All things CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

You do understand that IVM has been inaccurately linked to bleach/HCQ/Trump as a political cudgel for the left and/or any virtue signaling exploiters?

Yes. Why? Are you going to pretend you don't know why?

Because these IVM-nuts aren't simply going to their doctor and asking "what the best course of prevention for me and my family if we don't want a severe case of Covid". They do that? Game over. We hit our 90%+ vaccination rate.

When we are there, just as we are with every single other vaccine? THEN you can talk about "other" treatments. No problem. Knock yourself out.

It's logic fail on a national scale, tech. You have school rooms full of angry parents, livid at the idea of either masks or forced vaccines. Do me a favor and ask these same parents "what immunizations were your children FORCED to take by State law so they could attend school".

These people are too far gone to understand they already gave up their freedoms so that their kid could attend K-12. Vaccines for everything from measels to polio. No one complained. No one squawked about freedom. They just did it, because....well...duh.

If IVM had been accurately and truthfully explained, the exploiters could not have created the "either/or" situation that you're belaboring.

You already explained why they can't do that----millions are using it INSTEAD OF the vaccine. THAT is who you should be blaming, tech.

THOSE are the people who aren't accurately and truthfully explaining the treatments we have available.

"de-worming" is both pejorative and a jerk's remark.

Yes. They're mocking idiots who believe one cure that they "read about on the internet", while at the same time ignore "what my doctor, who has multiple degrees, and actually knows what she's talking about, tells me is the best course of action".

a fan, in the interest of having a viable therapeutic to supplement vaccination, I've been discussing, posting articles, posting podcasts re IVM for over a year now, before it became politically charged. I have no idea if you've been following or not but to insert yourself now as if none of what your saying above was/is considered or already discussed, is interesting to say the least.

Tech37, you really need to stop this idiocy. Promoting ivermectin for an unproven and unapproved use is reckless and moronic.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?
Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe?
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People
For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Options for Preventing and Treating COVID-19
The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance.

Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

DocBarrister

Once again, not "promoting." Sharing information...discussing.

Here's what you posted on Aug 31:

"(3) Do NOT take ivermectin for COVID-19, or for any reason without a physician’s prescription."

I completely agree and have never said otherwise. You, on the other hand, are sending mixed messages.

You are lying.

It is obviously your intent to promote ivermectin.

STOP IT.

DocBarrister

+1

[tech37]

You do understand that IVM has been inaccurately linked to bleach/HCQ/Trump as a political cudgel for the left and/or any virtue signaling exploiters?

Yes. Why? Are you going to pretend you don't know why?

Because these IVM-nuts aren't simply going to their doctor and asking "what the best course of prevention for me and my family if we don't want a severe case of Covid". They do that? Game over. We hit our 90%+ vaccination rate.

When we are there, just as we are with every single other vaccine? THEN you can talk about "other" treatments. No problem. Knock yourself out.

It's logic fail on a national scale, tech. You have school rooms full of angry parents, livid at the idea of either masks or forced vaccines. Do me a favor and ask these same parents "what immunizations were your children FORCED to take by State law so they could attend school".

These people are too far gone to understand they already gave up their freedoms so that their kid could attend K-12. Vaccines for everything from measels to polio. No one complained. No one squawked about freedom. They just did it, because....well...duh.

If IVM had been accurately and truthfully explained, the exploiters could not have created the "either/or" situation that you're belaboring.

You already explained why they can't do that----millions are using it INSTEAD OF the vaccine. THAT is who you should be blaming, tech.

THOSE are the people who aren't accurately and truthfully explaining the treatments we have available.

"de-worming" is both pejorative and a jerk's remark.

Yes. They're mocking idiots who believe one cure that they "read about on the internet", while at the same time ignore "what my doctor, who has multiple degrees, and actually knows what she's talking about, tells me is the best course of action".

a fan, in the interest of having a viable therapeutic to supplement vaccination, I've been discussing, posting articles, posting podcasts re IVM for over a year now, before it became politically charged. I have no idea if you've been following or not but to insert yourself now as if none of what your saying above was/is considered or already discussed, is interesting to say the least.

