The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I notice that our discussion of COVID so far on this forum has been remarkably light on talk involving feedstores and livestock medicine, which I found surprising given the new hotness in the anti-vax world.  So let's change that!

Joe Rogan, arguably the most popular podcaster in the world, recently announced (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTSsA8wAR2-/) that he tested positive for COVID.  He said that he treated his illness with azithromycin (an antibiotic), prednisone (a sterioid), and ivermectin along with monoclonal antibodies, a treatment that is just as new and experimental as COVID vaccines, and after 3 days, he feels right as rain!  Another ivermectin success story!

Now, the more skeptical among you may be wondering, "Hey, did multi-millionaire Joe Rogan already receive one of the COVID vaccines he regularly downplays on his podcast, which would make this entire incident nothing more than COVID denialist theater?"  And that's a fair question.  Rogan said back in April that he was scheduled to receive the J&J vaccine until the FDA put a temporary hold on that product following some reports on potential blood clotting issues (the conclusion (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/JJUpdate.html) of that investigation being that the vaccine's "known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks").

Since then, Rogan has been unwilling to clarify his vaccination status (much like several conservative media figures that sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about COVID vaccines while being unwilling to divulge whether they personally took one of the vaccines they decry).

Do we have anyone on this board that's a regular consumer of ivermectin?  If so, what (if any) side effects has it caused?

The fact that the liberals and media continue to repeatedly refer to and portray Ivermectin as a livestock medicine is not accurate. Ivermectin is approved for human use, cheap, and safe in the appropriate doses. Whether it's effective against Covid to any extent is not a question that I can answer. There have been court orders for hospitals to administer Ivermectin to patients after the hospital has refused. If a patient and/or their doctor decide that they want to use Ivermectin, I'm not sure why it's a big deal. I will say that taking the veterinary version of the drug isn't something I would recommend, but there is an easy way to rectify that problem.

I don't blame him. I'm unwilling to clarify my vaccination status also, it only makes sense. Regardless of your answer, the crazy people on either side will want to argue and harass you. Therefore, it's none of anyone's business. I wish most people would take this stance, it would make the crazy people find something else to go argue about. I don't mind watching the show, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be a participant in the show.

^ What I disagree with mostly with what you're saying is this:

I feel like it's reasonable to know and decide the risk factors in which to expose my family.  I'm choosing not to put my unvaccinated kids in indoor environments with anti-vaxxers (especially without a mask).  I don't think there's anything weird or extreme about that.

It basically boils down to my home.  We have anti-vaxxers in my family -- we don't have them over.

I don't think there's there's anything wrong with asking others to share that information so that we can make our own decisions and set our boundaries.

i treat refusal the answer the question about vaccination status the same way i treat murky water in south florida. Always assume an alligator is in there.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with asking. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with someone not answering the question. If someone doesn't answer your question to your satisfaction, you are free to not physically be around them.

BTW, what exactly is an anti-vaxxer?

I'm not interested in your pedantic word games.  Come and me in good faith and I'll share ideas.

I'll make the presumption that you know what they say about an assumption?

You're the one using the word. Who and what do you consider an anti-vaxxer? They are not word games. Words have definitions and we can't have an intelligent discussion unless we both know exactly what the terms mean. Otherwise, stop using terms and ideas that you can't even define or explain.

Anti - against
Vaxx - vaccine

In this specific context, an anti-vaxxer is someone who is against the COVID vaccine, with the understanding that it's not a special case at the advice of their physician.

In a larger context, not specific to this thread, an anti-vaxxer is someone against vaccines, in general, and most notably relating to their children getting vaccines for preventable and often widely eradicated diseases.

That's kind of a broad definition.

Someone who thinks the the government is putting 5G tracking chips in the vaccine (conspiracy nuts)?

Someone who simply doesn't want to take the vaccine?

Someone who simply refuses to discuss their vaccination status?

Someone who hasn't been vaccinated yet for whatever reason, but plans to at some point?

