Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum ยป Joe Rogan: ivermectin episode
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 138
  2. Page 3 of 5
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  9. 5
  11. Last

Thread: Joe Rogan: ivermectin episode

post 1641526133 06-24-2021, 08:47 AM
-
#61
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By EdwardTheGreat⏩
Better late than never? Is this our standard now?
You keep assuming Ivermectin works well. The data did not show this at the time. It also does not show this now. A trial is underway to see. Anyway, treatments may be useful for antivaxxer types, but in truth, US cases have dropped substantially. This will be of more interest overseas.
post 1641526263 06-24-2021, 08:49 AM
-
#62
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
Regardless on your thoughts on it. I do find it strange that people will come up with any excuse possible to say something doesn't work definitively as if they know the answer to that, and also in light of preliminary studies showing it's safety and effectiveness as well as testimony from actual doctors out there treating patients. It should be a good thing that there are alternative treatments that could potentially save lives.

It's not like we're taking some unknown drug that's never been studied before and don't know the safety profile for. Almost any drug in existence you can overdose on. Hell, you can die from taking over-the-counter non-prescription drugs. Doctors are extremely risk-averse to the point where you have to ask them about certain drugs/treatments for them to give them to you and not all of them are up to date and even know all the research and the treatments available. A lot of them just religiously follow whatever the few higher-ups have to say rather than just treating the patient.

Ivermectin as far as I know is more of a preventative treatment, which has shown effectiveness if prescribed early on. And it has a relatively high safety profile.
The FDA does not approve the use of drugs for the treatment of disease without scientific evidence demonstrating it is a treatment for that disease.

Ivermectin has not shown that. It hasn't shown much of anything outside of anecdotal reports, which is why they need trials. Jesus christ guys, get the data, and then talk.
post 1641526363 06-24-2021, 08:52 AM
-
#63
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 9,092
  6. Rep Power: 235009
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
You keep assuming Ivermectin works well. The data did not show this at the time. It also does not show this now.A trial is underway to see. Anyway, treatments may be useful for antivaxxer types, but in truth, US cases have dropped substantially. This will be of more interest overseas.
Do you feel they are bringing this to trials in a timely manner?
post 1641526743 06-24-2021, 09:00 AM
-
#64
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  3. Join Date: Feb 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 10,814
  6. Rep Power: 90739
Originally Posted By JPF82⏩
FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.

Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).

Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.

Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
Originally Posted By quadfecta⏩
problem is it's an alt right borderline conspiracy central talkshow exploring the merits of a treatment for covid that it's not intended for routinely. That's 1 reason why I think it's mostly just conspiracy shilling, while no one ITT can seem to expound on the pharmacokinetics/dynamics of why an anti-parasitic drug supposedly stops covid-19 replicating in the lung tissue.
Lmao @ two miscers thinking they know more than expert researchers because those experts were interviewed by a guy who had a false reputation for being alt right. Lmao @ two miscers who don't realize those expert researchers cite hundreds of medical studies in their findings on the show. Lmao @ not understanding medicine patents and how a cheap drug that's made generically might not yield the same profits as brand new vaccines, and how that might motivate billion dollar vaccine manufacturers to use their influence in the media to suppress positive reviews of those cheap alternatives and avoid paying millions to FDA test the drug that won't make them any money. Lmao @ lmao.
HTC
Proud Dad crew
6'4" height of the gods
post 1641526873 06-24-2021, 09:03 AM
-
#65
  1. AncientYouth
  2. Registered User
  1. AncientYouth
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 62
  6. Posts: 22,213
  7. Rep Power: 65479
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
Lmao @ two miscers thinking they know more than expert researchers because those experts were interviewed by a guy who had a false reputation for being alt right. Lmao @ two miscers who don't realize those expert researchers cite hundreds of medical studies in their findings on the show. Lmao @ lmao.
don't come here for facts bro....
post 1641527233 06-24-2021, 09:07 AM
-
#66
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  3. Join Date: Feb 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 10,814
  6. Rep Power: 90739
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
The FDA does not approve the use of drugs for the treatment of disease without scientific evidence demonstrating it is a treatment for that disease.