Tech37, you really need to stop this idiocy. Promoting ivermectin for an unproven and unapproved use is reckless and moronic.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?
Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe?
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People
For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Options for Preventing and Treating COVID-19
The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance.

Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

DocBarrister

Once again, not "promoting." Sharing information...discussing.

Here's what you posted on Aug 31:

"(3) Do NOT take ivermectin for COVID-19, or for any reason without a physician’s prescription."

I completely agree and have never said otherwise. You, on the other hand, are sending mixed messages.

You are lying.

It is obviously your intent to promote ivermectin.

STOP IT.

DocBarrister

Not lying at all. I'm simply discussing therapeutics, specifically IVM since it's now so controversial.

Why are you sending mixed messages about it? In one post stating not to use without a Dr's supervision (again, correctly stated). Aren't you a lawyer? Language is important.

[DocBarrister]

Tech, more than a little skeptical of a research paper that includes in its title: "drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge". A serious researcher would not choose such a title. Some of the authors are also questionable, so not surprised with the title.

We will see what the medical establishment thinks of it. Based on what I see, this paper is serving exactly the purpose you are using it for, medical researchers are not the target audience.

+1

DocBarrister

[tech37]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Refusing to fill a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

[DocBarrister]

You do understand that IVM has been inaccurately linked to bleach/HCQ/Trump as a political cudgel for the left and/or any virtue signaling exploiters?

Yes. Why? Are you going to pretend you don't know why?

Because these IVM-nuts aren't simply going to their doctor and asking "what the best course of prevention for me and my family if we don't want a severe case of Covid". They do that? Game over. We hit our 90%+ vaccination rate.

When we are there, just as we are with every single other vaccine? THEN you can talk about "other" treatments. No problem. Knock yourself out.

It's logic fail on a national scale, tech. You have school rooms full of angry parents, livid at the idea of either masks or forced vaccines. Do me a favor and ask these same parents "what immunizations were your children FORCED to take by State law so they could attend school".

These people are too far gone to understand they already gave up their freedoms so that their kid could attend K-12. Vaccines for everything from measels to polio. No one complained. No one squawked about freedom. They just did it, because....well...duh.

If IVM had been accurately and truthfully explained, the exploiters could not have created the "either/or" situation that you're belaboring.

You already explained why they can't do that----millions are using it INSTEAD OF the vaccine. THAT is who you should be blaming, tech.

THOSE are the people who aren't accurately and truthfully explaining the treatments we have available.

"de-worming" is both pejorative and a jerk's remark.

Yes. They're mocking idiots who believe one cure that they "read about on the internet", while at the same time ignore "what my doctor, who has multiple degrees, and actually knows what she's talking about, tells me is the best course of action".

a fan, in the interest of having a viable therapeutic to supplement vaccination, I've been discussing, posting articles, posting podcasts re IVM for over a year now, before it became politically charged. I have no idea if you've been following or not but to insert yourself now as if none of what your saying above was/is considered or already discussed, is interesting to say the least.

Tech37, you really need to stop this idiocy. Promoting ivermectin for an unproven and unapproved use is reckless and moronic.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

What is Ivermectin and How is it Used?
Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

When Can Taking Ivermectin Be Unsafe?
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in people or animals. Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Ivermectin Products for Animals Are Different from Ivermectin Products for People
For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Options for Preventing and Treating COVID-19
The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance.

Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

DocBarrister

Once again, not "promoting." Sharing information...discussing.

Here's what you posted on Aug 31:

"(3) Do NOT take ivermectin for COVID-19, or for any reason without a physician’s prescription."

I completely agree and have never said otherwise. You, on the other hand, are sending mixed messages.

You are lying.

It is obviously your intent to promote ivermectin.

STOP IT.

DocBarrister

Not lying at all. I'm simply discussing therapeutics, specifically IVM since it's now so controversial.

Why are you sending mixed messages about it? In one post stating not to use without a Dr's supervision (again, correctly stated). Aren't you a lawyer? Language is important.

