America's FDA Forced to Settle 'Groundless' Lawsuit Over Its Ivermectin Warnings (msn.com) 350
As a department of America's federal Health agency, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for public health rules, including prescription medicines. And the FDA "has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19," they confirmed to CNN this week. "The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19."
But there was also a lawsuit. In "one of its more popular pandemic-era social media campaigns," the agency tweeted out "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." The post attracted nearly 106,000 likes — and over 46,000 reposts, and was followed by another post on Instagram. "Stop it with the #ivermectin. It's not authorized for treating #COVID."
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik writes that the posts triggered a "groundless" lawsuit: It was those latter two lines that exercised three physicians who had been prescribing ivermectin for patients. They sued the FDA in 2022, asserting that its advisory illegally interfered with the practice of medicine — specifically with their ability to continue prescribing the drug. A federal judge in Texas threw out their case, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — the source of a series of chuckleheaded antigovernment rulings in recent years — reinstated it last year, returning it to the original judge for reconsideration.
Now the FDA has settled the case by agreeing to delete the horse post and two similar posts from its accounts on the social media platforms X, LinkedIn and Facebook. The agency also agreed to retire a consumer advisory titled "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19." In defending its decision, the FDA said it "has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than continuing to litigate over statements that are between two and nearly four years old."
That sounds reasonable enough, but it's a major blunder. It leaves on the books the 5th Circuit's adverse ruling, in which a panel of three judges found that the FDA's advisory crossed the line from informing consumers, which they said is all right, to recommending that consumers take some action, which they said is not all right... That's a misinterpretation of the law and the FDA's actions, according to Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of UC College of the Law in San Francisco. "The FDA will seek to make recommendations against the misuse of products in the future, and having that decision on the books will be used to litigate against it," she observed after the settlement.
"A survey by Boston University and the University of Michigan estimated that Medicare and private insurers had wasted $130 million on ivermectin prescriptions for COVID in 2021 alone."
But there was also a lawsuit. In "one of its more popular pandemic-era social media campaigns," the agency tweeted out "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." The post attracted nearly 106,000 likes — and over 46,000 reposts, and was followed by another post on Instagram. "Stop it with the #ivermectin. It's not authorized for treating #COVID."
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik writes that the posts triggered a "groundless" lawsuit: It was those latter two lines that exercised three physicians who had been prescribing ivermectin for patients. They sued the FDA in 2022, asserting that its advisory illegally interfered with the practice of medicine — specifically with their ability to continue prescribing the drug. A federal judge in Texas threw out their case, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — the source of a series of chuckleheaded antigovernment rulings in recent years — reinstated it last year, returning it to the original judge for reconsideration.
Now the FDA has settled the case by agreeing to delete the horse post and two similar posts from its accounts on the social media platforms X, LinkedIn and Facebook. The agency also agreed to retire a consumer advisory titled "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19." In defending its decision, the FDA said it "has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than continuing to litigate over statements that are between two and nearly four years old."
That sounds reasonable enough, but it's a major blunder. It leaves on the books the 5th Circuit's adverse ruling, in which a panel of three judges found that the FDA's advisory crossed the line from informing consumers, which they said is all right, to recommending that consumers take some action, which they said is not all right... That's a misinterpretation of the law and the FDA's actions, according to Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of UC College of the Law in San Francisco. "The FDA will seek to make recommendations against the misuse of products in the future, and having that decision on the books will be used to litigate against it," she observed after the settlement.
"A survey by Boston University and the University of Michigan estimated that Medicare and private insurers had wasted $130 million on ivermectin prescriptions for COVID in 2021 alone."
Three docs that were (Score:2)
Is there an MD here that could comment on this? Can doctors literally prescribe anything they want, for any condition? I thought there were guidelines that were required to follow, and breaking those guidelines had professional consequences?