Ivermectin has not shown that. It hasn't shown much of anything outside of anecdotal reports, which is why they need trials. Jesus christ guys, get the data, and then talk.
Wait wait you're telling me that a pandemic virus, which historically has a 2 year timeline, has begun dying out ~16 months into the pandemic and there is no explanation of the downward trend other than the fact that vaccines were just introduced some months ago? Sounds super scientific and like there couldn't be any other explanation.
HTC
Proud Dad crew
6'4" height of the gods
post 1641527603 06-24-2021, 09:12 AM
-
#67
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
Wait wait you're telling me that a pandemic virus, which historically has a 2 year timeline, has begun dying out ~16 months into the pandemic and there is no explanation of the downward trend other than the fact that vaccines were just introduced some months ago? Sounds super scientific and like there couldn't be any other explanation.
There are explanations for the downward trend. Vaccines were introduced and a huge number of people got them AND a huge number of people got infected. We had skyrocketing cases and then a decline. The timelines for a pandemic vary. As you may be aware, this virus is particularly transmissible, indicating a shorter timeline than say, an influenza pandemic.
post 1641527903 06-24-2021, 09:17 AM
-
#68
  1. AncientYouth
  2. Registered User
  1. AncientYouth
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 62
  6. Posts: 22,213
  7. Rep Power: 65479
well whatever the utter world worldwide chit show i have had a right result from COVID, WFH pretty much forever, saved a fortune on travel costs, saved 3 hours a day commuting and can do my full time job in less than PT hours ..............YAAAAY COVID
post 1641528783 06-24-2021, 09:33 AM
-
#69
  1. mikebadg3
  1. mikebadg3
  3. Join Date: Jul 2014
  4. Posts: 20,555
  5. Rep Power: 129799
why do conspiracy theories (which seem implausible) oftentimes become true?
post 1641530203 06-24-2021, 09:58 AM
-
#70
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
Wait wait you're telling me that a pandemic virus, which historically has a 2 year timeline, has begun dying out ~16 months into the pandemic and there is no explanation of the downward trend other than the fact that vaccines were just introduced some months ago? Sounds super scientific and like there couldn't be any other explanation.
The least scientific thing I have seen so far is "science guy" taking an either/or approach to everything, as if it was never possible for "media guy" to tell people to take NAC, D3 and get vaccinated.

Why does "science guy" need to be told that just because there is A and B, you can actually do both. My favorite "science guy" claim is that the country that spends trillion on blowing up the middle east for---ever can't afford a program to get supplies delivered to the elderly at home and additional staffing in nursing homes to strictly enforce protocol.

"Masks don't work ....... actually they do ........ wear 2 actually ...... or maybe not ......."
-science guy
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1641534423 06-24-2021, 11:08 AM
-
#71
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 9,092
  6. Rep Power: 235009
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
Wait wait you're telling me that a pandemic virus, which historically has a 2 year timeline, has begun dying out ~16 months into the pandemic and there is no explanation of the downward trend other than the fact that vaccines were just introduced some months ago? Sounds super scientific and like there couldn't be any other explanation.


This info is being presented by a doctor, who is pro-vax, and is vaccinated himself.

The vaccines should be made available to anyone who wants them, but should be directed more towards the elderly and vulnerable. There should be no requirement for any person to have any of their liberties suspended until they are vaxxed, and there should be no way in hell that a person with antibodies present should be required to be vaxxed.
post 1641534983 06-24-2021, 11:20 AM
-
#72
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
Originally Posted By EdwardTheGreat⏩


This info is being presented by a doctor, who is pro-vax, and is vaccinated himself.