Funny you bring that up because what the government did in response to the pandemic is how removing your freedom starts

Just stay at home for a bit

*time passes*

Just wear the government muzzle (mask)

*time passes*

Just let us inject you

*time passes*

Just let us track your location

*time passes*

Just turn in your guns

*time passes*

Just get in the boxcar

No, it's incredibly accurate.  You see, for use on humans, ivermectin requires a prescription... and most doctors that don't want to lose their practice are not going to prescribe a drug to treat a condition that it hasn't been approved for.  (If we thought it was a good idea for patients to decide for themselves whether they should take potentially dangerous medicine, a system of prescription-only drugs wouldn't exist!)

But you know who DOESN'T need a prescription for ivermectin?  A 1200 lb horse.  Which is why we are seeing this:

Animal supply stores report shortage of Ivermectin as people self-medicate for COVID-19 (https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/animal-supply-stores-report-shortage-livestock-de-wormer-people-self-medicate-covid-19/APOGTTT4FBH2NEQ6XHR6B6UOPE/)
An animal dewormer to treat COVID? Poison control centers see uptick in calls; stores sell out (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/25/ivermectin-livestock-deworming-drug-poison-control/5583817001/)
COVID hysteria over Ivermectin begins to impact animal health (https://www.wtva.com/content/coronavirus-content/COVID-hysteria-over-Ivermectin-begins-to-impact-animal-health-575166781.html)

In other words, the reason why "liberals are portraying" ivermectin as livestock medicine is because the people who are self-medicating with ivermectin are using... livestock medicine.

So I am completely uneducated about this Ivermectin thing because I really don't care enough to invest any time reading up on it.  But assuming that it is a medicine for livestock which seems to be what most people here are saying. I would find it kind of funny/interesting if the same people (not necessarily here on the board but in general) who don't get the Moderna/Phizer/J&J vaccine because sufficient time was not spent in R&D on those products to give them confidence that it is safe are the same people who are comfortable taking medicine that is for livestock. 

The COVID vaccines are less than a year old, but ivermectin has been used safely on horses for decades!

Doctors have prescribed Ivermectin to their patients in the hospital with Covid. Hospitals have refused and courts have gotten involved. In fact I think that the NY Supreme Court and an Ohio court recently ordered the hospitals to treat patients with Ivermectin. The products meant for animals have different ingredients and have a larger concentration of the active ingredient that could be dangerous to a human. The version that is produced for humans is safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/) and cheap.



I wouldn't recommend anyone take livestock medicine. But if you want to complain about and/or stop people from taking livestock Ivermectin, honor their prescription for Ivermectin produced for humans. I think we can look at the war on drugs and conclude that people are going to do what they are going to do, even if it's to their detriment. You can let people drink liquor from the liquor store or you can take that away and let them drink bathtub gin, pick one. You can give people the safe human version of Ivermectin under a doctor supervision or you can let them go take a dangerous livestock version on their own, pick one.

There, I fixed it for you. You're welcome 👌👌👌

Jeez, I'm sorry I asked the question now.  I didn't mean to get you two all fired up at each other again. lol

I'm not fired up. Just presenting all of the information instead of a one sided view with only half the facts. I'm not advocating for anyone to take or not take Ivermectin, vaccines, or skittles soaked in vodka. These days you have to be sceptical of everything because everyone has an angle. Especially people who describe themselves as "radical" liberal progressives. So don't take my word for it and don't take Spider's word for it. In life we all have to do our own research and make our own decisions that we think is best for our own personal circumstances.

For HUMANS, ivermectin is a prescription drug; full stop.  It has been available for over 30 years, so if it were safe enough for patients to use at their own discretion, it would not still be prescription-only.  Keeping that in mind:

Individual doctors are not emperors; they may not prescribe literally any drug to treat literally any condition.  Any hospital that chose to look the other way and use an unapproved treatment would be exposing themselves to legal risk, which is why they made the courts order them to do so.

I'll also point out the overt bad faith in this kind of complaint.  So when a doctor tells a hospital that they should use ivermectin to treat COVID, that command must be followed by said hospital staff without delay, but when a hospital (or other organization) says that its own employees must be vaccinated, that's a violation of a person's bodily autonomy?