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I know of how the law applies, doctors can and do prescribe drugs for off-label usage. For example, it's not unheard of for doctors to prescribe adderall for weight loss. Even though adderall is a controlled substance and thus considered high risk for abuse, they can still do that, and I doubt any kind of medical review board would treat it as some kind of malfeasance.
I think one of the more crazy things I've seen used this way is a prescription for human milk being used to treat prostate cancer, which enabled the patient to obtain some from a hospital that keeps a supply of donor milk for neonatal care.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fairly common practice. The most common is to prescribe medications which are still going through red tape with the FDA but have already been established to be clinically safe and effective. It is also sometimes done in cases where the FDA won't approve anything (health spa doctors with aging related treatments, aging is not recognized as a disease by the FDA despite being the most common universal co-morbidity). There are even times a doctor will prescribe something rather than allowing the patient to go to black market and use what may be a fake or impure substance without qualified supervision [anabolic steroids are a common example of this].
Ivermectin is highly effective against most rhinoviruses and is about as safe as prescription medications go so it is commonly tried for anything new. The FDA took a strong negative opposition to this for purely political reasons, especially given there wasn't and really still isn't an effective alternative treatment. In response most physicians stopped prescribing it but some continued to do so as a treatment of last resort. Frankly when a patient is facing inevitable death and other treatments have failed there is no reason to deny them the opportunity to try most any high risk treatment, let alone a virtually no risk treatment like Ivermectin. This is again something most everyone [save insurance companies] agrees on under normal circumstances but politics interfered with medicine once again.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Informative)
First, the group of doctors championed ivermectin as a covid panacea. It failed to live up to the hype. Now, they're promoting the anti-parasitic to prevent and treat the flu and RSV. The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, formed in 2020 to "prevent and treat covid," is touting ivermectin for common respiratory infections amid a dramatic drop in prescriptions for the drug as clinical trials undermined claims of its efficacy against covid. There is no clinical data in humans to support using ivermectin for flu or RSV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical experts. And yet, the alliance publishes "treatment protocols" promoting the use of ivermectin for flu, RSV and covid that it says have been downloaded more than a million times. It also recommends a network of hundreds of medical providers and pharmacies that can provide prescriptions for ivermectin, often through virtual visits that can run hundreds of dollars.
Re: Three docs that were (Score:5, Informative)
I still can't find out if Ivermectin helps with Covid or not, because anyone who actually tried to study it got squashed flat by the pharma industry and the bought and paid for FDA, AMA and media
Well that's just not true, and you didn't look very hard. [jamanetwork.com]. In fact, that's the Journal of the American Medical Association's index of published medical studies, and it says that ivermectin is not statistically therapeutic for covid at all.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Informative)
This will come as a shock to you, but enzyme inhibitors, even ones that that target a specific type of enzyme, aren't all created equal. The page you linked even indicates the problem you're having: "Protease inhibitor" does not describe a drug, rather it describes a CLASS of drugs. This means that there are many of them, each with different uses. Notice this particular drug actually has two different protease inhibitors, and guess what? Those two serve different functions even within that same drug. One of them prevents the synthesis of proteins that the virus needs to replicate, while the other reduces your body's ability to metabolize the first one, ensuring it lasts longer. Guess what else? Neither of these protease inhibitors are present in ivermectin. Ivermectin has a different set of protease inhibitors used for a much different purpose, namely opening the chloride ion channels in neurons to interfere with muscle movement. It's only toxic to mammals if it somehow gets into the brain or spine. It actually turns out that ivermectin, as formulated to kill parasites, is completely useless as an antiviral drug when used in a dose low enough to be otherwise non-toxic to mammals.
In smaller words that your primitive mind can comprehend: If you want to kill a coronavirus with ivermectin, you're likely going to have to kill yourself along with it.
You know what's funny, is I've had so many chronic conditions and ER visits in my life (all stemming from renal failure) that, no joke, I've had nurses ask me if I'm a doctor because of the way I start describing my symptoms, asking for different test and medications, etc. Yet I don't even consider myself anywhere near qualified to go around asserting stupid shit about treating infectious diseases, which makes you even less qualified because you don't even know what a god damn enzyme inhibitor is. So why the hell do you do it, asshole?
