ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
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.
You were wrong about so much.
ragtimejoe1 said: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.
Itsux2beaewe said:ragtimejoe1 said: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.
WestWYOPoke said: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.
Not at all... where in my post did I say anything resembling that assertion?ragtimejoe1 said:WestWYOPoke said: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?
WestWYOPoke said:Not at all... where in my post did I say anything resembling that assertion?ragtimejoe1 said: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 said:WestWYOPoke said: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
WestWYOPoke said:ragtimejoe1 said: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.
ragtimejoe1 said: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.
WestWYOPoke said: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.