If you live in this country, you probably saw it. Maybe some of the right-wing media didn’t even mention it. I mean, the story didn’t deserve to be international headlines, but it was. But the real travesty was the headline they put on it in this country.
You know the story. A man here in Ohio in intensive care with COVID-19. Not sure how far she had to go to find one, but the wife found a doctor who would prescribe Ivermectin as a treatment. But the hospital wasn’t willing to follow the prescription, so the wife went to a judge to force them to do so. Then the hospital went to another judge who said no, they didn’t have to after all.
Let me state a few things here. Ivermectin is available as a medicine for treating parasitic infections. There is a version used to treat human parasitic infections which the FDA has found safe and effective for that use. There is a different formulation used to treat farm animals (aka “livestock”) which is stronger and not approved for use on humans. Certain people believe Ivermectin can be used as a treatment for COVID – mostly because former President Trump suggested it – but no tests have found any effect.
I chanced across The Guardian’s coverage of the first judge’s ruling, I thought it was reasonably accurate, though as it was just a story of a judge ordering a hospital to follow a doctor’s prescription it really didn’t deserve international coverage. And The Guardian did use the name Ivermectin in their headline, which makes them better than our papers here. I didn’t look to see if they had anything to say about the second decision.
As those of you who haven’t seen coverage in the U.S. media should have figured out from how I phrased that last paragraph, in this country the headline didn’t use the name “Ivermectin”. Instead they said “livestock dewormer”. Twice – in the articles on both judges’ rulings. No, the judge did not rule to force the hospital to use the livestock medicine on the man; no, the doctor did not prescribe the livestock medicine for him. Most people just call it sensationalism, but it is more than that. First of all, it is irresponsible because they are saying that both a doctor and judge declared it was reasonable to use the livestock medicine on a human. We have too much of that going on already without the idiots putting words in other people’s mouths saying it is okay. Secondly it is slanderous, and it would serve them right if the doctor and/or judge sue.
But what do you and I expect to happen? Well, nothing, they will continue their sensationalist “business as usual” because it’s the equivalent of clickbait – it gets you to read their article.
(And just to be clear, I do not believe Ivermectin would have helped the man in question – or anyone else with COVID-19. A virus is not a parasite – it isn’t even technically alive. But presuming the doctor prescribed a safe dosage, it also would not have hurt him, so I see no real reason the hospital shouldn’t have honored the prescription – as long as they make it clear insurance won’t be covering the cost of course. That last would probably have stopped this whole thing if they had mentioned it, but if the family had the money to cover it and there was no danger then indulge them.)