There is no scientific, medical, or regulatory controversy about ivermectin.

Ivermectin is NOT approved for treating or preventing COVID-19.

Ivermectin has NOT been proven safe or effective for use in treating or preventing COVID-19.

Animal formulations of ivermectin are NOT approved for human use and are NOT safe for human use.

Presenting only positive information about ivermectin without discussing the dangers and numerous reported injuries related to ivermectin is not “discussion”, it is promotion.

STOP PROMOTING IVERMECTIN, tech37.


DocBarrister

[jhu72]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

Period.

Anyone saying otherwise is promoting ivermectin usage.

And because their regular physicians are doing the right thing and not prescribing, consumers are deciding to get and use it though quacks and internet. Including dosages that are quite dangerous.

Moreover, it feeds into the notion that a miracle cure means no need to be vaccinated...idiots.

But hey, we know you're way down this rathole with a whole lot of other anti-gov't, anti-expertise, conspiracy believing Americans.

... it is interesting that the knock against the establishment is they are making money and protecting their franchise. Strange those spinning and believing the conspiracy never stop to look at the motivation of those hawking this drug. I am sure money, a cash cow, has nothing to do with the motivation.

[MDlaxfan76]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

I didn't say it was illegal, simply that no physician should prescribe IVM for Covid, given that such usage has been specifically warned against by the FDA. That's information, not misinformation.

And indeed very few physicians would do so, exactly because of this warning.

So, people are looking for who will, including on the internet...or simply buying it online.

Any encouragement of people to do this, whether by you or Weinstein or anyone else, is indeed promoting such specifically warned against usage, not simply "discussing"...and that's what you've been doing.

[tech37]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

I didn't say it was illegal, simply that no physician should prescribe IVM for Covid, given that such usage has been specifically warned against by the FDA. That's information, not misinformation.
Calling it a "de-worming" drug (as you have) taking it completely out of context, is misinformation.

And indeed very few physicians would do so, exactly because of this warning.

So, people are looking for who will, including on the internet...or simply buying it online.

Any encouragement of people to do this, whether by you or Weinstein or anyone else, is indeed promoting such specifically warned against usage, not simply "discussing"...and that's what you've been doing.

Please, show one post where I have "encouraged" anything.

[DocBarrister]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

The ignorance you display is truly astounding. I would suggest you “look into” things before posting about them.

There are professional, ethical, and legal confidentiality obligations associated with a doctor-patient relationship, but it is certainly not “private” in the commonly understood sense. It is a fully government-regulated relationship, subject to both state and federal regulations. The relationship has to be strictly documented. No such relationship can even be formed unless the physician is properly licensed by a state government agency.

Off-label prescriptions are common and acceptable when there is ample data supporting the safe and effective use of a therapeutic for the off-label use.

No such data exist at this time for the off-label use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Your promotion of ivermectin is dangerous, reckless, and stupid, tech37.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

I didn't say it was illegal, simply that no physician should prescribe IVM for Covid, given that such usage has been specifically warned against by the FDA. That's information, not misinformation.
Calling it a "de-worming" drug (as you have) taking it completely out of context, is misinformation.

And indeed very few physicians would do so, exactly because of this warning.

So, people are looking for who will, including on the internet...or simply buying it online.

Any encouragement of people to do this, whether by you or Weinstein or anyone else, is indeed promoting such specifically warned against usage, not simply "discussing"...and that's what you've been doing.

Please, show one post where I have "encouraged" anything.

All of your posts on this topic avoid acknowledgment of the risks of IVM usage and instead suggest positive outcomes that simply are not soundly based. You ignore the refutation of "studies" that have faulty data and methodologies, and instead suggest that they have undesserved validity.

That's promotion.

And indeed, IVM's primary usage is as an anti-parasitic de-wormer. That's entirely accurate.

The idiocy of this is that we'd doing cartwheels if there was actually a safe, easy and effective way to prevent bad Covid outcomes.