Wait, don't tell me, I think I already know why: You're an ivermectin salesman.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, don't tell me, I think I already know why: You're an ivermectin salesman.
One would like to think so because then the world is rational and explainable. Unfortunately, irrational people do not have rational motives.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Funny)
In smaller words that your primitive mind can comprehend: If you want to kill a coronavirus with ivermectin, you're likely going to have to kill yourself along with it.
Bleach seems much more appropriate in this usage. It is far more effective than Ivermectin (SP?).
Re: (Score:3)
So your contention is that this handful of doctors that are suing are going to know if an antiparisitic drug is therapeutic for a viral infection, against the recommendations from the MANUFACTURER OF THE DRUG who would love to sell billions of doses, except that even they say it doesn't do anything for Covid.
Your contention is that the doctors who sued somehow know better than multiple double-blind studies that showed no therapeutic value through statistical modeling and actual data, rather than anecdotal n
Re: (Score:3)
That's nice.
Meanwhile, a double-blind placebo-controlled study of 1200 adults showed there was no therapeutic value to ivermectin in treating covid [jamanetwork.com].
So do you want to take medical advice from an NFL Quarterback and the Fear Factor guy, or actual doctors and medical researchers, doing actual published medical research?
Please stop with the ivermectin bullshit. It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to continue being wrong when shown evidence that you're wrong. And it's even worse to continue shilling a "treat
Re: (Score:3)
So do you want to take medical advice from an NFL Quarterback and the Fear Factor guy, or actual doctors and medical researchers, doing actual published medical research?
Well one of those is boring and makes me feel like a sheep. The other is interesting and makes me seem special and one of the few in the know, so I'm smart. Remember they laughed at Einstein and they laughed at me so I'm just like Einstein.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Interesting)
I think doctors can prescribe anything for anything - as long as they have a valid DEA license - but they have to be able to justify that in a court of law if things go wrong and they get sued for malpractice, and run the risk of getting struck off (ie. banned from practicing medicine).
If a patient was prescribed ivermectin for COVID, then suffered severe known side effects while not making any difference to their covid condition, the doctor might be in trouble if the patient sued.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not quite correct. The license to prescribe medications comes from the State medical licensing boards and is subject to each State's civil code regulating medical practice. The laws and rules are similar among all the states. If you prescribe medicines without a valid state medical license, you are breaking the law and subject to state prosecution.
The federal DEA regulates distribution and use of "Scheduled drugs", i.e. "controlled substances", which includes narcotics, certain psychotropics, and
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Insightful)
A doctor who writes a prescription based solely on a patient demand should have their license revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The power of suggestion is quite strong, and if they think the drug is otherwise harmless, they may well just do it because it actually probably would help the patient, even if indirectly. They used to do the same with antibiotics until antibiotic resistance became a big problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother when you're already on carfentanyl?
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Insightful)
So it is Fascist to try to avoid antibiotic resistance to save life's?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Three docs that were (Score:3)
Moronic. There are to many reasons to list why doctors should not be able to give a patient anything they ask for, but I'll start with the most fucking obvious: if that was how things should be, why have prescriptions at all? It's fascinating watching the contempt for specialized competence eat the United States from within.
Re: (Score:3)
That's crazy. The doctor is the one who went to med school, and is the one with the training to diagnose you and identify a proper treatment.
If you just want a drug dealer... You should go to someone other than a doctor.
Ivermectin is actually for humans as well (Score:5, Insightful)
To nitpick a bit, "had worms" is sufficient to prescribe a human ivermectin, no need to be a horse or cow. I got it way back in the day once for that (I think, I was a kid and it's been a while). It was originally for humans, after all, and still works for that purpose.
However, you're going to get the stuff in the form of a pill, not a few hundred grams of apple flavored paste.
