Providence refused to prescribe the drug. 

As usual, in his continuing assault on decency, Assembly Member Chris Constant had some fun with the passing, taking the opportunity to dance a little jig on the still-warm grave during a vicious soliloquy at the Assembly meeting Tuesday night, Oct 12.

There was (and still is) some back and forth between Allard and Providence over ivermectin and their refusal to use it at the request of the patient and guardian.  This is exacerbated by Providence hiding behind Merck’s conveniently timed public statement that the use of ivermectin is not supported by evidence, and that ivermectin not be used to treat the disease.

From here, Merck’s February 2021 statement against their own product ivermectin sounds a lot like the fix is in via an insider’s agreement between the FDA and Merck.  As we know, Merck a couple weeks ago announced a brand new anti-COVID drug which is reportedly going to be sold at a 40x markup over manufacturing cost.  And they are asking for expedited approval from the FDA.  If they defend their older, cheaper, more effective product, ivermectin, they don’t get approval for the new drug.  Follow the money.  Always, always follow the money.  Sadly, anything having to do with the feds these days increasingly looks more like a protection racket than actual governance.  Nice little drug company you have there, would be a shame if anything happened to it. 

So, where does this leave us regarding Providence?  First, I haven’t heard any stories like this so far out of Alaska Regional, which ought to inform your medical decisions now and in the future.  Second, it got me thinking about the Right to Try legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in 2018.

Right to Try is targeted at terminal patients looking into lifesaving drugs that have yet to be formally approved.  The legislation says nothing about off-label use.  It talks about terminal patients.  Sadly, COVID moves quickly, and the patient isn’t terminal until the very last at which point none of the therapeutics work all that well. 

But if I were to try to make some new law and had an enterprising lawyer, litigating the spirit and intent of Right to Try would be a good thing to start with.  Somewhere along the line, Providence ought to have to cut an eight-figure check for refusing lifesaving treatment for a patient.  Right to Try might be a good vehicle to use to start the process.

========================

Addendum: Providence may be somewhat at risk here. While federal approval of ivermectin does not seem to exist, there is a NIH chart dated July 8, 2021 entitled Characteristics of antiviral agents that are approved or under evaluation for the treatment of COVID-19 that includes ivermectin, recommended dosage and interactions with other meds. It is listed as currently under clinical trials, which puts the drug squarely in the realm of Right to Try legislation.

=======================

Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.

The post The Right to Try appeared first on Alaska Politics and Elections.

===========================================

August 2, 2021

Ms Judy Petry
Vice Chair
Alaska Railroad Corporation Board of Directors
327 West Ship Creek Avenue
Anchorage. AK 99510

Dear Alaska Railroad Corporation Board of Directors,

The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) has filed a “quite action” lawsuit against dozens of private-property owners in Anchorage.  While the lawsuit is filed against the Flying Crown Subdivision and its homeowners, it will affect hundreds of Alaskan landowners, possibly more, who own the land beneath the ARRC easement.

As the Board is aware, and as Congressman Young stated in his 2018 letter, the property owners have a strong argument that Congress did not intend to take their fee interest in the land underlying the easement when it passed the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA).

When Congress passed ARTA it limited ARRC’s easement to the purpose stated in federal law, construction and operation of a railroad.  Congress did not provide for ARRC to act as a general landlord, charging the owners of the land the easement runs across, nor did it provide exclusive use of the land the easement crosses to ARRC that is not needed for operation of the railroad.  Unfortunately, Congress has not acted to clarify this.

ARRC’s exploitation of the unsolved ambiguity in federal law, and its approach to litigation has caused the private landowners to incur significant legal costs.  Litigation costs on both sides could be stopped quickly if the private landowners and ARRC had taken up my offer to pay for a mediator.  Lawsuits are expensive endeavors, and we are talking about individual homeowners, who likely do not have the financial resources to continue in a prolonged lawsuit with the ARRC.  Such action is not aligned with my policies and goals that state agencies, even the ARRC which is governed by the Board, must treat private landowners with respect.

I am requesting the Board of Directors consider approving payment to the private landowners for their litigation costs.  This seems only fair since the ARRC started the litigation and now claims its’ only interest is in a resolution of the legal dispute over its ownership rights in the easement, whatever the outcome may be.

In order to get quick resolution on this issue, I urge the ARRC’s Board of Directors to take the following actions:

1. Reconsider your position that the Right-of-Way (ROW) ARRC received from the federal government includes exclusive use rights and the right to act as a general landlord and charge the property owners or utilities rent.
2. Settle the lawsuit with the private homeowners of the Flying Crown Subdivision by agreeing that this easement is for maintenance and operation of a railroad only (as states in the original Alaska Railroad Act of 1914) and does not include the underlying property rights of the owners, or the right to charge utilities for use of the ROW.
3. Consider an ARRC Board resolution in support of legislation next session adding the ARRC to the Executive Budget Act, and other statutory changes that bring accountability to the ARRC Board and senior management, how it uses its funds for litigation against Alaska small residential property owners, and how it manages and controls its lands.

My administration stands ready to help facilitate resolution on these issues immediately.  We have previously offered to pay for a mediator to work with both sides to resolve the issues in question – that offer still stands.  I Look forward to the ARRC Board taking the necessary actions to resolve these issues once and for all.

Sincerely,

Signed

Mike Dunleavy
Governor

===========================================

Essentially, Governor Dunleavy is taking the lead to solve a festering problem.  Given what he wrote, I would not want to find out if he were willing to replace a sufficient number of recalcitrant ARRC Board members to make his wishes in the Aug 2 letter come to pass.  We will hope it will not be too many.  He certainly has that power.

This action is related to our four-part series on the Alaska Railroad published this summer.

Alaska Railroad Politics and Conclusions, June 25, 2021

Alaska Railroad (AKRR) Court Opinions, June 18, 2021

The Alaska Railroad’s Perspective, June 11, 2021

Alaska Railroad v Flying Crown Homeowners Association, June 6, 2021

Progress.  What a concept. 

Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.

The post Governor Dunleavy Weighs in on the Alaska Railroad Lawsuit Against Anchorage Property Owners appeared first on Alaska Politics and Elections.