SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: pheilman_ who wrote (755212)1/16/2022 2:41:50 PM
From: skinowski1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Stock Puppy

  Read Replies (2) of 793820
 
Vaccines are not meant to treat a disease, but to prevent it. If a vaccine fails to prevent a disease, you still need treatments. So, IMO, it is possible to have a situation when EUA’s for both a vaccine - and therapeutics - may be needed.

But we are discussing, I believe, a different issue. “Off label” prescribing is simply a right of physicians to prescribe any medication that is already legally on the market for any condition not “on the label” - provided they can medically justify their decision. It has nothing to do with any new FDA approvals.

In other words, off label use does not cross paths with any EUA’s of any treatments for that same condition. Using IVM off label to treat CoViD is legal - and does NOT require a FDA approval.

But… they keep sanctioning docs for doing what is legal. They don’t care.

Edit - if I were to write a prescription for IVM for CoViD, I’d be doing it not because it has an Emergency or any other approval by the FDA to be used for CoViD. I’d be using it off label. Since there is no FDA approvals involved, their EUA for vaccines is not interfered with.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext