Posted on 01/15/2022 4:47:49 AM PST by Libloather
I am sorry I had some things to do today so just getting back to the conversation -- I am sure it is unintentional - but you are arguing for the merits of Ivermectin -- that is absolutely arguable, but you are deflecting from the fact that these patients DID NOT KNOW they were receiving it. Therefore they had no choice to exercise consent -- which is a fundamental violation of medical practice.
I agree that a fully licensed physicians such as myself and others on this board should be able to practice medicine in a reasonable way, including off label medications. HOWEVER, I CANNOT prescribe something and give it to patients without their direct knowledge. This is the issue I am raising -- many have opined that people dont have a choice with vaccines -- untrue, everyone who has been vaccinated has had is under EUA conditions or FDA approval. I know there is a lot of misdirection of people stating that there are not approved vaccines -- that is simply untrue. I am not against others prescribing Ivermectin, I think it is not correct practice, but I would not take away that choice of a physician as there is some literature to support it, there is some literature that is not supportive of it. There are a lot of politics around it. In my judgment, I do not prescribe Ivermectin because by the time I get them it is too late -- and when I have someone early enough -- I give monoconlas that are superior to Ivermectin in every way
I am hopeful and believe that Omicron will end this for once and for all -- and it looks like this is exactly what is happening.
But the direct question is, do you support the administration of this medication without consent and with the patients having no knowledge? As Ivermectin is NOT approved for CoVID, it seems this is experimentation without consent.
Soory for the lack of response — as I said I had things to do, and am just getting back to the conversation
1. You agree then, that there are FDA approved vaccinations for CoVID-19. I believe that the “legally different” vaccines you have reported have been fleshed out in the past as a technical statement that does not represent a difference (that the injection had to be changed to the trade name, the generic name of exactly same ingredients was still EUA)
2. You proffer a legal definition using mind altering drugs. Please let me know where anyone was tricked into being vaccinated using anesthetics or mind altering drugs — come on, this is a real red herring
3. Media reports, gaslighting and the rest are buzz words that are meant to incite emotion — not facts. These patients in this article were given a medication without their knowledge, and without their consent. They were given it by stealth. So you bring up the one off kid who got a vaccination that should not have. That is wrong, but it is not deceitful. It is a mistake. However, I think whomever administered that injection should be sanctioned for piss poor practice.
4. You are parsing words, in my original statement, I said assuming this is correct — I am aware this is a complaint and dealt with that off the top. However, if discovery shows they did not consent, then will you condemn what happened — or take the path of others that it helped so the result is ok, despite the lack of choice,
5. So you agree that Ivermectin is not approved. You use a lot of language to mitigate that you know damn well that this is experimental use, and trying to justify it. As I have said numerous other places, I have no problem with off label use — I have a real problem with off label use without the patient being aware of it. As this is “experimental” it goes right to the point that on one hand those opposed to vaccines scream its experimental and are attempting to have the choice of vaccination removed (often with dubious references to daily expose, bitchute and widely discredited conspiracy theories) but are completely OK with true experimental use of a drug without the patients being aware that they are being administered the drug without approved use.
I do agree that there are multiple things in phase III trial, however they are not the modalities you are representing.
There is no sincerity — you cannot respond reasonable to the issues raised. I hardly think you have some genius level insight into behavior. You just cannot answer a question.
Four inmates at a northwest Arkansas jail sued the facility and its doctor Thursday after they said were unknowingly prescribed ivermectin to treat Covid-19
I have learned that when people cannot answer a simple question -- and there is a lot of verbiage, then it speaks for itself. It was a simple question -- there is a complain that patients were unknowingly prescribed a drug with off label uses. This is a fundamental violation of bioethics and medical practice. It is, how many have said about vaccination (which people had knowledge of receiving) Menglesque. I am really surprised by the vociferous defenses of -- well if they are ok (not even causation) then they should shut up and say thanks. Do you support the administration of a medication to a patient in off label capacity without their knowledge. A yes or no will suffice.
Thank you for a very honest answer.
A lot of talk to defend the experimental administration of a medication without knowledge (Off label ivermectin without knowledge of the patient)
You have nicely shown yourself to be all for what you believe to be correct as you are substituting your judgment for these patients.
Ungrateful that they were denied a choice in their medical care — I will put you down on the side that its ok to do whatever you want to a patient as long as you think it is ok. Wow.
