So this is an awfully sticky wicket for those who support the use of ivermectin. If you read the complaint it’s not there they were given ivermectin, rather it was administered without their knowledge or consent.
On one hand those who are most vocally against the vaccine are advancing the argument that there is not informed consent and the vaccines are not approved. The vaccines are approved fully and we’re approved under EUA. The argument extends to Nuremberg code violations (which is preposterous) because when you are vaccinated and boosted there was a rather large informed consent package.
It is a bit of a misdirection to say ivermectin is FDA approved. It is for the treatment of parasites. It is being used off label when used for its potential Covid benefits. I suspect that if we dug (and we can certainly see what people are saying here) are those getting ivermectin prescribed being informed it is not FDA approved for Covid and being used off label? I am guessing not.
So the question is will there be intellectual consistency here with this story. If the fact is true that these prisoners were given a medication without their knowledge then it must follow the medication was used experimentally on them without their consent (off label non approved indication with conflicting literature as to its conclusive effectiveness) and we shall see if the usual folks call for sanctions and legal consequences. It is an apple to apple analogy. We shall see if intellectual honesty now exists.
I don't believe an EUA is a full approval.
fail
Not too big of a stretch to use a defense of,
it is a prison, lice, scabies, fleas etc. so the treatment was given as a wide use therapeutic for many possible maladies.
It is absurd to call it a "sticky wicket" or liken it to any other kind of intellectual trap.
You are setting up a straw man by asserting that because the prisoners received Ivermectin without their approval, that we who oppose vaccination without our approval are somehow in support of this.
There is no intellectual dishonesty in this discussion except yours. There is no hypocrisy here, except yours.
About the worst transgression was the poster at #2 who I don't believe intended to convey in that post that these prisoners were wrong to take issue with being given a drug off label. There is nobody here saying that, and a lot of people more correctly focused on the active and inhumane suppression of off-label drugs by the government entities and the health care providers themselves, which I am a part of and, ostensibly, you are too.
By being employed in this profession and slavishly (to the point of legal disciplinary action) adhering to provided treatment algorithms (which were formed by government entities with underlying political agendas, the "CDC Guidelines") which they implemented into individual hospital policy, we became part of that and are ourselves complicit in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.
The fact that Ivermectin is or is not effective has absolutely zero to do with the fact that people were given medications without their approval, and EVERYTHING to do with denigrating the absolutely humane and safe approval of a drug off-label to provide aid and comfort where little or no effective treatment exists.
You appear to lead people to believe you are a physician of some kind. Perhaps you are. Not only is Ivermectin safe as it has been used in millions of people with little to no side effects, it is cheap, it has been shown to provide benefit to patients if given early.
It seems to me that IVM and HCQ are perfect drugs for legal off-label use which society has traditionally granted to physicians in cases where there is no effective treatment, unless you are one of those who believes telling people to stay home and drink fluids until you have difficulty breathing then coming in and getting steroids, Remdesivir, and a ventilator is "effective treatment".
Oh, but wait. Now we have some monoclonal antibodies we can give that are helpful so they injected that into the treatment algorithms, unless the government wants to use it as a political weapon against your state and deny your state access to them.
Of course, many medical people (and non-experts, possibly including you) think that having people stay at home and drink lots of fluid while the virus rapidly growing in their bodies to cause even more damage in their lungs is "effective and humane" treatment.
I was only surprised that you and/or the article didn't call it "horse dewormer".
Your straw man attack is dishonest and meant as a weapon in discourse against people who might not see your sleight of hand to allow you to paint them as hypocritical.
I work in healthcare and have for nearly forty years. I am ashamed of what our profession has done in this crisis, and we will someday be held to an honest account for our refusal to allow these drugs with antiviral properties to be taken. Even worse, to deliberately demonize with falsehoods those physicians who have given them to patients by actively attempting to destroy their reputations, their licenses, and ultimately their livelihoods.
By working in this field, I bear some portion of responsibility which I have no choice but to sorrowfully accept. Would that everyone in "our" profession accept their same portion of responsibility that is due them. But they won't, because most will hide behind the fig leafs of treatment algorithms implemented at their hospital and truthfully say that they would have to adhere to those or expose themselves to a malpractice suit if something goes wrong with the patient and they are sued.
However, ivermectin in such dosages is effectively harmless and is provably so. The vaccines are still not formally approved and the Phase 3 for them is ongoing in real life, with stats around their use, and the Sars-Cov-2, in question (how many died “from” COVID-19 vs. “with” COVID-19 and how many died from the vaccine side effects vs. COVID-19).
My cousin did not have COVID-19 when he got the vaccine, but he was dead three days later, after his first vaccine dose, of what the hospital said was COVID-19. I have yet to hear someone say someone died from an ivermectin dose.