Yet you and your fellow travelers think there's some vast conspiracy of people nefariously keeping the miracle cure from being used and the rest of us are merely sheep to trust that they aren't lying to us about IVM.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

I didn't say it was illegal, simply that no physician should prescribe IVM for Covid, given that such usage has been specifically warned against by the FDA. That's information, not misinformation.
Calling it a "de-worming" drug (as you have) taking it completely out of context, is misinformation.

And indeed very few physicians would do so, exactly because of this warning.

So, people are looking for who will, including on the internet...or simply buying it online.

Any encouragement of people to do this, whether by you or Weinstein or anyone else, is indeed promoting such specifically warned against usage, not simply "discussing"...and that's what you've been doing.

Please, show one post where I have "encouraged" anything.

All of your posts on this topic avoid acknowledgment of the risks of IVM usage and instead suggest positive outcomes that simply are not soundly based. You ignore the refutation of "studies" that have faulty data and methodologies, and instead suggest that they have undesserved validity.

That's promotion.

And indeed, IVM's primary usage is as an anti-parasitic de-wormer. That's entirely accurate.

The idiocy of this is that we'd doing cartwheels if there was actually a safe, easy and effective way to prevent bad Covid outcomes.

Yet you and your fellow travelers think there's some vast conspiracy of people nefariously keeping the miracle cure from being used and the rest of us are merely sheep to trust that they aren't lying to us about IVM.

This is from the manufacturer of Ivermectin:

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem ... -pandemic/

There is a conspiracy to keep Merck down! Ask Bret and JoeRo.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/char ... ce-history

[Brooklyn]

America thanks to Talbanipublicans:


https://i.imgur.com/df0ysLK.jpeg



https://i.imgur.com/9UFIvht.jpeg


Children die, they rejoice.

[tech37]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

The ignorance you display is truly astounding. I would suggest you “look into” things before posting about them.

There are professional, ethical, and legal confidentiality obligations associated with a doctor-patient relationship, but it is certainly not “private” in the commonly understood sense. It is a fully government-regulated relationship, subject to both state and federal regulations. The relationship has to be strictly documented. No such relationship can even be formed unless the physician is properly licensed by a state government agency.

Code of Medical Ethics: Patient-physician relationships

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-car ... ationships

When Is a Patient-Physician Relationship Established?

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... ed/2012-05

Off-label prescriptions are common and acceptable when there is ample data supporting the safe and effective use of a therapeutic for the off-label use.

No such data exist at this time for the off-label use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.
Who said there was?

Your promotion of ivermectin is dangerous, reckless, and stupid, tech37.
Your stating "promotion" is misinformation and opinion only.



DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

And no physician should prescribe ivermectin for use against Covid, unless in a regulated, controlled study.

This is absolutely wrong. A doctor/patient relationship is private... certainly none of your business. Off-label scripts are common. But hey, you're opinionated.

"The doctor-patient relationship has been defined as “a consensual relationship in which the patient knowingly seeks the physician’s assistance and in which the physician knowingly accepts the person as a patient.”1(p6) At its core, the doctor-patient relationship represents a fiduciary relationship in which, by entering into the relationship, the physician agrees to respect the patient’s autonomy, maintain confidentiality, explain treatment options, obtain informed consent, provide the highest standard of care, and commit not to abandon the patient without giving him or her adequate time to find a new doctor. However, such a contractual definition fails to portray the immense and profound nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients sometimes reveal secrets, worries, and fears to physicians that they have not yet disclosed to friends or family members. Placing trust in a doctor helps them maintain or regain their health and well-being."

Unfortunately due to people who think like you, that relationship has been stigmatized by politically-charged misinformation regarding IVM. Even pharmacies have been targeted which is a healthcare travesty. Not filling a legit script must break some law. If I have time, I'll look into it.

I didn't say it was illegal, simply that no physician should prescribe IVM for Covid, given that such usage has been specifically warned against by the FDA. That's information, not misinformation.
Calling it a "de-worming" drug (as you have) taking it completely out of context, is misinformation.

And indeed very few physicians would do so, exactly because of this warning.

So, people are looking for who will, including on the internet...or simply buying it online.