Sorry, you've got it twisted: I support and encourage loons who want to eat horse deworming paste.  Go ahead and inject disinfectant while you're at it.  Just don't take up a hospital bed after the predictable outcome occurs.

And now even the anti-vaxxers who haven't caught COVID are STILL figuring out ways to crowd the hospitals, keeping (https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahomas-ers-backed-people-overdosing-053822589.html) other Americans from being able to seek medical care:

Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated, a doctor says

An ER doctor in Oklahoma said rural hospitals were clogged with people overdosing on ivermectin.  Jason McElyea said the bed shortage was so severe that gunshot victims had to wait to be treated.  McElyea said people were reporting vision loss after overdosing on the deworming drug.

A doctor in rural Oklahoma said the number of people overdosing on the deworming medication ivermectin was so high that emergency rooms were filled to the brim.

The situation is so dire that people with gunshot wounds have to wait their turn to get treatment, Dr. Jason McElyea, an ER physician affiliated with hospitals in Sallisaw, told KFOR, an NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City.

McElyea spoke to the channel this week about the dangers of overdosing on the version of ivermectin meant for use in livestock. He said the hospitals he worked at became overwhelmed after people started taking ivermectin, believing unverified claims that it's an effective COVID-19 treatment.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated," McElyea said.

He added: "All of their ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don't have any, that's it. If there's no ambulance to take the call, there's no ambulance to come to the call."

---

Everything is about maximum self-interest with these clowns.  Their selfishness and stupidity is causing innocent people to die.  And not only will more people be killed by ivermectin poisoning than by vaccines, but the secondary deaths of people who can't be treated due to hospitals full of ivermectin patients will probably not even be counted.

Millions of people pick up prescriptions everyday and take them home and use them at their own discretion with zero supervision. Prescription Ivermectin produced for humans is safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/) and cheap. That's just a fact, but then again facts won't deter you from your goal of arguing about anything even when you're obviously wrong.  Keeping that in mind:

Annnnnnnd, you're wrong again. Harvard Law says: Accordingly, because ivermectin is FDA-approved, any state-licensed prescriber can order its use for any patient, for any purpose. (https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/02/court-ordered-ivermectin-covid/#more-30292) So before you try to confuse people with your misleading word salad in an attempt to pivot and spin the conversation away from you being wrong. Let me make clear what we're talking about. We're not talking about literally any drug, we're talking about Ivermectin. A prescription drug made for humans that is safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/), cheap, and legal

If a doctor prescribes their patient Ivermectin and the patient give consent, then the patient should be given the medication.

No, of course not. If you don't want to get a vaccination, find another job that doesn't require one. There are plenty of employers hiring right now.

The only thing twisted is your "radical" logic. It's funny watching the wingnuts argue for universal healthcare for everyone and legalizing drugs. While at the same time wanting to refuse healthcare and safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/), cheap, and legal drugs to people who's politics you disagree. I give you too much credit when I imply that you are a socialist because the hypocritical authoritarian bullshit you spew sounds full on communist.

What if a vaccinated person was about die of Covid? Should they be administered Ivermectin to attempt to save their life if their doctor prescribes it? Yes or no?

To reiterate, you can give people the safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/), cheap, and legal human version of Ivermectin under a doctor supervision or you can let them go take a dangerous livestock version on their own and take up hospital beds, pick one. Seems like an easy fix to me. Pick one.

Let's be clear here, you don't give a shit about anyone dying. This is purely political for you. You argue against giving prescription Ivermectin to people, but yet at the same time complain about people taking the livestock version and taking up hospital beds. And then wanting them to just "go home and die". Maybe next you'll advocate rounding up all the scary anti-vaxxers and sending them to concentration re-education camps. You're sick, you need to address your hate and anger issues.

Looks like you spoke too soon on this one:

Judge says Ohio hospital cannot be forced to use ivermectin to treat Covid, reversing earlier decision (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-says-ohio-hospital-cannot-be-forced-use-ivermectin-treat-n1278576)

A judge ruled Monday that an Ohio hospital cannot be forced to give a patient ivermectin for Covid-19, reversing an earlier decision that ordered it to administer a parasite medication that has not been approved to treat the disease.

