WyoNation.com

I'm curious now that the TX doctor beat fda on invermectin case, do you covid Nazis feel he should have won?
You were wrong about so much.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:26 am I'm curious now that the TX doctor beat fda on invermectin case, do you covid Nazis feel he should have won?
You were wrong about so much.

Good luck getting that admission.

Itsux2beaewe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:21 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:26 am I'm curious now that the TX doctor beat fda on invermectin case, do you covid Nazis feel he should have won?
You were wrong about so much.

Good luck getting that admission.

I wonder how many of them have said "medical decisions should be between patients and doctor not politicians"?

I guess that's unless it's ivermectin

Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient.

This case had nothing to do with that, the FDA was the body being sued. Not because they banned the use of ivermectin, just for discouraging it.

If by beat them, you mean the FDA decided to settle instead of dragging the case out longer, then sure, he beat then. But that in no way means he was right.

To date, there is still no evidence that Ivermectin has any efficacy in the treatment of Covid. This includes high quality data and several meta-analyses.

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:20 pm Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient.

This case had nothing to do with that, the FDA was the body being sued. Not because they banned the use of ivermectin, just for discouraging it.

If by beat them, you mean the FDA decided to settle instead of dragging the case out longer, then sure, he beat then. But that in no way means he was right.

To date, there is still no evidence that Ivermectin has any efficacy in the treatment of Covid. This includes high quality data and several meta-analyses.

So you oppose the right of a doctor and patient to decide what's best for the patient and think politicians should intervene or pharmacists?

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:45 pm

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:20 pm Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient.

This case had nothing to do with that, the FDA was the body being sued. Not because they banned the use of ivermectin, just for discouraging it.

If by beat them, you mean the FDA decided to settle instead of dragging the case out longer, then sure, he beat then. But that in no way means he was right.

To date, there is still no evidence that Ivermectin has any efficacy in the treatment of Covid. This includes high quality data and several meta-analyses.

So you oppose the right of a doctor and patient to decide what's best for the patient and think politicians should intervene or pharmacists?

Not at all... where in my post did I say anything resembling that assertion?

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:34 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:45 pm

So you oppose the right of a doctor and patient to decide what's best for the patient and think politicians should intervene or pharmacists?

Not at all... where in my post did I say anything resembling that assertion?

So you agree a doctor should be able to prescribe ivermectin and the fda and pharmacists should stay out of it?

That's contrary to the covid nazism

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:33 am

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:34 am
Not at all... where in my post did I say anything resembling that assertion?

So you agree a doctor should be able to prescribe ivermectin and the fda and pharmacists should stay out of it?

That's contrary to the covid nazism

Yes, it is within a doctor's right to prescribe medications if indicated, or if they think they are appropriate. Just like it is in the doctor's right to refuse prescribing meds that they feel are not indicated or ineffective.

Notice, at no point did the FDA try to stop or prosecute doctors prescribing Ivermectin, they only discouraged it... which is perfectly within their scope.

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 1:32 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:33 am

So you agree a doctor should be able to prescribe ivermectin and the fda and pharmacists should stay out of it?

That's contrary to the covid nazism

Yes, it is within a doctor's right to prescribe medications if indicated, or if they think they are appropriate. Just like it is in the doctor's right to refuse prescribing meds that they feel are not indicated or ineffective.

Notice, at no point did the FDA try to stop or prosecute doctors prescribing Ivermectin, they only discouraged it... which is perfectly within their scope.

Their actions directly led to things like pharmacists refusing to fill subscriptions. They settled because they were wrong.

I suppose you don't think Trump is guilty of Jan 6 wrongdoings? Afterall he never illegally entered the capitol building.

BTW, do power stats on the ivermectin data. The studies were too small to be definitive. If the vaccine data were restricted to that small of sample size, it'd be likely nonsignificant. If you stratify vaccines use by age, for most age groups, the vaccine did nothing.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 10:23 am BTW, do power stats on the ivermectin data. The studies were too small to be definitive. If the vaccine data were restricted to that small of sample size, it'd be likely nonsignificant. If you stratify vaccines use by age, for most age groups, the vaccine did nothing.

accept cause heart problems for many.

WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:20 pm Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient.

This case had nothing to do with that, the FDA was the body being sued. Not because they banned the use of ivermectin, just for discouraging it.

If by beat them, you mean the FDA decided to settle instead of dragging the case out longer, then sure, he beat then. But that in no way means he was right.

To date, there is still no evidence that Ivermectin has any efficacy in the treatment of Covid. This includes high quality data and several meta-analyses.

Informative article. I personally know people who had effective results from Ivermectin and believe it was a mistake to not do some research about repurposing It for China virus rather than just mocking usage. It was a drug already used for human consumption. Another reason it makes you say huh, with regard to the approach to China virus. Not to mention all the weird reports of people dying from a motorcycle accident or heart attack but counted as a China virus death. Perplexing, and frankly led to many folks skepticism.

https://www.heritage.org/press/fda-expe ... treatments