The vaccines should be made available to anyone who wants them, but should be directed more towards the elderly and vulnerable. There should be no requirement for any person to have any of their liberties suspended until they are vaxxed, and there should be no way in hell that a person with antibodies present should be required to be vaxxed.
Of course and this is where the social science is taking place, what will people do if you scare them? Who will they trust? Who will they turn against? A lot of people set things in motion in 2020 that they will eventually regret.
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1641535183 06-24-2021, 11:23 AM
-
#73
  1. lolatpaniccels
  2. Registered User
  1. lolatpaniccels
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2021
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 7,376
  6. Rep Power: 17711
Originally Posted By mikebadg3⏩
why do conspiracy theories (which seem implausible) oftentimes become true?
in 2021 anything that is not from CNN/Fauci/Democrats = Conspiracy
post 1641535873 06-24-2021, 11:34 AM
-
#74
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
The FDA does not approve the use of drugs for the treatment of disease without scientific evidence demonstrating it is a treatment for that disease.

Ivermectin has not shown that. It hasn't shown much of anything outside of anecdotal reports, which is why they need trials. Jesus christ guys, get the data, and then talk.
you completely missed the point of my post, not a surprise.

also ironic you mentioned FDA in this context.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1641536203 06-24-2021, 11:41 AM
-
#75
  1. KidGogeta
  2. BRB cuttin...
  1. KidGogeta
  2. BRB cuttin...
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Posts: 4,223
  5. Rep Power: 11528
I took ivermectin (went to local horse supply store) when I first developed symptoms of covid, had it pretty bad for 5 days but was bearable. Had the brazilian strain, friends who got it end up in the hospital cause they were so compromised
post 1641537423 06-24-2021, 12:01 PM
-
#76
  1. mandarino
  2. Registered User
  1. mandarino
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2007
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 2,606
  6. Rep Power: 5558
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
That was probably a specific warning because people were frantically trying Ivermectin without approval. You're leaping to conclusions. The hospital likely didn't want to get sued if something went wrong since it wasn't approved for use outside of clinical trials. I think the case for Ivermectin was pretty weak. You have pointed out an interesting financial incentive, but that's all it is (assuming what you're saying about cost is true, which I would guess it would be). It doesn't mean there was any wrongdoing. The medical establishment was pretty aggressively trying everything until they found a promising lead. I don't think there was any innate bias against Ivermectin.
You just leapt to a conclusion with your first sentence here.

Most serious countries have guidelines. Guidelines are there to aid, but at the end of the day they are guidelines.
post 1641555413 06-24-2021, 05:04 PM
-
#77
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 9,092
  6. Rep Power: 235009
From today, again presented by a doctor who is pro-vax and vaccinated himself

(peer reviewed)

For the lazy, ivermectin probably reduces deaths by 62% and reduces transmission by 87%

post 1641555883 06-24-2021, 05:12 PM
-
#78
  1. quadfecta
  2. Registered User
  1. quadfecta
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2015
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 23,282
  6. Rep Power: 100308
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
Lmao @ two miscers thinking they know more than expert researchers because those experts were interviewed by a guy who had a false reputation for being alt right. Lmao @ two miscers who don't realize those expert researchers cite hundreds of medical studies in their findings on the show. Lmao @ not understanding medicine patents and how a cheap drug that's made generically might not yield the same profits as brand new vaccines, and how that might motivate billion dollar vaccine manufacturers to use their influence in the media to suppress positive reviews of those cheap alternatives and avoid paying millions to FDA test the drug that won't make them any money. Lmao @ lmao.
lmao @ defending the show when you can't even explain the how/why ivermectin is apparently being shilled by so-called experts as an alternative to the vaccine. Burden of proof is on the people who are clearly anti-vax and can't even cliff-note the science that the so-called expert must have put into layman's terms on the show (I did not watch, but you seem to have, so this should be easy for you to enlighten all of us ITT). Inb4 more cope/deflection/conspiracy about how big Pharma is just trying to suppress "safe" alternatives to the jab