Any encouragement of people to do this, whether by you or Weinstein or anyone else, is indeed promoting such specifically warned against usage, not simply "discussing"...and that's what you've been doing.

Please, show one post where I have "encouraged" anything.

All of your posts on this topic avoid acknowledgment of the risks of IVM usage and instead suggest positive outcomes that simply are not soundly based. You ignore the refutation of "studies" that have faulty data and methodologies, and instead suggest that they have undesserved validity.

That's promotion.

And indeed, IVM's primary usage is as an anti-parasitic de-wormer. That's entirely accurate.

The idiocy of this is that we'd doing cartwheels if there was actually a safe, easy and effective way to prevent bad Covid outcomes.

Yet you and your fellow travelers think there's some vast conspiracy of people nefariously keeping the miracle cure from being used and the rest of us are merely sheep to trust that they aren't lying to us about IVM.

This is from the manufacturer of Ivermectin:

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem ... -pandemic/

There is a conspiracy to keep Merck down! Ask Bret and JoeRo.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/char ... ce-history

[Typical Lax Dad]

Very sad

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/4-year ... utType=amp

I guess 4 year olds die all the time. No biggie.

[youthathletics]

Very sad

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/4-year ... utType=amp

I guess 4 year olds die all the time. No biggie.

Sad is an understatement......Did you also see this in the article, which required clicking the Read More:

Chris Wishart’s great aunt, Sina Trotman, said the child was recovering from abdominal surgery in the hospital when she tested positive for COVID-19.

She died just one day later.

[Kismet]

I don't get it. There are THREE approved vaccines specifically for prevention of significant COVID infection that have been administered to 100s of million of people with little or no problem here and around the world. There is, in addition, significant analyzed trial data that supports this conclusion for all of them.

Why is this allegedly alternative drug even in the conversation? Especially since there is NO trial data that it works and if used incorrectly can cause significant health effects far greater than the approved vaccines. Mirror to the hydroxychloroquine fiasco.

Un-vaccinated folks rail against these vaccines yet willfully try these things? Someone please rationally explain why

[Typical Lax Dad]

Very sad

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/4-year ... utType=amp

I guess 4 year olds die all the time. No biggie.

Sad is an understatement......Did you also see this in the article, which required clicking the Read More:

Chris Wishart’s great aunt, Sina Trotman, said the child was recovering from abdominal surgery in the hospital when she tested positive for COVID-19.

She died just one day later.

Yeah. Saw that. Not clear if covid made it better or worse. Lots of kids dying this go around with Covid-19.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't get it. There are THREE approved vaccines specifically for prevention of significant COVID infection that have been administered to 100s of million of people with little or no problem here and around the world. There is, in addition, significant analyzed trial data that supports this conclusion for all of them.

Why is this allegedly alternative drug even in the conversation? Especially since there is NO trial data that it works and if used incorrectly can cause significant health effects far greater than the approved vaccines. Mirror to the hydroxychloroquine fiasco.

Un-vaccinated folks rail against these vaccines yet willfully try these things? Someone please rationally explain why

Because its promoted on social media and folks are doing their own research.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282 ... ck-and-co/

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't get it. There are THREE approved vaccines specifically for prevention of significant COVID infection that have been administered to 100s of million of people with little or no problem here and around the world. There is, in addition, significant analyzed trial data that supports this conclusion for all of them.

Why is this allegedly alternative drug even in the conversation? Especially since there is NO trial data that it works and if used incorrectly can cause significant health effects far greater than the approved vaccines. Mirror to the hydroxychloroquine fiasco.

Un-vaccinated folks rail against these vaccines yet willfully try these things? Someone please rationally explain why

For the "promoters", the snake oil salesmen and their social media 'podcasters', it's about the $$$$$

For the numbskulls and whack jobs (and there are many of both in this great country), it's simply another excuse to rail against the government and the powerlessness they feel in their daily lives.

If Fauci/FDA etc said IVM works, they'd automatically reject it and look for another con artist's snake oil instead. The attraction is that it's not supported by the actual best experts in infectious disease.