Dosage is mostly by weight - meaning that the doses for livestock like horses and cows pretty much starts at four times that of a human. So overdose time.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Ivermectin, and the reason why it is not considered an effective treatment for covid, is that even though there were a few in vitro (ie. im test tube) studies that seemed to show some effect, they were using the equivalent of 100 times the normal worming prescription dose, which if done in a live patient would result in many nasty side effects.
In other studies, doses up to 10x the normal dose still didn't show any effect against the virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Exactly.
And if I were in the Bush, with nothing else, I might be interested in figuring out a human regimen. But not in the First World; no way!
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Three docs that were (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing to keep in mind is that ivermectin was, in fact, approved for human use, just not for COVID. And doctors do regularly prescribe medications for off label use, sometimes when there's little science to support it.
For the FDA to imply that ivermectin wasn't safe for human use when they had approved it to be, they should have been sued.
Given that the government has basically infinite resources in a lawsuit like this, the only reason they'd settle is because it will cause them less embarrassment than going to trial and losing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For the FDA to imply that ivermectin wasn't safe for human use when they had approved it to be, they should have been sued.
Except they did no such thing. They specifically said you're not a horse and not a cow, a direct reference to people who were buying off the shelf ivermectin for treating animals, which if you follow the suggestion on the packaging puts you way above the recommended dose for humans.
They said it wasn't authorised for use against COVID, and it wasn't. That doesn't mean it was unsafe for its other purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
> For the FDA to imply that ivermectin wasn't safe for human use when they had approved it to be, they should have been sued.
They were saying to stop eating veterinary ivermectin sold as a dewormer.
No, they weren't. As other have pointed out, that may have been what they meant, but they said don't use ivermectin.
Either their intent was deception, or the people who wrote those press releases were very, very incompetent. Incompetent to the point where a reasonable person would question their ability to do their job regulating the pharmaceutical industry.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Informative)
>They were saying to stop eating veterinary ivermectin sold as a dewormer.
Nothing you said is true. They said the valley girl phrase "seriously," and the hick 65 iq "y'all" as well as the condescending "stop it." They told us insultingly that we are not a horse or a cow. Yet somewhere in all those insults, finger wagging and arrogance, they didn't say anything about the reason being a dewormer. They did provide a link to reasons not to use Ivermectin for covid-19, which has nothing to do with using vet medicine in place of human medicine, further disputing what you wrote.
Re: Three docs that were (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Three docs that were (Score:2)
Any doctor that prescribes an antiparasitic drug that works by binding to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells to treat a viral infection honestly shouldn't keep their medical license. There is nothing about that mechanism of action that would suggest ANY efficacy against viruses (which don't have nerves OR muscles), and there IS a certain level of toxicity in mammals, where past a certain threshold it can pass the blood-brain barrier and have deleterious
Re: Three docs that were (Score:2)
So the goal is to run a prescription based culling of the population to get rid of stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Most places, yeah, pretty much. You might get sued of course, but that's what insurance is for.
Medicine is funny. It's old, and relies very much on individual expertise and experience rather than collective professional knowledge and experience. That's why you want to make sure you get a good physician, wheras nobody gives a thought to who's sitting in the pilot seat or who engineered the bridge you just drove over.
Re:Three docs that were (Score:4, Informative)
You post AC because you can't properly back up your claim.
Protip: Ivermectin's protease inhibitors don't work on the same shit paxlovid does. They in fact target entirely different things. Ivermectin targets muscles.
But you keep posting AC on a site full of people that know better. All you're doing is making yourself look cowardly AND stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
They are 2 completely different drugs that do completely different things to the body.
You can't substitute one for the other.