As far as I know, they haven't even conducted actual human trials on covid patients with ivermectin, and any experimental indication that it could be effective are in vitro, thus fallible to assume it would work the same when administered in vivo
post 1641556983 06-24-2021, 05:33 PM
-
#79
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 9,092
  6. Rep Power: 235009
Originally Posted By quadfecta⏩
lmao @ defending the show when you can't even explain the how/why ivermectin is apparently being shilled by so-called experts as an alternative to the vaccine. Burden of proof is on the people who are clearly anti-vax and can't even cliff-note the science that the so-called expert must have put into layman's terms on the show (I did not watch, but you seem to have, so this should be easy for you to enlighten all of us ITT). Inb4 more cope/deflection/conspiracy about how big Pharma is just trying to suppress "safe" alternatives to the jab

As far as I know, they haven't even conducted actual human trials on covid patients with ivermectin, and any experimental indication that it could be effective are in vitro, thus fallible to assume it would work the same when administered in vivo
Then you don't know very far.
post 1641557523 06-24-2021, 05:41 PM
-
#80
  1. mesobuild
  2. Premium User
  1. mesobuild
  2. Premium User
  3. Join Date: May 2020
  4. Posts: 17,953
  5. Rep Power: 44402
What's with the LMAOing here?

Several reasonably intelligent experts use this website.

Caribbean MD and the eye doc who did not practice for the last 20 years probably do not know more than everyone here.
post 1641557803 06-24-2021, 05:46 PM
-
#81
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By EdwardTheGreat⏩
Do you feel they are bringing this to trials in a timely manner?
Yeah. There were higher yield things to study.
post 1641557863 06-24-2021, 05:47 PM
-
#82
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By quadfecta⏩
lmao @ defending the show when you can't even explain the how/why ivermectin is apparently being shilled by so-called experts as an alternative to the vaccine. Burden of proof is on the people who are clearly anti-vax and can't even cliff-note the science that the so-called expert must have put into layman's terms on the show (I did not watch, but you seem to have, so this should be easy for you to enlighten all of us ITT). Inb4 more cope/deflection/conspiracy about how big Pharma is just trying to suppress "safe" alternatives to the jab

As far as I know, they haven't even conducted actual human trials on covid patients with ivermectin, and any experimental indication that it could be effective are in vitro, thus fallible to assume it would work the same when administered in vivo
There have been some trials here and there, but no large scale, randomized, double blind clinical controlled trials. The few trials that were done were inconclusive or had design flaws. You are correct that this is being pushed by people with a vested interest. The majority of posters here only get their talking points from conservative websites. First it was HCQ, and now this. Both unproven treatments that don't show a lot of promise. Laura Ingraham had a strong investment in HCQ production, and it wouldn't surprise me if she did in Ivermectin as well. Whenever you hear news, consider the source. Do medical doctors benefit from promoting one form of therapy over another? Who does benefit from aggressively pushing therapies without proper scientific evidence?
post 1641558763 06-24-2021, 05:58 PM
-
#83
  1. TopsecretWaffle
  2. sleep tight pupper
  1. TopsecretWaffle
  2. sleep tight pupper
  3. Join Date: Nov 2007
  4. Location: Whittier, California, United States
  5. Posts: 8,079
  6. Rep Power: 45444
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
You keep assuming Ivermectin works well. The data did not show this at the time. It also does not show this now. A trial is underway to see. Anyway, treatments may be useful for antivaxxer types, but in truth, US cases have dropped substantially. This will be of more interest overseas.
you obviously havent listened to the fukking podcast
Now I am become Death.. the destroyer of worlds

440/440/525
New Orleans Saints crew
Misc Zombie Crew
Official Supp. Misc Beer Crew West Coast CEO
1k+
post 1641559013 06-24-2021, 06:03 PM
-
#84
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  1. EdwardTheGreat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2013
  4. Age: 52
  5. Posts: 9,092
  6. Rep Power: 235009
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Yeah. There were higher yield things to study.
Can't be absolved from liability unless classified as emergency use.