In an 11-page decision, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Michael Oster Jr. wrote that there "was no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19."

Based on the current evidence, Oster wrote, the drug - which is primarily used to deworm horses but has been promoted by some doctors, some Republicans and the popular podcast host Joe Rogan to combat the coronavirus - "is not an effective treatment for Covid-19."

Oster cited advisories from the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical associations that have warned against using the medication for Covid-19.

Oster also cited problems with research into using ivermectin to treat the disease, including the withdrawal of a non-peer-reviewed study from a website that posts academic pre-prints.

Julie Smith, the wife of the patient, Jeffrey Smith, had sued the hospital to force doctors to administer the medication.

"While this court is sympathetic to the plaintiff and understands the idea of wanting to do anything to help her loved one, public policy should not and does not support allowing physicians to try 'any' type of treatment on human beings," he wrote.

---

So I guess this means Harvard Law was wrong, or something?  Or maybe this area of law is not 100% settled.

Any hospital that uses ivermectin to a treat a condition that it is not proven to treat (i.e. "off label usage") is exposing itself to legal liability.  Again, doctors are not emperors; if you are holding a prescription for a drug, that does not compel any hospital you walk into to provide you that drug.

I have nothing against this drug.  I think it's a bit disingenuous (though kinda funny) to call it horse paste, because there's nothing inherently wrong with a medicine that has a livestock use and can also be used for human treatment.

But I am generally against patients choosing their own medicines.  Doctors should determine what is the correct thing to prescribe.  I hope this stuff is COVID beneficial -- one more tool in the arsenal...it doesn't sound like that's the case.  But I find it weird that people are pushing doctors that don't want to administer it to prescribe it anyway.

Dave, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to it as livestock medicine (or: "horse paste").  If you don't have a prescription - as is the case for the VAST majority of people taking ivermectin to fight COVID - then you are almost certainly using livestock medicine, as that doesn't require a prescription.

Now, if you're saying that it's disingenuous to call it "horse paste" because they might be using sheep drench instead, that's a fair point.  But nearly all of them are using products not meant for humans.

I don't believe that is true. It's definitely not in my world. The people I know who have it have gotten it prescribed. They may have the horse version too but that isn't what they are taking.

So a single judge in a single case reversed his original ruling. What's your point? Do you want a cookie or participation trophy or something? There have been rulings in other states that have ordered Ivermectin to be administered. Maybe you're just confused and think that "off label usage" is illegal or something? Here's a hint, it's not.
---

Well if you even read the article, Harvard Law wasn't wrong. The law says, because ivermectin is FDA-approved, any state-licensed prescriber can order its use for any patient, for any purpose. (https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/02/court-ordered-ivermectin-covid/#more-30292) Are you arguing against "off label usage" or are you arguing against using prescription Ivermectin?

Also, it's quite amusing that you don't want people to have prescription Ivermectin, but at the same time complain about people using the livestock version and clogging up hospitals(fake news). More hypocrisy on your end. Explain to us all again exactly why you're against a person using a safe (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/) and cheap medication that was legally prescribed by a licensed physician?

What I find disingenuous a flat out lie is when you post that Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated. Maybe you should fact check your radical and fake news before you post it. I could be wrong though. Please provide detailed info regarding multiple ERs clogged up to the point that multiple gunshot victims are having to wait to receive treatment.

Two hospitals have specifically refuted the fake news you posted

-----

NHS Sequoyah:

Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provided coverage for our emergency room.

With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.

NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

All patients who have visited out emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.

We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all  patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always we value our community's support.

-----

McAlester Regional Health Center:

At this time we are not aware of any Ivermectin overdoses at our facility. Dr. McElyea is not employed with McAlester Regional Health Center.

Harvard Law said one thing and a judge (on a case YOU cited!) said another; specifically, "public policy should not and does not support allowing physicians to try 'any' type of treatment on human beings."

