Posted on 01/16/2022 4:30:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Daniel Pisano is dying of COVID-19. He’s been on ventilator in Florida for 28 days now at the Mayo Clinic. His doctors give him a less than 5% chance of survival.
His wife and son want him treated with the COVID plan recommended by Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). It involves using ivermectin. They want Dr. Eduardo Balbona to treat their family member. The Mayo Clinic refused. The family went to court, hoping the court would force the clinic to allow an outside doctor to treat Pisano. Judge Marianne Aho decided against it.
They appealed that decision and lost that court battle, too. They don’t get to decide what course to take for the 70-year-old Pisano.
The Mayo Clinic asserted that the FLCCC COVID battle plan doesn’t fall in line with their COVID protocol, which at this point appears to be to leave Pisano on a ventilator and hope for the best. This, despite hundreds of stories of people using ivermectin to survive COVID.
Jonathan Bowling and his family have several comorbidities which make recovering from COVID-19 much more difficult. Watch his story as he credits the FLCCC protocol for saving their lives after they fell ill with the disease:
https://t.co/DagGiMqjJy pic.twitter.com/A7Toe2B49V— FLCCC—Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (@Covid19Critical) January 8, 2022
Ivermectin is a drug used for livestock but it’s also been used for decades on humans. Numerous peer-reviewed studies show ivermectin can help people with the Bat Soup flu.
Why doesn’t a family have any say in the care of a loved one? More importantly, why would the Mayo Clinic allow people to die rather than try ivermectin? What’s stopping them?
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I agree.
No. You drive up. Take your family member home. On the way, stop at the drug store and pick up some Ivermectin.
There are ways it can be done.
Once in, and vented….they’re trapped 😩
Short of that, it takes a really strong willed (persistent) person to advocate for them, without having access to them.
Wasn’t there this thing called “Right to try?”
If the person has a small chance of living shouldn’t he be able to obtain drugs that the so called experts don’t think will work?
I can’t understand these families. I would not even ask, but just yes them to death and administer it to the relative myself.
Right to try has never = duty to prescribe.
Right to try presumes a willing prescriber.
When did government assume the power to tell free Americans what medicines they can have?
Interesting,
Thanks Gasser.
Seems the Freedom of Medical treatment is worse than
Getting a Divorce and a least twice as Expensive.
When Biden seized the White House.
So I just read the complete court transcript. For the record its Pisano and Pisano vs. Mayo Clinic Florida, Case Number 2021-CA-6754 in the county of Duval, Florida.
There are a lot of fascinating facts of this case. In no particular order...
1. The physician expert for plaintiff is not board certified in any medical specialty
2. The one case where he gave ivermectin (Baptist hospital) the patient subsequently died
3. The physician has never given any ivermectin on ventilated patients — and is not privileged in critical care medicine
4. The evidence on the record clearly demonstrates that ivermectin has mixed literature reviews and is not a “silver bullet”
5. The ruling states that the patient chose Mayo, which is a closed medical staff
6. The judge in his ruling on the merits states that he cannot force a member of the community onto a closed medical staff
7. The testimony of the physician states that patients have been discharged from the hospital and that the patients were then treated. It is curious (not a part of the ruling) that is the patients were discharged — they were probably better
8. The case was heard within 2 hours of the emergency petition. the hearing took 3 hours and ruling on the merits was from the bench
The ruling looks pretty solid. I would encourage everyone either pro or against ivermectin to read the testimony around ivermectin (essentially that there are studies both for and and against and the physician is ultimately forced to acknowledge this ). The most salient line in the whole testimony is that the court was being asked to take off its black robe and put on a white coat. The evidence shows that there is legitimate disagreement as to the roll of ivermectin in CoVID, and as such the court refused to intervene.
It is an impressive testimony and ruling. I would encourage anyone to read it as it crystalized many of the issues that we debate everyday here.
The current status of the case is at the appeals level as of 1.13.
Anyone who is interested in a factual look at the legal arguments — its all in the public record and very interesting.
I regretfully do not disagree with what you have said — I just posted the reference to the hearing and ruling — it is fascinating. I genuinely would like to hear your take on it if you had the time to review the argument and ruling.
I just read the court transcript — it is interesting and your statement was a main argument in the ruling against petitioner — that the right to try does not mean the duty to prescribe against a physicians will.
They don’t believe? So they don’t think its a fact. What they are afraid of is that it may work.
Educate yourself. I have provided the court case number and transcript. Ivermectin as a finding of fact is equivocal in its use in the treatment of CoVId — if you are actually able to read and comprehend 150 pages of testimony that is.
What the judge means is sorry, He signed his own death warrant. Nothing I can do.
Isn’t one reason that docs aren’t willing to prescribe HCQ and Ivermectin is that they put themselves at risk of being sued?
Lawyers know that the FDA etc doesn’t consider these meds effective and they are watching like vultures for any doctor brave enough to prescribe them. If anyone dies on it you know what will happen. I guess Congress or maybe an executive order could give docs and hospitals protection from these lawsuits but that hasn’t happened.
You read the ruling? 150 pages in 5 minutes — sorry — you show yourself to not be able to discern or read or debate. You are nothing more than an acolyte fo the high priestesses of the church of the conspiracy theories — a court jester in the pecking order.
I don't think so.
I treated >150 hospitalized patients with HCQ +/- azithromycin in 2020 and I didn't think twice about being sued. I've reviewed the ivermectin data and if I believed it was helpful I would prescribe it, as well.
One of the salient points in the argument presented to the court was that Ivermectin is FDA approved. The physician (Balbona) got his ass handed to him by not understanding what FDA approval meant — specifically that Ivermectin is approved for parasite infection. The transcript further demonstrates that he is advocating for supratherapeutic doses but acknowledges that he is not aware of what FDA approval really means.
As for me, no, it is not that I will be sued — it is that the literature is equivocal on ivermectin (the meta analysis is proffered an not refuted that it is unclear what benefit ivermectin is) and that in every aspect monoclonals are superior to anything else. It would be against my oath to prescribe something I knew was inferior when I can arrange for the best treatment possible
Balbona took a hell of a beating on cross — and in such exposed the fallacies of the arguments parroted daily on this website by the other side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