Re: (Score:3)
To draw a car analogy, you're basically comparing LNG with diesel. About the only thing they have in common is that they're combustible, yet for who the fuck knows why you have it in your fucked up head that they're interchangeable. This is so bad that it's rsilvergun level retardism.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021... [acsh.org]
FDA was wrong on this (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't be wrong to say Ivermectin was not being recommended for the treatment of Covid-19. But implying it was only for use in horses and cows is dangerously wrong. It is recommended by the CDC for treatment of immigrants from many countries. Sending a message that it is for animals only can create a backlash from the people who should be taking it
Re:FDA was wrong on this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Narrator: It in fact does not help with covid.
Re: (Score:2)
Ivermectin is great for treating parasites. So yeah it’s a valid use.
Re: (Score:2)
>Ivermectin is great for treating parasites.
*now* you tell us. Maybe it's not too late . . .
Oh Donnnald. Here, Donald-Donald. We have a treat for you . . . and you, to Joe. It tastes like ice cream. C'mon, you two; get over here! :)
Re:FDA was wrong on this (Score:4)
But implying it was only for use in horses and cows is dangerously wrong.
That wasn't what was implied. What was implied is that people should stop going to animals shops and buy tubes of the stuff designed for horses. There's nothing dangerously wrong about that advice. You're not a horse, stop buying drugs with pictures of horses on them.
Re: (Score:2)
They were not warning about horse paste (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody uses actual horse paste for that, which is exactly what a lot of these morons are doing.
The morons at the FDA were not telling people to avoid "horse paste", but Ivermectin specifically in the messaging and tweets they put out. Which is made for use by humans...
Re: (Score:2)
Ivermectin is the same name for animals as it is for humans but there's a reason I can buy ivermectin off the shelf for an animal but I need a script for the human version. Same as I can buy ethanol from the hardware store or from a liquor store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's a little weird about that here. My own belief is that a lot of this stemmed from the not common but pretty well known fact that you can get functionally medical grade antibiotics via medicine made for aquarium fish. They're usually some form of erythromycin or amoxicillin or something like that that and it was a thing the "prepper" folks would stock up on and through internet osmosis, two and two together and here we are.
They've tightened up controls on that stuff because of it, it's harder to f
Re:They were not warning about horse paste (Score:4, Insightful)
Ivermectin is the same name for animals as it is for humans but there's a reason I can buy ivermectin off the shelf for an animal but I need a script for the human version. Same as I can buy ethanol from the hardware store or from a liquor store.
They weren't drawing that distinction. They were slamming everyone taking it and the doctors prescribing it.
Sanjay Gupta called it a snarky tweet from the FDA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do they still sell ethanol in the hardware store? Years ago, all hardware store ethanol was denatured - had toxic additives. Probably not a good idea to drink it.
When I was in grad school (admittedly a while a go), the pure ethanol we would buy in the stock room came with a state liquor licensing seal on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and it was denatured specifically to poison people drinking it. The US government killed 10000+ people that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as I can buy ethanol from the hardware store or from a liquor store.
The hardware store stuff is denatured alcohol. It absolutely is not the same as the Everclear you'd get at the liquor store.
In cases where a drug is used both in humans and animals, the animal version may not be packaged in the correct dosage for human use, but otherwise the active ingredient is still the same. In the case of oral animal medications, it also might contain some inactive ingredients which are unpalatable to humans. There certainly are a few drugs that are approved for use in animals but no
Re: (Score:2)
After I hit submit I practically smacked my head I knew everyone was going to focus on that. Imperfect metaphor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You miss the point. The *drug* contained in the preparation is the same; the preparation is NOT the same.
Water contained in a household preparation of ammonia is just water. But you might be ill-advised to buy a bottle of ammonia because you're thirsty for water.
Hint: Do NOT drink ammonia because you're thirsty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ivermectin will diffuse readily through skin. The animal drench version of the product might not be safe for a human to drink (I've never looked up the MSDS to see what else is in it), but it would probably work just fine if used according to the instructions, aka applied to skin.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point. The *drug* contained in the preparation is the same; the preparation is NOT the same.