Now, after all the flapping and squawking you did about how I refused to admit being wrong, seems like a ruling that contradicts YOUR position just gets hand-waved away while you admit nothing!  So maybe you should spend less time accusing others of trying to distract from their own wrongness when you happily ignore court rulings you don't like.

I don't actually care if you want to take prescription ivermectin for humans, or if you want to take horse deworming paste.  What I care about - regardless of the ivermectin source - is people taking ivermectin as an anti-COVID drug and ALSO taking up a hospital bed.  To make this 100% clear: my problem is not with the person taking ivermectin, it's that they were at a hospital while trying to do so.

You want to experiment on yourself with drugs that don't work?  Do it at your own house, and get the hell out of the hospital so you can make room for someone that wants REAL medical help.

"NHS Sequoyah" stands for "Northeastern Health System Sequoyah."

When a doctor describes the conditions in "southern and eastern Oklahoma," and an organization called Northeastern Health System - who was not named or cited by the aforementioned doctor - says, "We don't see this in our hospitals and this guy doesn't even work for us," what does that tell us about the original claim?

Similarly, when a different organization (McAlester Regional Health Center) says, "We aren't seeing this volume and this guy doesn't work for us," but they weren't cited in the first place, what should we take from that statement?  (I mean, setting aside the fact that this hospital might be nursing a grudge (https://www.mcalesternews.com/news/former-employee-sues-mrhc-for-breach-of-contract/article_3e850aca-41b9-11e8-84ca-e787aa503156.html) against this particular doctor.)

Has anyone that he actually works for made a statement?  Why, yes they have (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin):

CEO of McCurtain Memorial Hospital Brad Morse (ed. note: in southeastern Oklahoma) said his hospital simply doesn't have all the equipment needed to care for such sick patients and there are no places to transfer them.

"Right now, no higher levels of care are taking our transfers," Morse said. "There are no ICU beds open."

The medical professionals said they're also seeing patients being admitted for taking Ivermectin, a horse deworming medication that has taken over social media for treating COVID, which they said is causing more unnecessary hospital visits.

"That's something that can be avoided," said Dr. McElyea.

So what you're trying to say is that one flip flopping judge makes me wrong when there are several other courts that have ordered Ivermectin to be administered. My whole point is that "off label" prescriptions are routine and legal. Did this ruling or any other ruling make "off label" prescriptions illegal? After you answer that question let me know what exactly I'm supposed to be wrong about?

So now you're saying that people with Covid don't need REAL medical help? You know that anyone can catch, transmit, and die of Covid, even vaccinated people.

We all know that people have been hospitalized due to non prescription Ivermectin. I'm waiting for you to provide valid information that substantiates the the claim that Oklahoma's ERs (plural) are so backed up/clogged with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims (plural) are having to wait to be treated. Your link doesn't back up your original fear mongering fake news you posted.

The judge didn't rule that off-label prescriptions are illegal; he ruled that a prescription is not an absolute and inviolable command, and that a hospital may not be forced to use ivermectin to treat COVID, against the recommendations of the relevant health authorities.

No, I'm saying some of them (the ones taking hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, coral calcium, etc.) don't want REAL medical help.  They want snake oil and bullshit.
So they should vacate the hospital bed and free it up for someone that does want REAL medical help.

Hold on... the "debunking" statements YOU cited - from hospitals where the doctor in question doesn't even work - don't even mention gun shot wounds.  They don't disprove a damn thing about gun shots.

As for the information you are requesting... I literally just provided it!  Let me explain it for you in detail:.

If there are no ICU beds open, then by definition, gunshot victims (plural) in need of intensive care cannot be treated!  Or is your argument that they are actually lying about the EXISTENCE of gunshot victims?

Now, why are there no ICU beds open?  Well, according to the administrators of the hospital in question:

Right-wing social media jumped all over the statements from two COMPLETELY UNRELATED hospitals that do not employ the doctor that was originally quoted, because they are all desperate to downplay the repercussions from conservative anti-vaxxers taking horse dewormer.  The original story WASN'T debunked; it was CONFIRMED by other staff at a hospital Dr. McElyea actually works at!

Other courts have ruled otherwise.

