New law protects docs who prescribe ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine
Reacting to the suppression of certain "controversial" treatments for COVID-19, Missouri passed a law that bans pharmacists from questioning doctors who prescribe ivermec...
Read more
Doctors often prescribe drugs for “off label” uses. It’s a fact that some medications are “discovered” to work for a purpose other than what it was originally developed to treat. Often, these treatments are discovered long after a particular drug has been developed — and is often “out of patent” … so the enormous cost of running clinical trials are uneconomic (e.g. why run a clinical trial on “aspirin” to determine a “new” use, if it the sales can’t be captured for the benefit of the company paying for the clinical trial). Off label uses are often reported through medical journals and “mini-trials” are made (often by a specialist in a particular disease). These don’t rise to the level required for FDA approval of the new use. Even the FDA understands “off label” treatments and has rules that allow for them. (Indeed, among the several medications I take regularly, two are “off label” and a third was in a clinical trial for one purpose — where it wasn’t particularly beneficial — but it was discovered to have other benefits for a completely different condition — which it was eventually “certified” (on label) to treat. We go to doctors for their knowledge and experience. They should be allowed to use their knowledge to treat their patients to the best of their ability. We do not need the government to regulate our medical care (any more than it already does).
Health practioners take the Hippocratic Oath, “First do No Harm” (Primum non Nocere). Those who respect it will always put the wellbeing and safety of a patient front and center. It takes years of education, continual improvement, plus commitment, dedication, compassion, resilience and discipline to succeed. Governments must respect the patient-practitioner interaction, and the decision that is made by them as to what treatment is best for that particular patient. Each person has a unique biochemistry, which renders the ‘one-size-fits-all’ ‘cure-all’ approach totally ineffective.
To dictate mandated on-label treatments for one and all is absurd. If Ivermection or ascorbate or selenium works for a patient, it must be respected. The on-label drugs are determined solely by price anyway, not by efficacy/safety. Again – greed!
Governments must start to learn that professionals know their field of expertise and deserve respect. Yes, even those who question plandemic mandates.