Ok, I will assume then, that you are ok with people being vaccinated with no consent and in your world this means that the federal government can send teams out to jab people walking down the street — the German reference is disgusting — you are on the side of Mengele who experimented on people without their consent — these four patients were administered a medication without their knowledge — a medication that is not approved for the reason it was administered — defend that.
I think we are in agreement. My main concern is these medical agencies may have violated the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration with the experimental drug which they called a vaccine.
When I was in the hospital the last two times, I was given a variety of drugs with no prior consent.
At no time was I unconscious (except while asleep), or in any way cognitively impaired. In fact, they performed cognitive checks every morning, usually by waking me up at 5 am to ask me my name, what day it was, and where was I.
Rather aggavating. One doctor woke me that way on July 14. Pissed me off. I said “It’’s July 14, the 222nd anniversary of Bastille Day, generally regarded as French Independence Day.” I went on a bit about it. She was taken aback. A doctor from India, she didn’t know about Bastille Day. Never heard of it. I kinda implied that I wasn’t the one who should be questuined about cognitive impairment.
denial
yes, they wanted to do nothing until they had to be hospitalized per the govt edicts
= = =
If they were hospitalized and died, they would be worth, what is it, $90,000?
Sir, that is an incredibly strong argument and is perfectly rational and supportable.
Should have given them Remsdevier
That’s Ok: You’re on a list too, honey.
Maybe you ought to look up ‘/s’ sometime, dumbass.
I do not agree. FDA emergency use authorization is in place, and the Comirnaty is, by the FDA's own admission, "legally different." If it were not, there would be no need for the continuance of a finding of emergency to justify the EUA.
Out of the box, you mis-characterized my statement by replacing it with your own.
-- "2. You proffer a legal definition using mind altering drugs."
It is a legal parallel, and you wiggle behind "red herring" as your retort. Enough on this thread and in the comments on other FR threads suggest they were not properly able to give "informed consent." Certainly children do not give informed consent. Other Freeper replies to this thread alone belie your assertions.
As example, sitetest wrote you: "When I was in the hospital the last two times, I was given a variety of drugs with no prior consent."
-- "3. So you bring up the one off kid who got a vaccination that should not have. That is wrong, but it is not deceitful."
The one off kid? Only one? Where have you been?
-- "4. However, if discovery shows they did not consent, then will you condemn what happened — or take the path of others that it helped so the result is ok, despite the lack of choice...."
Will I condemn after the suit including discovery is finished? Sure, and without question. Parse your words, have I? If so, we''re playing in the same arena. You parse mine.
-- "5. As this is 'experimental' it goes right to the point that on one hand those opposed to vaccines scream its experimental and are attempting to have the choice of vaccination removed (often with dubious references to daily expose, bitchute and widely discredited conspiracy theories) but are completely OK with true experimental use of a drug without the patients being aware that they are being administered the drug without approved use."
Your debate game is dull. I am ex-Army and many times vaccinated, ergo not among those "those opposed to vaccines [ who ] scream..."
Only above is this exchange you write about "words that are meant to incite emotion." And then you employ them.
-- "I do agree that there are multiple things in phase III trial, however they are not the modalities you are representing."
Multiple things? Modalities?
I asked plainly of you the following ONE question, "Do you agree that the phase three, clinical trials continue and that as trials they are experimental?” I assume you answer plainly, yes.
Then -- and if your "yes" holds -- as the experiment continues with a EUA to support a legal shield for those pharmaceutical manufacturers "experimenting," full FDA approval for the mRNA injections -- not for one but all the manufacturers -- is not been made, and the EUA withdrawn.
The experimental trials and EUA-defined immunity from legal liability continue. That is NOT full FDA approval.
Unknowingly prescribed eh... what did the prison do? Hold them down and force the pills down their throats? That's not the way it works.
So you have edited my answers to fit your narrative. Please see all my answers in full. Its ok, we will not be able to agree on the definitions.
I hope you have a nice evening
Or at least questiopnal education of your doc not to know Bastille day. In a hospital at least the ones where I work, we require nursing staff to tell the patients what medications they are receiving and what it is for. I strongly urge all people in a hospital to ask what and why they are receiving it. When I discuss with patient my plans at bedside, I tell them what and why.
Sorry if I missed the /s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.