According to TFA the FDA's first tweet was "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." If that's ALL they tweeted, then your argument is invalid. Why? Because they failed to differentiate between the veterinary preparations of Ivermectin and the preparations formulated for treating humans. In so doing, they fueled confusion between the two types of preparation and besmirched the reputations of doctors who were prescribing the non-veterinary version to their patients.
The FDA then pro
Re:They were not warning about horse paste (Score:4, Informative)
Yes that's because it's a drug that physicians can proscribe to humans.
While I strongly suspect you think that word is a synonym with another similarly spelled word, I'll just say this: any sane doctor would proscribe it for your covid-19, but would prescribe it for your butt worms. That's probably why you have a script for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Every MAJOR pharmacy refused to fill an Ivermectin script even if written by a doctor. Small compounding pharmacies were the only places people could get it.
I remember prescribing ivermectin for a scabies outbreak and having to basically tear a pharmacist's head off to get him to dispense it. IIRC it was a CVS.
Re: (Score:2)
The non ironic amazon reviews were great. One complaint was that it didn’t taste like the advertised apple flavor. I don’t think the horse was complaining.
I'm thankful for the ivermectin thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As an actual horse owner, though, the product does come up in conversation every couple of years.
Re: (Score:3)
I won't. I will wholeheartedly support and reinforce their stance.
I consider it a public service in cleaning the gene pool.
No, OP is right (Score:5, Informative)
The new Soros (Score:2)
Now that Soros is retiring. Ivermectin can be the new bellwether to mark those with bats in their belfry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was in the lexicon for people that follow Nobel Prizes, the 2015 one in Invermectin's case. Saved millions of lives from parasite infection and for river blindness alone it's saved over 600K people from blindness
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument can be made for soap.
Re:I'm thankful for the ivermectin thing (Score:4, Informative)
Actually is used to treat onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies in humans. Don't be ignorant.
All of which are caused by parasites and not a virus. Kindly explain how something which only works on parasites could possibly work on a virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Joe Rogan told them so. And he owns libs all day!
Re: (Score:2)
If they can back up that claim with more than just some handwaving, certainly.
Then again, I wouldn't care if Pfizer does it, anyone will do.
"Groundless" is groundless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The US federal government has infinite money. They only settle for two reasons. A)They want their opponents to win, which is virtually every EPA settlement or 2)They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will lose.
Re:"Groundless" is groundless (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't lose. They won, and in Texas yet. Then an appeals court sent it back for reconsideration. The FDA likely decided that it was in the public's interest to delete a couple of tweets rather than continue to pay lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't win. The suit was initially thrown out on sovereign immunity grounds. The appeals court went nope, the law that established the FDA and the Administrative Procedures Act both authorize this type of lawsuit. Now go back and try the case on the merits.
The main problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem here is the 5th circuit. Those bozos have delivered judgements that only a maga dolt could love....well, they would seeing as they are maga dolts themselves. Even the right wing-nuts on the Supreme Court are getting tired of them....except for Alito and Thomas.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem here is the 5th circuit. Those bozos have delivered judgements that only a maga dolt could love....well, they would seeing as they are maga dolts themselves. Even the right wing-nuts on the Supreme Court are getting tired of them....except for Alito and Thomas.
What does MAGA mean?
Re: (Score:3)
Your tv has a Fox News logo burned in.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump supporters, reference to his insipid campaign slogan "Make America Great Again."
Ivermectin works (Score:3)
Here is their write up, they don't really want to say it's effective https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00064-1/fulltext [journalofinfection.com]
Re:Ivermectin works (Score:4, Insightful)
The first link is from an ivermectin-promoting site and it seriously misrepresents the results of the actual trial report.
The actual trial isn't a good study, since no placebo was used. People knowingly taking ivermectin self-reported feeling better, shocker! Note that a significant proportion of the population of the trial were essentially self-selected, so it's likely a high proportion of people on the trial expected ivermectin to work.
So, no, that study provides no evidence that ivermectin is effective against Covid.
But, hey, take your snake oil if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it’s not.