In most of these cases the patient is intubated and/or close to death. The patient in question was in intensive care, intubated, and in a coma. So are you suggesting that a patient close to death just "vacate" the hospital? Are you suggesting that the patient just lay their and die without exhausting every option? We're talking about a drug that's been around for almost 40 years and recognized safe by the government and medical community. Sounds like you actually want people to die because you disagree with their politics. Doesn't surprise me though.


They don't mention gunshot victims because there's no shortage of beds caused by Ivermectin overdoses. In other words, there are no patients having to wait for services because because Ivermectin patients are clogging up the system. It's called cause and effect. There is no cause (overload of Ivermectin patients) so the effect doesn't exist (gunshot victims having to wait). The hospital you reference specifically says: 


I don't see her listing Ivermectin as a cause of the dire situation. Which means that Ivermectin overdoses aren't the cause.

It's funny that the article that you linked (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) doesn't mention gunshot victims either. Where are these phantom gunshot victims left to die in the waiting room. The information I'm requesting from you is specifically what you originally posted. Multiple hospitals (plural) confirming that their ICUs and ERs are clogged up with Ivermectin overdose patients. The original fake news story you posted is the only place I've seen that information presented as fact.

Again, a direct quote from your own source (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) says: a combination of diseases like RSV, surgeries, and the delta variant all led to this dire situation.


In summary, your source (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) says:

1. They had no ICU beds available.
2. That they were full due to diseases like RSV, surgeries, and the delta variant.
3. That they are seeing patients for taking Ivermectin.

What your source (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) doesn't say:

1. Cause - Oklahoma's ERs (plural) are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin. As referenced in your fake news story.
2. Effect - Anything about gunshot victims (plural) . As referenced in your fake news story.

Do you expect people to believe that all the Ivermectin overdoses in the state of Oklahoma decided to all go to a single hospital at the same time? Even when the hospital in question doesn't even verify the original claims. Even when other hospitals are reporting exactly the opposite of the original claims. Why only Oklahoma? I mean if it's such a big issue wouldn't we see it nationwide? Wouldn't we have multiple reports across multiple states saying the same thing? Or is this one single hospital in Oklahoma like a leprechaun with a pot of gold riding a unicorn across a rainbow?

Again, can you provide credible evidence from multiple hospitals(plural) across Oklahoma that, Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated. You've only provided a single hospital that said they were full due to diseases like RSV, surgeries, and the delta variant. And that they have had patients admitted for taking Ivermectin.

Are you saying that the original article you linked is accurate?

An actual "horse woman" I know posted this today and it made me laugh. Figured it would give you horse dewormer bashers something to talk about.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ranch_rumors/video/7007077979767557381?fbclid=IwAR0FMMUm_OcQ7dEwo6srRa_SWrFbjqYtOZHXJV6cAc2RBfT2rz1mlCm8vdQ&is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1

pondwater, please clarify something for me before the goalposts move any further:

Is your argument "This liar is claiming that multiple hospitals have to turn away critical patients - including: gunshot victims - from their ICUs because they are full (due, in some part, to ivermectin poisoning victims), but in reality, only one hospital has stated they have to turn away critical patients from their ICUs because they are full (due, in some part, to ivermectin poisoning victims)"?

Because if you concede the fact that critical condition patients in OK are being turned away due to full ICUs that have some portion of ivermectin poisoning patients, and we're just haggling over the precise (non-zero) number of hospitals that meet this condition... well, I'm not sure if this point has the weight you think it does.  It's definitely not "debunking" the original claim.

The original claim is that "Oklahoma's ERs are so backed up with people overdosing on ivermectin that gunshot victims are having to wait to be treated."

That's not even close to the same thing as one single podunk hospital saying our ICU beds are full due to diseases like RSV, surgeries, and the delta variant. And by the way we've seen a few people that have taken Ivermectin. Hell, your source (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) doesn't even claim that the few Ivermectin patients were even taking up ICU beds, just that they've been admitted. If you can't tell the difference between those two things, your mental capacity is questionable.