"Let us see if intellectual honesty exists!" Umhuh.
If they were given a medication without their knowledge or consent that is wrong.
Were they damaged? I think they will have a hard time establishing the damage. Its commonly available OTC in Japan and most of Sub Saharan Africa. The damage is that they were offended. (Like OMG they gave me ASPRIN!)
This is Ivermectin its not a dangerous drug and they are all alive and no longer have pinworms. It's not like they were handcuffed to a bed and forced onto a ventilator and given Remdisivir and experienced kidney or liver failure.
This is an opportunity for some bored Arkansas criminals and the ACLU to game the legal system to extort a settlement. Offer a $100 settlement each for their prison accounts and move along.
" are those getting ivermectin prescribed being informed it is not FDA approved for Covid and being used off label? I am guessing not."
Seriously??? You can barely read an article about Ivermectin without it being pointed out "Y'all" it's "Not Approved and Off Label!" Anyone who might use it knows this! (Anyone who purchases the Equine version for their horse gets the same message at the time of purchase....do a search!) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/physician-tells-senate-ivermectin-covid-wonder-drug-if-you-take-it-you
(Here you go, intellectual honesty and a doctor that risks his career in the face of a mutiplicity of MSM reporters and commentaters and Leftist voices that denounce ivermectin's use. All he wants is an HONEST review of compiled data. ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The vaccines are approved fully and we’re (were?) approved under EUA."
Mmm. Not fully approved. (and certainly not fully tested!)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-judge-rejects-dod-claim-that-pfizer-eua-and-comirnaty-vaccines-are-interchangeable/ " Mon Dec 13, 2021 - 10:22 am EST (Children’s Health Defense) – A federal district court judge has rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, which in August was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." "However, the judge’s acknowledgment that “the DOD cannot mandate vaccines that only have an EUA” is significant for two reasons.
One reason pertains to the difference in ingredients and manufacturing process between Pfizer’s EUA vaccine and the approved Comirnaty vaccine, and the other pertains to the legal difference between a fully licensed vaccine and an EUA vaccine.
The latter reason would apply not just to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but also to the vaccines produced by Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), both of which are authorized only as EUA products."
"Under law, everyone has ‘right to refuse’ EUA product
When the FDA approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine in August, approval was accompanied by a series of confusing documents and equally confusing public statements.
One such confounding statement reads as follows:
“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
The FDA provided no explanation as to how the licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine could “be used interchangeably” despite having “certain differences” that make them “legally distinct.”
There are key differences between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under EUA. EUA products are considered experimental under U.S. law. This means they cannot be mandated, and everyone has the right to refuse such vaccines without consequences."
(Snip...) The FDA fact sheet states:
“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”
This appears to contradict black-letter law — defined as well-established legal rules that are certain, no longer disputable, free from doubt and generally well-known — in addition to well-established case law.
In this case, an EUA is considered illegal and invalid if there is a fully licensed alternative available. This appears to be the case with Pfizer’s licensed Comirnaty while its EUA Pfizer-BioNTech is still on the market.
As stated by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in its lawsuit against the FDA and Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner:
“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”
Pfizer Lied (Lied) and attempted to say that what they were using was fully approved Comirnaty which was not the EULA vaccine they were actually distributing in the US thus retaining EULA liability exemption.
Why would anyone trust Pfizer??? ( So much for informed consent....)
Under the FDA’s Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers, which covers both Comirnaty and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, the FDA notes: “The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.”
However, a footnote at the bottom of the fact sheet, issued on August 23, does note: “The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
https://heavy.com/news/comirnaty-vs-pfizer-vaccine-legally-distinct/
So, the ingredients are the same, but the “legally distinct” side of it likely means a lot more liability for Pfizer and the vaccine compensation fund, than what the EUA version has so freely allowed (paid for by the government, I believe).
Are people actually still getting the EUA version, or the new “full liability” version? My guess is there is still a whole lot of the EUA version and limited availability of the “full liability” version. If true, that would speak to Pfizer's trust in their own, rushed, product.
Finally, I believe both Moderna and J&J are still only “EUA,” but please correct me if that, or the rest, is in doubt.
The MD claimed when this story first broke several months ago that they were made aware of what they were taken and all but one consented to take the drug. It’s basically a he said she said situation.
Missing from the article is the number of patients he administered IVM to, and the number of deaths or adverse effects. The Good Samaritan physician not only administered to his private patients, he volunteered to deal with the CoVID in the nearby jail with prophylactic treatment that worked for him, even though the FDA can't find the right combination for success, despite examples worldwide.
Would you rather have his success rate as yours as a physician, or your full approval from the FDA as a healthcare provider Doktor?
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.