Can't have emergency use status if there are any other medical treatments available.

Better look the other way re: ivermectin efficacy, right babe?
post 1641559293 06-24-2021, 06:09 PM
-
#85
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  1. wincel
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Location: Chad
  5. Posts: 64,937
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By EdwardTheGreat⏩
Can't be absolved from liability unless classified as emergency use.

Can't have emergency use status if there are any other medical treatments available.

Better look the other way re: ivermectin efficacy, right babe?
It's clear you want there to be a conspiracy, and I can't convince you otherwise even in principle. It's also clear you do not require evidence to support your claims that there was a conspiracy and that Ivermectin works. You've already made up your mind.

If you zoom out for a second, you'll see that this looks a lot like a fringe scientist going to the media rather than publishing rigorously collected evidence in the scientific community. Having lost the battle in the court of science, he chooses the arena of public opinion, goes to the media and finds people with a financial interest in his work to promote it. The question is why trust a lone fringe doctor who has produced no scientific evidence to support his claims over the entire medical community? Who is more likely to be right? Something to think about.

Every year, there is some physicist out there who claims he is the next Einstein and that the theory of relativity is false or that quantum mechanics is wrong. Many media articles are released lauding such people. But the difference between them and Einstein was Einstein published his work and had good theory and evidence to support what he said.

If Ivermectin works in trials, then this doctor will be vindicated. Until then, there is no hard evidence.
post 1641560043 06-24-2021, 06:21 PM
-
#86
  1. Workout4ever
  1. Workout4ever
  3. Join Date: Apr 2009
  4. Location: Miami, Florida, United States
  5. Age: 33
  6. Posts: 43,720
  7. Rep Power: 58689
but how can you control people and profit off them by giving them a real cheap easy solution


lol just lol at those that think the highest in power want what's best for us as a whole
post 1641561533 06-24-2021, 06:46 PM
-
#87
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
Originally Posted By Workout4ever⏩
but how can you control people and profit off them by giving them a real cheap easy solution

lol just lol at those that think the highest in power want what's best for us as a whole
Weak minded people really do believe "That guy says the same words I say, clearly their thoughts are also exactly like mine."
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1641561863 06-24-2021, 06:52 PM
-
#88
  1. Crazy_Desi
  2. Registered User
  1. Crazy_Desi
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2007
  4. Location: Ohio, United States
  5. Age: 35
  6. Posts: 6,959
  7. Rep Power: 6854
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
The FDA does not approve the use of drugs for the treatment of disease without scientific evidence demonstrating it is a treatment for that disease.

Ivermectin has not shown that. It hasn't shown much of anything outside of anecdotal reports, which is why they need trials. Jesus christ guys, get the data, and then talk.
the FDA used to say egg yolks were unhealthy
post 1641563453 06-24-2021, 07:26 PM
-
#89
  1. MiamiLife305
  2. Registered User
  1. MiamiLife305
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 18,052
  6. Rep Power: 41951
Originally Posted By Crazy_Desi⏩
big pharma doesn't want to lose money. the government is allocating $3.2 billion for a pill to treat COVID, if it's as simple as ivermectin, there goes the funding for that, and there goes the vaccination program. who will get vaccinated if they can just take ivermectin to cure COVID? I sure won't.
This lmao

Covid created a huge market to make profits

Of course they are going to say they need $$$ to develop new drugs and then sell them for massive profits
Future P.A in progress
We're all gonna make it

sleep tight pupper
post 1641564933 06-24-2021, 07:47 PM
-
#90
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
No they can prescribe anything at that point because of right to try. It isn't uniquely banned though. All unapproved FDA treatments for any particular disease are banned outside of clinical trials unless the patient is terminally ill.
This is untrue.
Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use.
Ivermectin has been singled out reff-label prescribing.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts