April 03, 2024
Too Little Too Late
James Doogue
The FDA Forced To Remove Advice Against Ivermectin
It's a shame Aussie doctors didn't take similar action against the TGA. I wonder how many lives would have been saved had Australian doctors not been banned from prescribing Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19.
Unfortunately like all the other rights which were breached during the Covid-19 pandemic over-reaction, there will be no consequences against individuals and organisations who overreached their , and no apology or compensation to those who suffered unnecessarily.
"Today’s settlement with the FDA is a major win for the doctor-patient relationship,” Marik said in the statement. "It vindicates our position that the FDA overstepped its regulatory authority by trying to dictate appropriate medical care.”
https://boydengray.com/boyden-gray-pllc-fda-agrees-to-remove-you-are-not-a-horse-posts-in-first-of-its-kind-win-for-doctors/
Share this with anyone you know who scoffed at using Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19
Also note the weasel words of the FDA which states there are no clinical trials which prove Ivermectin is effective against preventing or treating Covid-19, Firstly, there are hundreds of papers reporting the success of Ivermectin as a prevention or treatment for Covid-19. Secondly, there are plenty of medications such as anti-virals and anti-bacterials which are prescribed by doctors which haven't been clinically proven against a particular illness it's being used to prevent or treat, which haven't undergone a clinical trial for that illness.
Licensed drugs can be prescribed for conditions they haven’t been tested for in a clinical trial. This is known as "off-label” prescribing – and it’s very common. One US study found that one in five prescriptions was off label.
Obtaining a new license for a medicine (to treat a different condition) is time-consuming, often taking up to eight years to get approval. It is also very expensive, with the new revenue for the additional uses often not being enough to offset the cost of running new clinical trials, marketing and re-labelling the drug.
To determine if a medicine can and should be prescribed off-label, a prescriber may consider several factors. There may be common features in two similar conditions that ensure there should be a degree of cross-effectiveness. For example, a medicine licensed for anxiety might reasonably be used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. And a drug approved to treat one type of cancer could reasonably be expected to target other types of cancer.
Some off-label uses have been found by accident. Beta-blockers were licensed in the 1960s to treat heart conditions. People who were prescribed these drugs and who suffered from migraines found that their migraine symptoms improved after they started taking the drug. Today, these drugs are commonly prescribed for migraine.
On occasion, off-label medicine use can become the primary treatment option for a particular condition. Amitriptyline, an older type of antidepressant, is now often used to treat nerve pain.
Usually, a prescriber will have considered all other medical options for a patient and will have reviewed the evidence to support any off-label prescribing. This includes "evidence summaries”. These are available to GPs to support safe decision-making. The summaries look at current guidelines and reviews as well as research and observational studies, and expert opinions.
Early in the Covid-19 pandemic when there was no known prevention or treatments, Hundreds of expert front line medical practitioners achieved great success with Ivermectin as part of their treatment protocols and wrote up their findings.
It's believed that the reason the FDA and in Australia the TGA banned the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19 is because they wouldn't have been able to give emergency approval of the range of Covid-19 vaccinations which had not undergone typical clinical testing, In order to approve the vaccines under 'emergency use' there had to be no other available treatment for Covid-19. Since Big Pharma weren't making big money on Ivermectin their powerful lobbying ensured Ivermectin was banned. In addition, had Ivermectin been widely available to prevent and treat Covid-19, the Government would never have been able to get away with their harmful vaccine mandates.
Boyden Gray PLLC: FDA Agrees to Remove "You Are Not A Horse” Posts In First-of-its-Kind Win for Doctors | Boyden Gray PLLC
boydengray.com
Tim adds:
Too little too late - as they planned.
This way they can say they corrected their mistake and try to regain some credibility "we are men of science" but it lets them off the hook. It's like the government dumping bad news friday afternoons in a huge pile.
The FDA Forced To Remove Advice Against Ivermectin
It's a shame Aussie doctors didn't take similar action against the TGA. I wonder how many lives would have been saved had Australian doctors not been banned from prescribing Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19.
Unfortunately like all the other rights which were breached during the Covid-19 pandemic over-reaction, there will be no consequences against individuals and organisations who overreached their , and no apology or compensation to those who suffered unnecessarily.
"Today’s settlement with the FDA is a major win for the doctor-patient relationship,” Marik said in the statement. "It vindicates our position that the FDA overstepped its regulatory authority by trying to dictate appropriate medical care.”
https://boydengray.com/boyden-gray-pllc-fda-agrees-to-remove-you-are-not-a-horse-posts-in-first-of-its-kind-win-for-doctors/
Share this with anyone you know who scoffed at using Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19
Also note the weasel words of the FDA which states there are no clinical trials which prove Ivermectin is effective against preventing or treating Covid-19, Firstly, there are hundreds of papers reporting the success of Ivermectin as a prevention or treatment for Covid-19. Secondly, there are plenty of medications such as anti-virals and anti-bacterials which are prescribed by doctors which haven't been clinically proven against a particular illness it's being used to prevent or treat, which haven't undergone a clinical trial for that illness.
Licensed drugs can be prescribed for conditions they haven’t been tested for in a clinical trial. This is known as "off-label” prescribing – and it’s very common. One US study found that one in five prescriptions was off label.
Obtaining a new license for a medicine (to treat a different condition) is time-consuming, often taking up to eight years to get approval. It is also very expensive, with the new revenue for the additional uses often not being enough to offset the cost of running new clinical trials, marketing and re-labelling the drug.
To determine if a medicine can and should be prescribed off-label, a prescriber may consider several factors. There may be common features in two similar conditions that ensure there should be a degree of cross-effectiveness. For example, a medicine licensed for anxiety might reasonably be used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. And a drug approved to treat one type of cancer could reasonably be expected to target other types of cancer.
Some off-label uses have been found by accident. Beta-blockers were licensed in the 1960s to treat heart conditions. People who were prescribed these drugs and who suffered from migraines found that their migraine symptoms improved after they started taking the drug. Today, these drugs are commonly prescribed for migraine.
On occasion, off-label medicine use can become the primary treatment option for a particular condition. Amitriptyline, an older type of antidepressant, is now often used to treat nerve pain.
Usually, a prescriber will have considered all other medical options for a patient and will have reviewed the evidence to support any off-label prescribing. This includes "evidence summaries”. These are available to GPs to support safe decision-making. The summaries look at current guidelines and reviews as well as research and observational studies, and expert opinions.
Early in the Covid-19 pandemic when there was no known prevention or treatments, Hundreds of expert front line medical practitioners achieved great success with Ivermectin as part of their treatment protocols and wrote up their findings.
It's believed that the reason the FDA and in Australia the TGA banned the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19 is because they wouldn't have been able to give emergency approval of the range of Covid-19 vaccinations which had not undergone typical clinical testing, In order to approve the vaccines under 'emergency use' there had to be no other available treatment for Covid-19. Since Big Pharma weren't making big money on Ivermectin their powerful lobbying ensured Ivermectin was banned. In addition, had Ivermectin been widely available to prevent and treat Covid-19, the Government would never have been able to get away with their harmful vaccine mandates.
Boyden Gray PLLC: FDA Agrees to Remove "You Are Not A Horse” Posts In First-of-its-Kind Win for Doctors | Boyden Gray PLLC
boydengray.com
Tim adds:
Too little too late - as they planned.
This way they can say they corrected their mistake and try to regain some credibility "we are men of science" but it lets them off the hook. It's like the government dumping bad news friday afternoons in a huge pile.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.
23kb generated in CPU 0.1342, elapsed 0.5607 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.5557 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.5557 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
