that "I honestly don't know" if continued use of ivermectin will benefit Jeff Smith. 

- and - 

The FDA, CDC, AMA, and APRA, and the doctors of West Chester Hospital do not believe that ivermectin should be used to treat COVID-19. No strong evidence by way of study or data analysis can, at this time, show that ivermectin should be recommended for COVID-19 treatment. Based on the current evidence, ivermectin is not effective as a treatment for COVID-19. If it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction.

- and - 

Public policy should not and does not support allowing a physician to try “any” type of treatment on human beings. Rather, public policy supports the safe and effective development of medications and medical practices.   

Not to beat a dead horse, but there is no credible science supporting the use of ivermectin to treat Covid infections. Straight from the horse's mouth (i.e., the court): "Ivemectin is not effective as a treatment for COVID-19." We can talk the hind leg off a donkey about this issue, but science is science. Some will be stubborn as a mule and insist that Sean Hannity, Ron Johnson, and Joe Rogan know better than the FDA, CDC, and AMA. They, however, are being led like lambs to the slaughter. I know that some reading this post will have a cow over my thoughts and Judge Oster's decision. I mourn those who are being used to push a certain agenda, some of whom will ultimately buy the farm as a result … but I also know that they really should have known better.

* Photo by Marian Kroell on Unsplash