Chuckleheaded media outlets (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LA Times is the lowest quality "newspaper" in the land - the quote you shared is evidence of that. Except for tribal blindness everyone here would have agreed in 2014 that it's poor journalism.
So many people here who never read the DARPA papers on betacoronaviruses.
Which is fine at this point, four years after the lockdowns.
Booster #10 is past due!
(they don't actually believe it themselves just mindlessly following the cult).
Unnecessarily derrogatory (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a drug is used on horses and cows, isn't really relevant to its effectiveness in humans, for any purpose. There are many medicines that are used for horses, cows, and people. Though antibiotics are often misused in animals as a growth stimulant, they are in fact effective at fighting bacteria in both animals and humans.
Whatever the effectiveness of ivermectin related to COVID, the fact that it's a medicine used to treat livestock has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what they were referring to. They were referring to the people running out and buying tubes of the stuff meant for lifestock. You're not a horse, don't buy drugs with pictures of horses on them. The dosage instructions are completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a tweet. Here it is, in its entirety.
You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Serious y’all. Stop It.
You can't assume they were talking only about people "running out and buying tubes of the stuff meant for livestock." They didn't say that. You don't get to read your own meaning into their one-liner.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a drug is used on horses and cows, isn't really relevant to its effectiveness in humans, for any purpose.
That's true, but irrelevant. The issue is that formulations meant for horses may not be safe for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is what a doctor is for, to determine whether this is true. Drugs are approved by the FDA based on their chemical formulation. The human version of the chemical cannot differ from the animal version, if it's approved as the same drug. Doctors are legally allowed to prescribe drugs off-label, if they have determined that the formulation is safe and the doctor believes it will be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the concept of a "formulation".
Let me help:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. the formulation can make a difference. That is what doctors are for, to determine the correct formulation. If a doctor prescribes a bad formulation, that's malpractice. But it is legal and (generally speaking) ethical for a doctor to prescribe medicines off-label, if in his judgment it's the right thing for the patient.
Re: (Score:2)
We were laughing at the people buying it from Tractor Supply.
Re: (Score:2)
As we should.
there is a reason why (Score:2)
There is a reason why it was never allowed OR even testing done to see if it could, If it was found to actually be effected vs covid then Big Pharma would lose the ability to sell its drugs like the jab and other "treatments". If an effective treatment was found then the EUA that jab had would end and RIP that 10's of bllions $ in profits likes of Pfizer etc would be making for a drug that costs Penny's to make. Only likes of those c
Re: (Score:2)
Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/1756... [fda.gov]
Misleading headline (Score:2)
The headline "America's FDA Forced to Settle 'Groundless' Lawsuit Over Its Ivermectin Warnings" is inaccurate.
The FDA wasn't forced to do anything, they chose to settle rather than defend their actions in court.
Plaintiffs make such choices for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to):
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they went the less embarrassing route if they fought it then it would gone to discovery which a lot of very dirty laundry would come out showing how much of puppets of big pharma they really are.
Bingo
This lawsuit is not about COVID... (Score:3)
The FDA was wrong (Score:3)
Ivermectin is a widely proscribed drug for humans. The WHO describes it as an essential medicine, and its discovery led to a Nobel Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin).
Whether it is effective on COVID is not clear. You can find studies that say it is unclear (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869) or that it is effective for early cases (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/). Given the now admitted hostile actions of the FDA, I am sure there are studies saying it is not effective particularly for late stage cases.
It is very common for a single drug to have multiple applications, this is why off-label prescriptions exist
The FDA wrongly characterized Ivermectin and wrongly satirized it's use in at a time when the CDC had bungled COVID testing and the FDA was acting in an overtly political manner.
The FDA chose to take it's medicine like a child: whining that it did not want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the congress authorization only valid after it is given? It should not solve anything in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is that this is setting a precedent, i.e. case law. This case law is based entirely on laws written by congress themselves. All congress has to do is change it and...problem solved.