And more importantly, that same news outlet that you used as a source (https://www.newson6.com/story/613269066bd5b90c03e5cd74/hospital-administrators-in-rural-areas-say-resources-staff-are-stretched-thin) came out with another article 3 days later (https://www.newson6.com/story/6136ad349daa7c0c0b36d064/oklahoma-doctor-at-center-of-viral-ivermectin-story-says-report-is-wrong) and the first words in the article were: A false report has Oklahoma trending nationally. Not to mention that Dr. Jason McElyea debunked the claim himself, in that article he said: "the story was wrong".

Since that claim is considered false and wrong by the original source, it's automatically debunked. And the worst part is that this story was debunked over 2 weeks ago and you're still defending it. It's sad that you are so invested in your radical agenda that you have to resort to fearmongering, fake news, and outright lies. It's not even debatable at this point. Hope that clarifies things for you before you try to move the goalposts any further.

So, are you still saying that the original article you linked is accurate?

Well, first of all, the original article I linked was on Yahoo News, themselves citing an article from KFOR-4.  Here's what KFOR had to say about it (https://kfor.com/news/local/patients-overdosing-on-ivermectin-backing-up-rural-oklahoma-hospitals-ambulances/):

Editor's note:  Since this story was published, it has garnered national attention.  Our material was gathered from two events. On August 31st, the "Healthier Oklahoma Coalition" held a news conference with six doctors speaking to the media. One of those physicians, Dr. Jason McElyea, spoke about health care facilities being "backed up" with patients who were suffering from complications after taking Ivermectin. The next day, Dr. McElyea conducted a one-on-one interview with KFOR, repeating the information about facilities being "backed up".  At no point was Dr. McElyea referring to every hospital in the state of Oklahoma, and our reporting did not make that claim.

Representatives from two different Oklahoma healthcare organizations confirmed to KFOR their facilities are experiencing a sudden increase in the number of patients suffering negative side effects as a result of over-using Ivermectin.  One of the healthcare groups, which confirmed the increase, is Integris Health Systems.  They've since told us they prefer the term "congested" as opposed to "backed up", to describe the current situation.

KFOR-TV will continue to follow the studies that are currently investigating whether Ivermectin is an effective treatment or preventative agent against COVID.  KFOR-TV's reporting regarding the pandemic, proper COVID-19 safety precautions, and effective treatment protocols has been fact-based, accurate, thorough, and consistent.

And speaking of misquotes: in the KOTV-6 article you linked, Dr. McElyea did not say "the story was wrong."  He said, "That original story was just a little misquoted," which means that the original KFOR story was correct (again, as KFOR confirmed with their own later reporting) and some other outlets misquoted it.  (I'm sure you recognize the difference between "The story was misquoted" and "I was misquoted.")

But this seems like a waste of time, because in the "false report" article you just cited, they confirm AGAIN that the 1) the ERs are "congested" and 2) ivermectin is contributing to that congestion:

"What we can confirm is that we have seen a handful of ivermectin patients in our emergency rooms, to include INTEGRIS Grove Hospital. And while our hospitals are not filled with people who have taken ivermectin, such patients are adding to the congestion already caused by COVID-19 and other emergencies," the hospital group said.

Please note that INTEGRIS Grove Hospital is NOT the same facility as McCurtain Memorial Hospital, which was also on record confirming this issue.  But I guess if your position is that "one single podunk hospital" doesn't count, then two must not either, right?  

Now, to be fair, you did properly cite an article with an original source issuing a correction: the national stories of ERs "all across Oklahoma" being backed up are an inaccurate embellishment of the facts on the ground.  (That wasn't what the Yahoo News article I originally cited claimed, and it wasn't what the original reporting from KFOR-4 said, but I concede that some outlets may have been reporting it as "all Oklahoma ERs," which is false.)  Credit where credit is due.

So, in conclusion:

1) Several Oklahoma hospitals are currently backed up congested with critical patients
2) Among the causes of this congestion are patients suffering ivermectin poisoning due to taking products not intended for humans
3) This congestion is preventing some other patients (including: gunshot victims) from receiving care

Which part of the above is false?  Or do you simply consider it irrelevant if it's not the majority of OK hospitals?